The old thread is too long. I'll move todays comments here. 🙂
933 thoughts on “Aug 31 Thread: Comments closed.”
I’m not Asian and I don’t support it either. There’s a case to be made that those from poor backgrounds could use some help, but no case to make that racial quotas are the way to go. If Asians put in the work and get the grades, it IS racism to put further hurdles in their path just because they’re from an “over-represented” racial group. I’m sick of hearing that external superficial differences provide strength etc. It’s what’s inside that counts and it’s actual institutional racism to insist otherwise.
OK_Max (Comment #170193)
“mark, yes, there is a strong resistance to the Trump Presidency. Democrats can’t stand him and many establishment Republicans never wanted him as the GOP candidate. The dislike of Trump results not only from his policies, but from his behavior as a person.”
.
Rule Number One to get elected President: “Be, Act, Look Presidential”. Like being a respected father figure, someone who you look up to and you are willing to take moral advice from.
Some of the Presidents don’t measure this high, but their competitors were even worse.
.
The importance of Personality versus Policy with voters varies. I think there is a trend.
.
Trump is an exception for sure. Maybe Hillary too.
.
“The dislike of Trump results not only from his policies, but from his behavior as a person.”
I have mixed feelings, Harvard can do whatever it wants as a private school, I just don’t like them lying about what they are doing and then being glorified for the wink and nod as they self righteously vilify others for their “resentments”. If Harvard wants to be racist then it should be allowed to be racist, with all the shame and federal funding consequences that come with that. The emperor has no clothes in this palace of integrity on this issue.
.
I’ll be surprised if Harvard actually allows this to go to trial, although they may have no choice if the other side accepts no deal. The list of A level schools publicly supporting Harvard on this is quite distressing. I doubt these bastions of goodness and light are overconfident on the result if this makes it to the SC.
lucia (Comment #170205)
JD Ohio (Comment #170206)
lucia and JD, thank you for the tips.
I misinterpreted the National Review article in my previous
post. It did not say the Trump organization broke no laws.
It said Cohen and the Trump organization may have violated
New York State law by representing the hush payments as
legal expenses rather than campaign expenses. In New
York it is felony “to claim or deduct as a legal expense
something that was not a legal expense.†The article also
said the state is investigating .
I believe JD brought up the New York State matter a while
back. I didn’t recognize the National Review article was
about the same subject.
Paywall can be beaten by using private window. For Washington Post you also have to disable adblocker. You can beat this if your browser/computer are slow enough. Just do a select and copy (Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C) before the paywall shows up, then paste into Wordpad.
Ron Unz wrote an article years ago showing how quotas were being used for Asians as they previously were against Jews. Geography based affirmative action was one method of keeping numbers down.
Eventually, the Jewish quotas were removed.
There is one difference. Jews are mostly white.
Having lots of Jews on campus wouldn’t be that noticeable, while having a majority Asian one would. This can cause racial tensions that wouldn’t be there with lower numbers.
Tom Scharf,
I would not give better than 50:50 odds that Harvard will try to get out of this mess by settling the lawsuit. That would require a bit of eating of humble pie… not something the ‘elite’ at Harvard are used to… but even worse, would invite other lawsuits from Caucasians, Jews, etc who feel they suffer due to the obvious racial quota’s Harvard has instituted in admissions. If they choose to fight, there is a real chance the Supreme Court would find for the Asian students, thus confirming (in a legal sense) that Harvard practices racial discrimination in admissions. An unfriendly administration (eg. Trump) could then start withholding Federal funding of all types. Seating Kavanaugh makes such a finding more likely, but if Trump seats another conservative in place of one of the aging liberals, that outcome becomes very much more likely. Harvard can support itself well on it’s huge endowment, but that endowment would not grow like it always has, and might even shrink.
.
To get an idea of what Harvard would look like absent racial discrimination, you can look at the racial makeup of a very competitive school, CalTech, which by law can’t consider race in admissions: 28% white (a large fraction of those Jews), 43% Asians, combined “underrepresented minorities” (blacks, Hispanics, native Americans, Pacific Islanders) – 16%… and most of those Hispanics. This is the kind of racial makeup that Harvard desperately wants to avoid. You know, admission based on scholastic merit.
There is a conspiracy theory that is going around about what happened in 2016 with the Trump campaign. Some of it is well known, FBI getting a FISA with Steele Dossier paid for by Hillary campaign, and sending spies at his campaign. Before that political groups, possibly the same Fusion GPS, were doing research by taking advantage of FBI contractor access to the NSA database, with 702 About queries. This was shut down by NSA head Mike Rogers, and the FISC report on this is https://i-uv.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2016-Cert-FISC-Memo-Opin-Order-Apr-2017-4-1.pdf
After Mike Rogers shut it down, Glenn Simpson’s wife made her only ever trip to the White House the next day. Tours normally take months to schedule, but hers took just days.
After the election, the conspirators activated their ‘insurance policy’ to make sure their actions were not revealed. They leaked the existence of their investigation, and Buzzfeed even leaked the dossier, which they probably didn’t want. They eventually got a special counsel activated with intent of removing Trump.
Meanwhile, Trump has known about their actions since Nov 17, 2016, when Mike Rogers visited him at Trump Tower. That night the transition team was moved out of Trump Tower to New Jersey. Lisa Page sends a text message the next morning that Mike Rogers visited Trump Tower yesterday.
Trump activated a multi-pronged strategy of countering this conspiracy. Congressional inquiries, IG investigations, leak hunts, and grand jury investigations. Meanwhile, he distracted people from this with outbursts against Sessions and Rosenstein and the IG Michael Horowitz. This got Democrats to express support, making their eventual actions more credible for the public. Trump is playing his own base and getting them to call for Sessions to be fired. It’s not clear if Hannity is in on it. All the time, everyone is thinking Trump is helpless and has no idea what’s really going on. Gen Kelly is hiding the truth from him.
However, it is clear that Trump knows what is happening, just from his tweets that reveal things shortly after action is taken, like a pending IG report release. It is even more evident now because Trump Jr retweeted an article about Lanny Davis and CNN by one of the people explaining the conspiracy on Twitter.
I have mixed feelings, Harvard can do whatever it wants as a private school,
There may be strings attached to accepting federal money for projects though. I would suspect that’s what would give the lawsuit teeth. Also, maybe it’s a public accommodation? Dunno.
I’ll be surprised if Harvard actually allows this to go to trial,
The entity suit will want concession and have them known publicly. I don’t see how Harvard can stop this suit without making concessions.
Harvard values their high opinion of themselves more than their endowment, so anything that has an admission or legal judgment of racial bias is a non-starter I expect even though this judgment would be news to absolutely nobody. One easily predictable and reasonable future outcome is a legal requirement to use race blind admissions in order to get federal funding and I expect they want to avoid this at all costs given their current ideology. Their demonstrated intent to racially discriminate through holistic methods and refusal to change would force the courts to demand race blind admissions. They have to see this coming. The current Harvard strategy might be viewed as a simple cynical delay the inevitable as long as possible.
.
This will force diversity by legal socioeconomic and geographic discrimination which almost everyone will be OK with. They will then attempt to wink and nod their way through this by inferring race through other means, the battle for justice is long and hard.
Ok_MAX
It said Cohen and the Trump organization may have violated New York State law by representing the hush payments as
legal expenses rather than campaign expenses.
I think the legal problem is representing anything that is not a legal expense as a legal expense. The hush payments may not be legal expenses (I suspect they aren’t. ) But that doesn’t make them campaign expenses. My grocery expenditures are neither legal or campaign expenses. Trump, like you and I, can have lots of expenses that are neither legal expenses nor campaign expenses.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170208)
Thanks, Tom.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170207)
Tom, Cohen’ may have pled guilty because he was
offered a reduced sentence and lower fines rather
than because he was offered a reduction in the
number or kinds of charges, although I guess it
could have been a combination package. The
prosecution can get what it wants either way,
but I think the defendant is more interested in
sentence length and fine amount than the
number and kinds of charges.
Since the prosecution holds all the cards, it’s in
a strong position to say here’s our offer, take it
or go to trial. Do it now, because tomorrow the
offer won’t be as generous. The offer to Cohen
was very generous.
I wonder if it’s illegal for the prosecution
to present an offer that includes crimes
they know the defendant didn’t commit?
Seems like the defendant would perjure
himself by pleading guilty to a crime he
knows he didn’t commit, so lies by the
prosecution also should be perjury.
I can imagine a situation where the
prosecution is just fishing with their
offer, thinking the defendant might
or might not be guilty, but the right
offer could get him to confess if he
is guilty.
OK_Max
Seems like the defendant would perjure himself by pleading guilty to a crime he knows he didn’t commit, so lies by the
prosecution also should be perjury.
I don’t think a defendant is under oath when they submit a plea. It’s not sworn testimony, and so wouldn’t be perjury to plea guilty when you are innocent or vice versa. If it were, lots of people who plead innocent might be subsequently charged with perjury for their plea alone. That doesn’t happen.
but the right offer could get him to confess if he is guilty.
Or get him to confess even if he is not guilty.
Max,
Seems like the defendant would perjure
himself by pleading guilty to a crime he
knows he didn’t commit,
The Alford plea mentioned previously seems pertinent. I don’t imagine those who submit an Alford plead are viewed as having commit perjury by the court, but still – by submitting an Alford plea I seem to be reading that a defendant is essentially stating that they are innocent but that they plead guilty.
MikeN (Comment #170214)
August 30th, 2018 at 1:18 pm
Paywall can be beaten by using private window.
______
Yes, but I feel a little guilty doing it. Journalist at WSJ, NYtimes, and WoPo have to make a living. Unfortunately, alternatives (e.g. USAToday) lack depth and seduce me with click-bait or are extremely biased ( Huffpost and Breitbart).
I sometimes go to UK news sources and should explore foreign language news sources that have English language editions.
Here is a link to a report on pleading out to avoid the risk of trial.
The ‘trial penalty’ refers to the substantial difference between the sentence offered in a plea offer prior to trial versus the sentence a defendant receives after trial. This penalty is now so severe and pervasive that it has virtually eliminated the constitutional right to a trial. To avoid the penalty, accused persons must surrender many other fundamental rights which are essential to a fair justice system.
This report is the product of more than two years of careful research and deliberation. In it, NACDL examines sentencing and other data underlying the fact that, after a 50 year decline, fewer than 3% of federal criminal cases result in a trial. With more than 97% of criminal cases being resolved by plea in a constitutional system predicated upon the Sixth Amendment right to a trial, the fact of imbalance and injustice in the system is self-evident. The report identifies and exposes the underlying causes of the decline of the federal criminal trial and puts forth meaningful, achievable principles and recommendations to address this crisis. With its release, NACDL intends to launch a sustained effort to rein in the abuse of the trial penalty throughout federal and state criminal justice systems. The Trial Penalty report, and the principles and recommendations it puts forward, seeks to save the right to a trial from extinction.
I haven’t read it yet, just looking at it now.
lucia (Comment #170222)
but the right offer could get him to confess if he is guilty.
“Or get him to confess even if he is not guilty”
______
That’s not the way it works in crime shows on TV.
The defendant must present evidence of his guilt, and this
evidence must be consistent with what the prosecution already
knows. Actually on TV it’s usually the detectives who do this.
I hope I’m making sense. I’m still a bit woozy from surgery in
the AM. Nothing major, but was put under for about and hour.
mark bofill (Comment #170225)
August 30th, 2018 at 3:13 pm
Here is a link to a report on pleading out to avoid the risk of trial.
The ‘trial penalty’ refers to the substantial difference between the sentence offered in a plea offer prior to trial versus the sentence a defendant receives after trial. This penalty is now so severe and pervasive that it has virtually eliminated the constitutional right to a trial. To avoid the penalty, accused persons must surrender many other fundamental rights which are essential to a fair justice system.
____
mark, thank you, the linked report looks well worth reading.
The report is by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyer, so I would expect it to be from their point of view,
although doubtfully self-serving financially. I don’t think
many criminal lawyers are in it just for the money.
“The defendant must present evidence of his guilt”
.
I think this is handled by the defendant pleading guilty. I’ve never seen it where a defendant had to “prove” he was guilty, although I have seen where they basically had a signing statement that stated what actions they was pleading guilty to. The defendants should be aware of the evidence and the prosecution cannot hold this back (in theory). I imagine there are rare cases where a person is paid off to plead guilty for another’s crime, but my impression is the justice system is closer to a bureaucratic machine than a search for the truth and closing/winning cases is what’s important to prosecutors.
OK_Max (Comment #170226) : “That’s not the way it works in crime shows on TV.
The defendant must present evidence of his guilt, and this
evidence must be consistent with what the prosecution already
knows.”
I am pretty sure that is not the case, not even on TV. Sometimes a plea bargain requires the defendant to “allocute” as to what he did. But that is not automatic and, so far as I can tell from a brief web search, is not usually done under oath.
I have seen a TV plot device in which something said during allocution made the prosecutor or police realize they missed something, then set about getting it right. I think that is probably only on TV.
OK_Max
That’s not the way it works in crime shows on TV.
The defendant must present evidence of his guilt, and this
evidence must be consistent with what the prosecution already
knows. Actually on TV it’s usually the detectives who do this.
First: I would be very careful in thinking any particular tv show tells you much about the real process. Television and movies show all sorts of things, many self contradictory. In some, the police and DA are white knights in shining armor who never do anything wrong or unfair. In others the police and DA are constantly beating people, setting them up, getting away with it for years. Likely we can find examples of both in real life.
There’s no reason to believe that in real life, the prosecution hasn’t already revealed a substantial amount of information to the defendants attorney. Heck, some of it is in the newspapers.
That would be done to make the defendant know how strong the case is against him and so motivate a plea. That would make it pretty easy for the defendant to present evidence of guilt that is consistent with what the prosecution already “knows”. Beyond that, sometimes the prosecution doesn’t necessarily know much. So it’s hard to be inconsistent with their knowledge since that’s almost no knowledge.
The Atlantic figures out how to thread the needle on the Harvard case. Some Asians are now white people, the evil ones I guess.
The ‘Whitening’ of Asian Americans https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/08/the-whitening-of-asian-americans/563336/
.
“When I have asked myself whether or not I have ever been granted white privileges, I have found myself growing uncomfortable.”
.
The grand tradition of Vox, bad arguments must be really long and have cartoons. https://www.vox.com/2018/3/28/17031460/affirmative-action-asian-discrimination-admissions
“We are cast as victims in a pernicious story about race.”
.
Edward Blum has hit a vulnerable spot indeed. It is curious that these liberal outlets always trot out token Asians to justify these anti-Asian arguments. How would this argument look coming from a white person? The answer starts with a capital R.
.
It seems they are a bit desperate that they might lose Asian support by overtly discriminating against Asians on education which is highly valued in that community. Out comes the shame hammer for being a pawn of the whites. I’m very encouraged to know we have so many anti-racists on task making sure racism doesn’t happen anymore.
.
This is really just classism in poor disguise. Upper whites crapping on lower whites. The upper whites now encouraging upper Asians to crap on lower Asians. Use a race wedge to keep the lower classes from unifying. I’m shocked Trump is president, just shocked.
lucia, I’m sorry I overlooked your instructions to post here on this new thread, and posted on the previous thread. So I’ll re-post below. I didn’t know how to delete this post from the previous thread.
OK_Max (Comment #170234)
August 31st, 2018 at 3:48 pm
Re mark bofill (Comment #170228)
mark, the subject of plea bargaining is very interesting.
In reading up on it, I couldn’t find a developed country
that doesn’t have some form. Japan had been an
exception until earlier this year when it decided to start
plea bargaining with snitches. Some in the legal
community find fault with the plan.
The following quotes are from the linked Japanese Times article titled Japanese-style plea bargaining debuts but authorities fear spread of false testimony.
“Unlike the U.S. plea bargaining system, admitting to a crime does not warrant a deal with prosecutors in Japan. The new system, introduced in a revision to the criminal procedure law, allows suspects in such crimes as bribery, embezzlement, tax fraud and drug smuggling to negotiate with prosecutors. The bargaining only applies to crimes listed in the law, with murder and assault off-limits.â€
“To prevent suspects or the accused from lying to get a deal, Japan’s revised law penalizes false depositions and obliges defense lawyers to be involved in the bargaining process. If depositions are found to be false, those giving them will face up to five years in jail.â€
“Penalizing false depositions could “make it harder for informants to retract what they said,†Sasakura pointed out. Instead of discouraging false statements, the penalty may instead push informants to stick with their story even if it’s false, she explained.â€
Apparently, the Japanese authorities will plea bargain only in cases where they will get more than just a confession of guilt. To get a reduced sentence or go free, the criminal defendant must lead the authorities to other criminals. I guess if Cohen had been subject to Japanese style plea bargaining he might have benefitted from his guilty pleas on the two campaign finance charges, unless he was lying.
Not your fault. I should have closed comments. I have now.
lucia (Comment #170231)
“There’s no reason to believe that in real life, the prosecution hasn’t already revealed a substantial amount of information to the defendants attorney. Heck, some of it is in the newspapers.”
“That would be done to make the defendant know how strong the case is against him and so motivate a plea. That would make it pretty easy for the defendant to present evidence of guilt that is consistent with what the prosecution already …”
_________
I could be wrong but I think the prosecutor is required to tell the
defense what he knows. The defendant’s attorney would need this
information to prepare his defense.
I’m not sure how involved the prosecutor is involved in the investigative work by police and detectives, but I believe that
is the stage where the guilty plea would be examined to make
sure the plea isn’t a lie. I doubt a lot of effort would be put
put into verifying unless it was a very serious offense and something
about the guilty plea just didn’t seem right.
OK_Max (Comment #170237): “I could be wrong but I think the prosecutor is required to tell the defense what he knows. The defendant’s attorney would need this information to prepare his defense.”
That is certainly so before a case goes to trial. But it seems it is not the case in the event of a plea bargain. I learned that (I think) is reading about the Flynn plea bargain. So it seems that the prosecutor can either reveal of withhold information as he sees fit to pressure the accused into a plea bargain.
I can see where plea bargaining is useful, even necessary. But I am coming to the opinion that limitations need to be placed on the process.
.
p.s – OK_Max, Why are there hard carriage returns in the middle of your sentences? Bit of a nuisance when quoting.
Mike M. (Comment #170238)
“p.s – OK_Max, Why are there hard carriage returns in the middle of your sentences? Bit of a nuisance when quoting.”
_____
Mike M, I too have found the hard carriage returns a problem.
It’s time I tried figuring out how to solve it.
I suspect the hard carriage returns are caused by my
composing a post in Mac Text Edit and then pasting
it here on The Blackboard. But I think it’s also happened
even when composing directly here, although I’m
not sure. Somtimes I’m able to edit the carriage returns
after pasting the copy here, other times not
I will work on the problem.
Interesting write-up on Brady evidence and plea bargains.
Max,
Thanks for that on the Japanese system. I hadn’t looked at that and its interesting to me.
Earle (Comment #170240)
Earle has provide a link to an article that explains the Brady Rule and the lack of
uniformity in its application to plea bargaining among jurisdictions.
“The Supreme Court’s decision in Brady v. Maryland requires the prosecution to disclose evidence that establishes the defendant’s factual innocence during a trial. Some courts apply this rule during plea bargaining and require the disclosure of material exculpatory evidence before the entry of a guilty plea. Other courts have held or suggested that the prosecution may suppress exculpatory evidence during plea bargaining, forcing the defendant to negotiate and determine whether to accept a plea offer or proceed to trial without it. Substantial disparities therefore exist in the bargaining power and decision-making ability of criminal defendants, depending on where they are charged.â€
My understanding is exculpatory evidence favors the defendant and in a trial likely would result in a verdict of not guilty. If the prosecution has exculpatory evidence on a defendant, it seems only fair they be required to reveal it during plea negotiations, but I take it some jurisdictions do not, and require it only during the trial.
I don’t think there is anything Trump has done so far that rises to the level of an impeachable offense. However, if Trump tries to unilaterally tear up NAFTA without Congressional approval if (when) negotiations with Canada fail or they succeed but the revised treaty fails to be approved by the Senate, that would be a high crime, IMO. A treaty that has been approved by the Senate is the supreme law of the land according to Article VI clause 2 of the US Constitution.
In the past. some treaties have been abrogated by the President without action by Congress, but I believe there were extenuating circumstances in those cases. No such circumstances apply to NAFTA. The President is not above the law. Of course this may be moot as it’s extremely likely that Federal judges would grant injunctive relief that would likely be upheld by the Supreme Court.
As a negotiating tactic, a threat that has no teeth isn’t going to work.
Has Mueller completed a report on obstruction that we just don’t know about, because neither Mueller or Rosenstein are authorized to release it?
Who the heck knows. I’d expect the darn thing to leak out like everything else has.
Also, Giuliani says the administration is preparing a counter report.
I wonder what’s actually happening.
The prosecution not disclosing its evidence before plea bargaining seems borderline immoral IMO. The burden needs to be on the government even though this isn’t always a fair fight. The defense can of course just wait for a trial and get the evidence anyway, but the prosecution likely plays the “take it or leave it” plea bargain game before it discloses its evidence. Defense attorneys no doubt know their local game well, and will play the “no thanks, go spend the money to prepare for an expensive trial, we will wait, but if you give us your evidence now we can settle the matter” game.
.
The Duke Lacrosse scandal comes to mind.
If Trump has actually gotten a better deal, he should give it to Congress. A Democratic congress will not approve anything from Trump, because Trump. They will then need to live with that vote. Bringing this up for a vote before November would be wise politics.
Any obstruction case that is dependent on how Comey interpreted comments and guessed what Trump was really thinking is a non-starter politically. There will have to be more. Comey damaged himself enough that he is tainted. His public “vote for Democrats” comment wasn’t helpful, nor the report that indicated insubordination.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170243)
September 1st, 2018 at 2:12 pm
“I don’t think there is anything Trump has done so far that rises to the level of an impeachable offense. However, if Trump tries to unilaterally tear up NAFTA without Congressional approval if (when) negotiations with Canada fail or they succeed but the revised treaty fails to be approved by the Senate, that would be a high crime, IMO.”
______
“The trade talks with Canada were thrown into disarray Friday morning after The Toronto Star reported that Trump had told reporters in an off-the-record discussion that he didn’t plan to compromise with Canada at all on NAFTA.”
“Off the record, Canada’s working their ass off. And every time we have a problem with a point, I just put up a picture of a Chevrolet Impala,” Trump said, according to The Star. The Chevrolet Impala is produced at a General Motors plant in Canada.”
If the Impala is assembled in Canada with parts from the U.S., a tariff that increased the price of Impalas from Canadian assembly lines and resulted in fewer of these cars being sold, could harm auto workers in both countries until assembly was relocated to a U.S., unless GM absorbed the tariff.
According to the linked source, the current Impala is produced across factories in Detroit, Michigan and Oshawa, Ontario, Canada. I don’t know whether this means Impalas are rolling off assembly lines in both factories or just the Canadian plant. Presuming labor costs are lower in Canada ( at least in part because GM gets a break on health insurance), relocation of all Impala assembly would raise production costs and the price of the car in both U.S. and foreign markets.
The issue over where the Impala is assembled will be moot if GM discontinues the model. Sales of sedans like the Impala have declined as consumer preference has shifted to SUV’s. I’m not sure but there may be a 25% tariff on SUV’s imported into the U.S., which is the same as the tariff on pickup trucks.
Of course just because Trump said he won’t compromise with Canada
on the trade deal he wants doesn’t necessarily mean he won’t compromise.
And we enter day nine (9) of the morning coverage of Trump’s various inappropriate or inadequate responses to Senator McCain’s death. The Trump administration still shows no sign of funding development of a time machine to go back and extend the period of time the White House flag was kept at half mast. A senior unnamed Justice Department official has confirmed to us that Mueller will pivot to focus on this infraction next.
Notice how the media happily reported off the record comments from Trump which did nothing but cause conflict and lessen the chances of a deal, and exactly zero MSM outlets seemed to care about this failure of journalistic integrity.
.
They are in a finger pointing exercise about who “leaked” off the record comments. This is a distraction, any media outlet should not be publishing off the record comments even if they were leaked.
“As the Toronto Star explains, Bloomberg made the agreement to keep Trump’s remarks off the record, but the Star, which “obtained the quotes from a source†isn’t bound to that agreement.”
.
What a bunch of rationalizing BS. Don’t like “enemy of the people” propaganda? Don’t throw gas on that fire. This is where the framing bias comes into play, there won’t be a massive group think and group shaming on violating journalistic standards and a search for and career death for the violator. Ho hum.
.
The media deserves the disrespect they get. They have no honor if they can’t summon the courage to criticize their own.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170255)
“As the Toronto Star explains, Bloomberg made the agreement to keep Trump’s remarks off the record, but the Star, which “obtained the quotes from a source†isn’t bound to that agreement.â€
“The media deserves the disrespect they get. They have no honor if they can’t summon the courage to criticize their own.”
________
Lot’s of news services picked up the Toronto Star’s exposure of Trump’s “off the record” remark that he wasn’t going to budge
on his demand to Canada on trade. Even Trumps’s friend Fox
News reported it.
Any public figure who makes an “off the record” remark to a news
organization should know there’s a risk it will be revealed, and if
it does, the remark may seem more sincere and attract more attention than the same remark made on record. That could be why Trump did it.
Trump’s remark about his position being firm gives him the opportunity to make Canada’s leadership look like it accomplished something. All he has to do is yield a little to Canada.
Off topic rant – my kid’s teacher just posted an assignment online due tomorrow (irritation #1 – it would have been nice to have been granted the flexibility to have done this over the weekend). It’s a quizizz game/assignment, but the link doesn’t actually get to the specific game/quiz, just to the quizizz site. In Spanish. [No, the class is not related to foreign language in any way that I’m aware of, it’s an English class] (irritation #2, for goodness sake take a minute out and be sure the student has all the information required to do the assignment!). Messaging the teacher has thus far been fruitless; apparently she is off enjoying her Labor Day vacation. (irritation #… Gaarrrgghhhh!!)
mark,
Agreed on the time table. In fact I’d go further. I think teachers should not be allowed to post assignments after school is no longer in session unless they are due at no earlier than 24 hours before school is back in session.
That would mean: if they posted Sunday, it could be due Wed. Morning at whatever time school begins. No earlier.
I’d actually be tempted to talk to the principal about this.
Consider kids whose parents are divorced and who might only see the non-custodial parent every other weekend. They shouldn’t be required to be on the watch out for homework.
Honestly, teachers would have a right to be irate if their supervisor set them projects on Sunday night before labor date. Likely, if they have a union, they could talk to their union rep who would talk to the supervisor telling him that’s not allowed per contract rules. (Obviously, some bosses can be unreasonable, and one might have no recourse. But that’s no excuse for teachers having a “right” to be unreasonable. In fact, the teacher being unreasonable teaches the kids very bad life lessons which are both (a) people in power should be allowed to treat you disrespectfully or (b) you should permit others to treat you as a door mat.
quizizz game/assignment,
Gotta say, “gamification” of assignments doesn’t, in my opinion, necessarily turn the assignment into a fun game. It’s sort of a teaching idea that’s out there. But…. dunno…. I tend to crigne when I hear it. But maybe kids like it.
Messaging the teacher has thus far been fruitless; apparently she is off enjoying her Labor Day vacation. (irritation #… Gaarrrgghhhh!!)
Yep. A useful thing to report should you escalate this to the principal. If she thinks she deserves a holiday not responding to student queries about the assignment (which she does) she should not send out assignments over the holiday!
Thanks Lucia.
I agree with you on the quizizz thing in general. My other kid had what I considered to be a pretty decent assignment where he had to setup a quizizz thing to help him practice some programming vocabulary. I thought the idea was fairly good because it caused him to spend way more time on the vocabulary than he otherwise would have just in setting up the quiz, and then it caused him to be happy to play the quiz for an interval of time afterwards, since he’d written the thing in the first place.
But in general, yeah. Not so much.
So, maybe my Alabama is showing, but I’m not with Trump on this:
Two long running, Obama era, investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff……
Sessions ought not to be making decisions on the basis of whether or not his decisions affect ‘easy wins’ for the GOP. Sessions was correct to have recused himself as well, in my view. If Trump wants an AG to protect him (and the GOP) in a partisan way, he ought to fire Sessions and hire somebody else.
Mark Bofill,
“If Trump wants an AG to protect him (and the GOP) in a partisan way, he ought to fire Sessions and hire somebody else.”
.
Sure, he should have found somebody else the day after Sessions recused himself. Recent history is littered with Attorney Generals who worked 24/7 to make sure the president who appointed them was protected from partisan attacks…. Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch are both typical of this kind of hyper-partisan AG, and never pursued any of the plainly criminal activities that happened under Obama, including Clinton’s unlawful handling of classified emails.
.
I’m sure Sessions is a good and principled man, but he is clearly not providing the Trump with the kind of political protection other AGs have provided their presidents. He should have long ago resigned.
Steve,
You’re right of course. It’s just I’d hoped that the ‘drain the swamp’ slogan was more than just rhetoric. I ought to be thankful for what I can have – decent economic growth, a tax cut, and conservative judge appointments.
[Edit: Wow, would you look at that. Coverage of John McCain’s funeral continues. Running clips of Megan McCain bashing Trump under the headline ‘Who will replace McCain’. I don’t know, I hope maybe somebody who votes with Republicans on major issues this time. I still haven’t forgiven McCain for spiking the wheel on repealing Obamacare.]
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170243): “However, if Trump tries to unilaterally tear up NAFTA without Congressional approval if (when) negotiations with Canada fail or they succeed but the revised treaty fails to be approved by the Senate, that would be a high crime, IMO. A treaty that has been approved by the Senate is the supreme law of the land according to Article VI clause 2 of the US Constitution.”
NAFTA is not a treaty, it is an agreement. It was enacted by simple majorities in both houses of Congress, not by a 2/3 majority in the Senate.
NAFTA specifically allows each country to withdraw. The only issue is the procedure within the U.S. to implement that. The act of Congress implementing NAFTA says nothing about withdrawal. But the enactment was done under the rules (fast track, for instance) of the 1974 Trade Act which does allow the President to withdraw from trade agreements. So one could argue either way, but it looks to me like Trump has the authority to tear up NAFTA. Even if he doesn’t have the authority or does not want to use it (which we know is so), the threat is real.
SteveF (Comment #170262): “I’m sure Sessions is a good and principled man, but he is clearly not providing the Trump with the kind of political protection other AGs have provided their presidents. He should have long ago resigned.”
——–
Trump is better off with Sessions as AG than with Sessions removed. We know that because Sessions is still AG. It might be that Trump would have been better off if he appointed someone else; we will likely never know.
The continuation of Sessions as AG is a powerful rebuke to those who claim that Trump is a would be autocrat. Trump keeps attacking Sessions publicly in order to hammer that point home. Of course, that is lost on members of the “resistance” who exist in a bubble, isolated from the real world. But it is not lost on much of the general public.
For all we know, in private Trump is telling Sessions: “Keep up the good work”.
It is better for Obamacare to die under its own weight than being killed by Republicans. This has removed a major talking point for the elections. It was effectively killed with death by a thousand cuts. The downside is without legislative finality then all this can be reversed by the next President.
I was buying some male undergarments recently and a question struck me: What happens to underwear bought online that is returned? I really don’t think I want to know the answer to this question if it isn’t “It is incinerated”. Maybe I have XenoUnderGarmetPhobia.
:> some things just shouldn’t be returnable.
Mike M.,
I was wrong, NAFTA is not a treaty. It is, however, a law, the Implementation Act. There is, AFAIK, no provision in that law for withdrawal.
Since Congress enacted NAFTA’s provisions by passing a federal law called the Implementation Act, Johnson argues, which doesn’t grant the president the power to withdraw from NAFTA unilaterally, he can’t act on his own. “Since NAFTA was approved by Congress under the authority expressly granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause, it follows that only Congress has the power to reverse that approval and cause the United States to withdraw from NAFTA,†he concludes.
As I said above, I still believe a federal court injunction would inevitably follow an executive order of withdrawal from NAFTA. However bad NAFTA may be, we are now in a Nash Equilibrium with Mexico and Canada. A disruption of that equilibrium would be very painful in the short term with possibly no long term benefits.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170269): “I was wrong, NAFTA is not a treaty. It is, however, a law, the Implementation Act. There is, AFAIK, no provision in that law for withdrawal.”
———
That is doubtful. Read the rest of the Atlantic article, allowing for the fact that it might not be exactly fair.
.
In 1974, Congress passed the Trade Act, setting up ground rules for trade agreements. That law provided that the President can withdraw from trade agreements. NAFTA was negotiated and approved under the provisions of the Trade Act. Since the NAFTA implementation bill says nothing about withdrawal (other than the provision in the agreement itself), the more general law should apply.
.
No doubt, in the extremely unlikely event that Trump might withdraw, someone would take it to court. They could probably find a circuit court judge to grant an injunction, because Trump. Then we would have to wait for an appeals court or SCOTUS to find in favor of Trump.
DeWitt wrote “A disruption of that equilibrium would be very painful in the short term with possibly no long term benefits.”
.
Which would be on the minds of the others involved also. Like a trade version of a nuclear deterrent. Personally, I think it’s a welcome change to the West’s “normal” way of doing things which is increasingly “I’ll scratch your back, then I’ll give you a mani/pedi because that’s what an amazing person I am! I’m so virtuous and magnanimous! Like me!” aka selling out their countrymen to people who don’t give a shit, or worse.
Tom Scharf,
I think that with legislation passed by a bare minimum number of votes, and with huge and unpopular public impact (like Obamacare), repeal with a bare minimum number of votes is perfectly reasonable. The fact the John McCain used his vote to scuttle full repeal, even after originally voting against Obamacare, is a smudge on his public record which will be long remembered. Yes he quite justifiably hated Trump. No, his vote, mean clearly to punish Trump, was not justified nor even ethical. He should have been ashamed of himself.
Mike M,
Trump can’t at this point fire Sessions; the political fallout would be “huge”. What I suggest is that Sessions should have long ago resigned (February or March 2017), so that the Trump administration would not be subjected to blatantly political “investigations” by career swamp dwellers with no comparably political supervision.
Chuck Todd: “I’m not advocating for a more activist press in the political sense, but for a more aggressive one. That means having a lower tolerance for talking points, and a greater willingness to speak plain truths.” https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/its-time-for-the-press-to-stop-complainingand-to-start-fighting-back/569224/
.
Strange that this is now an emergency, and a lower tolerance for talking points wasn’t contemplated 8 years ago. This article is basically a tiring “it’s all Fox New’s fault” rant. How would one be able to tell that the media is “more aggressive” than it already is today? Unified broadsides aren’t enough?
.
This is Trump winning, really, it is. His adversary has decided to go just as low as he does while wrapping themselves in false virtue. This fools exactly nobody it is intended to target. This mentality leads to activists overstating “facts” with no pushback because somebody thinks it is a war. The media has entered bunker mentality and gone uber-tribal just like climate science did.
.
People will trust the media more if it gets nastier and more one sided against Trump? They already call him a liar, racist, etc with regularity. We are transitioning to tabloid journalism. Good luck with that plan.
DaveJR,
If Trump throws out NAFTA, you can kiss Republican control of the Congress goodby. They will lose the House and the Senate. There are too many competitive Republican seats in districts that will be hurt by tariffs. And that’s not to mention that a substantial majority of Americans think trade is good for the country.
A recent poll by the Chicago Council of Global Affairs reveals that 82% of Americans say trade is good for the economy, 85% believe trade is good for consumers, and 67% think trade is good for creating U.S. jobs. Support for Nafta is now at 63%. The president’s deal-making has been long on self-congratulation and short on substance.
Speaking of that, I fail to see the difference between lower cost goods from trade versus automation. Both cost jobs in the industry affected, but both result in lower costs to the consumer and may produce other jobs elsewhere.
The Senate seat in TN, for example, is not a guaranteed Republican win by any means. The Democrats have a very good candidate in Bredesen, even though he is being at best disingenuous about not being Schumer’s lapdog if elected.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170275): “I fail to see the difference between lower cost goods from trade versus automation. Both cost jobs in the industry affected, but both result in lower costs to the consumer and may produce other jobs elsewhere.”
.
There is a big difference. Automation always increases overall productivity, trade increases productivity ONLY if the displaced workers find more productive jobs, i.e. better jobs, elsewhere. That has obviously not been happening.
Lower costs goods may an advantage to some, but it is not an advantage to the economy as a whole.
Mike M.,
Automation increases the productivity of capital, not labor; unless you’re a Marxist and believe that labor is everything. The benefits of increased capital productivity has gone almost entirely to upper management and owners, not workers, since the 1970’s. In real terms, worker’s income has been flat for decades in spite of a large increase in productivity. There has been no benefit for the average worker from that increased productivity.
As I have pointed out before, GDP/capita is not a good measure of standard of living regardless of what some economists would say. The correlation between GDP/capita and median PPP adjusted income is poor.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170278): “Automation increases the productivity of capital, not labor; unless you’re a Marxist and believe that labor is everything. The benefits of increased capital productivity has gone almost entirely to upper management and owners, not workers, since the 1970’s.”
.
I said that it increases overall productivity; I never said that it was equally distributed. But bad trade deals lower overall productivity and probably have an even bigger disproportionate impact.
.
DeWitt Payne: “In real terms, worker’s income has been flat for decades in spite of a large increase in productivity. There has been no benefit for the average worker from that increased productivity.”
That is often claimed, but probably not true. See, for example: https://www.arcamax.com/politics/mod/robertjsamuelson/s-2116212
The is also the question of the official inflation rate being arguably too high and including taxes and government benefits. But even if there has been no benefit to the average worker, that is due to the benefits of increased productivity being wiped out by the damage done by idiotic, so-called “free trade” deals.
Don’t confuse support for trade with people also assuming all trade deals are good deals, or that support for trade is also support for unrestricted globalism. I doubt NAFTA will change the balance of the house or senate, it might matter at the margins.
.
Trade hurting or helping is pretty obscure and difficult to prove either way in the whole. Lower prices at WalMart vs factories being moved to Mexico and China are read entirely differently.
.
This is an absolutist position on trade that is not warranted by the facts on the ground. If the right runs on uber-globalism they will also be lose.
The U.S. as a whole exported 282.3 billion dollars in goods to Canada in 2017 and imported 299.3 billion dollars worth, a trade
deficit of 17 billion dollars or 6% of the import amount.
This total, however, is not a representative measure of trade balances for individual States, some having large deficits, even larger than the total, and others having surpluses.
In 2016, some States having large trade deficits with Canada (in billions of dollar) were Michigan 24.8, California 11.6, Illinois 9.7, Washington 5.3, New York 5.1, Massachusetts 4.2, and Minnesota 3.5.
Some States with large Canadian trade surpluses were Ohio 7.6, Texas 4.6, Indiana 4.2, North Carolina 3.2, Georgia 2.8, Wisconsin 2.5, and Missouri 2.2.
Because the source did not rank the States by balance of trade with Canada (each State is on a separate page), I may have overlooked some States that should have been on the lists given above.
Does anyone know where I can find a list of all States ranked by the amount of their trade balance with Canada? Doing it from the above source is possible, but is tedious and time consuming.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170278)
September 4th, 2018 at 5:16 pm
Mike M.,
Automation increases the productivity of capital, not labor; unless you’re a Marxist and believe that labor is everything.
______
I understand what you are saying, but consider how productivity is
measured.
Overview of BLS Productivity Statistics
“Productivity and related cost measures are designed for use in economic analysis and public and private policy planning. The data are used to forecast and analyze changes in prices, wages, and technology. There are two primary types of productivity statistics:
Labor productivity measures output per hour of labor.
Multifactor productivity measures output per unit of combined inputs, which consist of labor and capital, and, in some cases, intermediate inputs such as fuel.”
On AUG 27 when Trump announced a trade agreement had been
reached with Mexico you could exchange $100 dollars for 1,880
pesos. Today, SEP 4, you can exchange $100 dollars for 1,938 pesos,
meaning Mexican products declined a little in price in 8 days. This
probably isn’t the beginning of a long trend (Trump better hope not.)
The weaker peso may just be due to uncertainty over the agreement.
DeWitt,
“…even though he is being at best disingenuous about not being Schumer’s lapdog if elected.”
.
Lapdog may be a little harsh, since he almost certainly believes most of the same nonsense Schumer does. But he will vote 100% of the time to defeat any significant Republican backed legislation, will always support increasing income taxes and spending, and will vote consistently against Trump’s judicial nominees, unless Trump is forced to nominate ‘moderates’ to gain confirmation (that is, liberal judges who call themselves conservatives and discover endless new ‘understandings’ of the Constitution which facilitate ‘social progress’). He is a sure vote to remove Trump from office if Democrats gain control in the House and initiate impeachment (both seem to me likely). The guy is a ‘liberal’ Democrat, and those are the things liberal Democrats want to do. I hope the good people of Tennessee don’t fall for his work-across-the-isle rubbish, because he won’t.
.
“GDP/capita is not a good measure of standard of living regardless of what some economists would say. The correlation between GDP/capita and median PPP adjusted income is poor.”
.
Sure, median PPP adjusted income is a better indication of standard of living than GDP/capita. Which is why a state like California has a lower standard of living than the state’s mean income indicates.
The left is being pretty good at keeping impeachment talk tamped down (except Maxine Waters). This seems to be a national strategy, or alternately it is the media not making it an issue so their favored people win. If the left wins the house they will open approx. 1 zillion investigations into the Trump administration. Whatever Mueller comes up with it will be enough for a large number of Democrats to support impeachment. So the likelihood of ceremonial impeachment(s) with zero hope of removal from office by the Senate is high. Just like removing the filibuster, performative impeachments will set another worrisome precedent for US politics.
Tom,
“1 zillion investigations into the Trump administration.”
.
Which is a method by which to keep the administration busy and minimize what they can accomplish.
.
There is a fundamental disagreement in the country about the role and scope of government, but even more, a fundamental disagreement about the rule of law under the Constitution. The willingness of those on the left to ignore laws and undermine the plain words of the Constitution is a constant since at least the Roosevelt administration. What has changed of late is the number of people who accept lawlessness in pursuit of ‘social progress’. Support for ‘sanctuary cities’, abolishing ICE, open borders, subversion of federal tax laws (eg. New York’s attempted treatment of high state income taxes as ‘charitable contributions’) is unprecedented in my lifetime, and probable since the Civil War. I am concerned that there is no simple solution, and things will get worse before better. I am even more concerned that the USA will, via willful subversion of the Constitution by the left, cease to be a constitutional republic and become instead a tyranny of the majority.
SteveF (Comment #170286): “I am concerned that there is no simple solution, and things will get worse before better.”
There is a simple solution, although it is far from easy. It is called “federalism”. I hear that it worked well for a century and a half. It would allow deep blue states to do their thing, deep red states could do their thing, and the rest could pick something in between. It would be very hard to turn back the clock, but worth trying if it is the only alternative to civil war.
Mike M,
Federalism works perfectly well in some respects, of course (eg abortion laws, most criminal statutes), but there are two big problems that pure federalism does not address:
.
1) The open borders/sanctuary city movement means that immigration laws become unenforceable if there is free movement of people between states. The untold millions that would pour into California alone would present a huge problem for the rest of the country. Environmental laws? Same issues. Ditto global warming, illegal drugs, human trafficking, etc. Federalism has to be tempered with some uniform nation-wide and consistently enforced policies, or the result is havoc.
.
2) Progressives are ‘progressives’ specifically because they desire to impose on everyone everywhere public policies that are consistent with their personal values, choices, and priorities. It is not enough that New York and California have lenient abortion laws… they want NO state to have anything except lenient abortion laws. Same with wild eyed green policies, minimum wage laws, and many, many more.
.
I am sure the voters in Missouri and Alabama would be happy to give voters in California and New York lots of leeway in virtually all local laws… California and New York voters are unlikely to return the favor. That is the most fundamental characteristic of ‘progressives’: they want to control everyone and everything, not just themselves. It is the unbridled, obnoxious arrogance that is so offensive (“basket of deplorables”, “cling to their guns and religion”, “You didn’t make that!”, “eliminate the electoral college”, “apportion senators based on population”, “immigration laws are racist”, etc). The same unbridled arrogance makes reasoned compromise impossible. After all, if you know you are absolutely right and your opponent is absolutely wrong, why would you ever agree to compromise? Progressives don’t compromise.
Dewitt, Trump is acting under Sec 2202 of NAFTA. Any modification can be implemented without a vote of Congress, as long as there is 90 days notice. This notification has happened with regards to the Mexico deal.
A section 2205 withdrawal would then be pursued with Canada if they don’t agree to terms followed by a separate trade deal.
It is questionable if a modification can be done that eliminates one of the countries.
Note, these deadlines are only to maintain consistency with Trade Promotion Authority rules of Congress. Trump can submit an agreement at any time, but they would then be subject to amendment and filibuster.
SteveF (Comment #170288): “Federalism works perfectly well in some respects, of course (eg abortion laws, most criminal statutes), but there are two big problems that pure federalism does not address”
That is true. Things like foreign policy, defense, trade, and immigration must be at the national level. That has been recognized at least since 1787. But there is not that much disagreement on those things, other than activists on the left whipping people up. Most of the really contentious stuff could be left largely to the states. That would not eliminate conflict at the federal level, but it should greatly reduce such conflict.
.
SteveF “2) Progressives are ‘progressives’ specifically because they desire to impose on everyone everywhere public policies that are consistent with their personal values, choices, and priorities.”
There is a very strong element of that among the activists on the left. Much less so, I think, among the general population. So if we get to the point where the public realizes that the activists’ way leads to civil war and the activists realize that they are not going to get their way except at the state level, then the time could be right for a restoration of federalism.
Progressives are ‘progressives’ specifically because they desire to impose on everyone everywhere public policies that are consistent with their personal values, choices, and priorities.
Gross generalizations, actual mileage may vary with circumstance, but after consideration I think I basically agree with this.
.
I think this tendency might come from valuing equity [I should have said equality; sloppy] more highly than other things conservatives give more weight to. ‘If it’s a right for people in New York, it must be the same right for everybody everywhere’ sort of thing, because equality.
.
[Edit: I can confirm that personally I could not possibly care less what sort of zany laws California and New York pass locally. So long as the impacts are local (see also, illegal immigration as mentioned above). I don’t know that I typify the Southern mindset though; I’m not a religious person, for example. Dunno]
mark bofill,
Yes it is a generalization. Probably also an accurate one. Progressives are generally unhappy with the way things are, and so are actively looking to ‘fundamentally change how people live their lives.’ (You might even have heard climate change activists use that expression, which is no coincidence.) So they are constantly unhappy, humorless, and usually a real PITA. Since they are much less interested in conserving the current system of laws (and constitutional restrictions), they do things like ignore laws (Obama, sanctuary cities), and try to subvert the Constitution itself via orwellian interpretations of the plain words of the Constitution (progressive icons like Ruth Ginsburg). When you do not agree with what the Constitution actually says, and recognize that amending it is very difficult, the only option for ‘progress’ is through bizarre interpretations.
.
Contrast that with conservatives, who have a natural tendency to want to conserve the current culture. No burning desire for change.
mark bofill (Comment #170292)
September 5th, 2018 at 4:09 pm
Progressives are ‘progressives’ specifically because they desire to impose on everyone everywhere public policies that are consistent with their personal values, choices, and priorities.
Gross generalizations, actual mileage may vary with circumstance, but after consideration I think I basically agree with this.
_______
Yes, it’s true. Progressives want new public policies that are consistent with their personal values, choices, and priorities.
In contrast, conservatives want to keep old public polices
because those policies are consistent with their personal values, choices, and priorities.
I believe the difference may have to do with age. Progressives
are younger than conservatives. Young people like to try new
things and aren’t afraid of change. Older people fear change,
which is understandable because aging tends to bring bad changes
rather than good changes. Of course there are exceptions to this
generalization.
OK_Max,
Young people like to try new
things and aren’t afraid of change.
That’s because they are, by and large, ignorant of history. That’s getting worse rather than better given academia’s current fascinations. Thus they don’t understand that there may be good reasons for why things are the way they are. They also tend to ignore the possibility of unintended consequences. Those tend to be greater the greater and more rapid the change. In fact, it’s possible to accomplish the exact opposite of what you intend, or claim to intend. Venezuela now, the Soviet Union and the French Revolution are examples of this.
Thanks all.
I understood that progressives are more interested in change and conservatives essentially want stuff to remain the same. What wasn’t as obvious to me was why progressives don’t seem to be satisfied with changes just to their localities (their states) and the notion that possibly conservatives are so satisfied. This is what I was trying to offer a speculative explanation about – that possibly a stronger emphasis on equality by liberals might explain this.
But as always, the commentary is interesting, thanks!
DeWitt,
“That’s because they are, by and large, ignorant of history. That’s getting worse rather than better given academia’s current fascinations.”
.
A huge problem which is indeed getting worse. I have sometimes asked my children’s friends (when they were late teens/college age) about the structure and function of the Constitution and Federal government. ‘Blissfully unaware’ is the most generous description of their knowledge level. History may not repeat itself, but those who know nothing of it are doomed to make stupid political choices. This seems a feature of current educational practice, not a bug.
OK Max,
“I believe the difference may have to do with age.”
.
If so, I have been old since my early 20’s.
.
I actually think it has more to do with how you think about the roles of the individual and government in a civil society. I read Orwell’s 1984 in my late teens, and it definitely influenced my thinking. With accumulated experience (and age), people’s thinking usually does evolve somewhat toward conservative views. I don’t find that surprising. What I find surprising is that Orwell is not required reading in high school…. nor it seems is the Constitution.
OK_Max (Comment #170294): “Progressives want new public policies … conservatives want to keep old public polices”
I don’t think that is quite fair. One could just as well say that progressive refuse to recognize the value of the things we have while conservatives do recognize the value of the things that have made the human condition so much better than they used to be. Either is at best a half truth.
.
OK_Max (Comment #170294): “I believe the difference may have to do with age. Progressives are younger than conservatives. Young people like to try new things and aren’t afraid of change. Older people fear change”
Again not fair. Younger people are often reckless while older people have learned from experience that it is much easier to break things than fix things, especially when those things are really complicated and poorly understood.
.
Also, as SteveF says the difference between left and right is not just attitudes toward change, but attitudes towards liberty and personal responsibility.
SteveF (Comment #170298)
September 5th, 2018 at 8:17 pm
OK Max,
“I believe the difference may have to do with age.â€
If so, I have been old since my early 20’s.
_________
I doubt that.
Anyway, the young wanting change is not a bad thing, nor is the aged resisting change. It’s just human nature.
Young people are the drivers of some cultural changes, acceptance
of same-sex marriage a recent example. I think most cultural changes, however, result from technological developments and economic necessity. The birth control pill and women working
outside the home come to mind.
Like it or not, cultures change over time, except for small pockets of resistance, such as the Amish who eschew technology and renegade Mormons who practice polygamy.
SteveF (Comment #170298)
September 5th, 2018 at 8:17 pm
OK Max,
“I believe the difference may have to do with age.â€
If so, I have been old since my early 20’s.
_________
I doubt that.
Anyway, the young wanting change is not a bad thing, nor is the aged resisting change. It’s just human nature.
Young people are the drivers of some cultural changes, acceptance
of same-sex marriage a recent example. I think most cultural changes, however, result from technological developments and economic necessity. The birth control pill and women working
outside the home come to mind.
Like it or not, cultures change over time, except for small pockets of resistance, such as the Amish who eschew technology and renegade Mormons who practice polygamy.
Re your comment “I actually think it has more to do with how you think about the roles of the individual and government in a civil society.”
I’m not sure how that thinking changes with age. With so many
depending on Social Security and Medicare, however, it seems
unlikely older people would believe the government should
not have those programs. I could see them believing government
shouldn’t be spending on other things at the expense of those
programs.
I apologize for the duplication in my previous post. I tried to edit out, but it didn’t work. Then tried to delete the entire post, but that
didn’t work either.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170295)
September 5th, 2018 at 7:42 pm
OK_Max,
Young people like to try new
things and aren’t afraid of change.
That’s because they are, by and large, ignorant of history. That’s getting worse rather than better given academia’s current fascinations. Thus they don’t understand that there may be good reasons for why things are the way they are.
_______
If you are talking about economic systems, I tend to agree, but if
you mean cultural issues, I do not agree.
Mike M. (Comment #170299)
Mike M, you said my comments weren’t quite fair. Maybe so.
I was just trying to give my view of why old people and young
people think differently about change. I didn’t mean it as a
criticism of either group, and I apologize if my comments
seemed that way. That’s not to say each is above any criticism,
but my comments were not meant to judgemental.
OK Max,
The issue for me is not change versus no change, it is lawful (and constitutional) change versus lawless (and unconstitutional) change. Mr. Obama simply ignored the law when it conflicted with the change he desired. I believe that is destructive of the fabric of self government. If the change you desire requires a change in law, then change the law. If you don’t have the votes in Congress, then work to elect people who will vote for the change you want. If you don’t succeed, tough luck. I think history will not be kind to his lawlessness. Obama simply ignored laws he disagreed with; I think history will not be kind to his lawlessness. If you don’t like the Constitution, then try to get it amended…. don’t subvert it via bizarre “understandings” by activist judges. If you don’t succeed, tough luck. There are lots of things I would very much like to change, but I accept those changes must take place legally and constitutionally. Far too many on the left reject the legitimacy of the Constitution and current law, and even the legitimacy of the self governing nation state, and so subvert rather than attempt legal change. That is the biggest difference between progressives and conservatives.
What do you guys make of the senior anonymous official who is sabotaging Trump? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html
1) Trump calls it treason. I certainly understand him being pissed off, but I don’t see that.
2) Saying it’s not the ‘deep state’ but instead the ‘steady state’ is a semantic joke. Bureaucrats foiling the efforts of the duly elected President sounds a heck of a lot like the deep state to me.
mark bofill (Comment #170305): “What do you guys make of the senior anonymous official who is sabotaging Trump?”
I think that person’s opinion is worth exactly nothing. I say that in spite of not having bothered to find out just what that person’s opinion is. I’d have thought that it was not possible for me to write those two sentences in juxtaposition; the world is full of surprises.
Obviously, the guy should be fired and possibly prosecuted.
OK_Max (Comment #170300) “I think most cultural changes, however, result from technological developments and economic necessity. … Like it or not, cultures change over time”
.
Other than extreme stick-in-the-mud types (a small minority, I think), everyone understands that. The big issue for conservatives (at least my type of conservative) is how the changes occur. It ought to be evolutionary adaption to changing conditions, with small experimental steps that can be accepted or rejected depending on how they work. Societies can do that; governments can not. The most sclerotic governments in recent history have been communist governments.
.
I object to the top-down imposition of social change. History teaches us that does not work. The biggest experiments of that sort were the French and Russian revolutions. Both were catastrophic. On a smaller scale, such as Roe v Wade , it leads to ongoing conflict. I object also to the top-down prohibition of change. The issue is not change vs. not-change, it is top-down vs. organic evolution.
“Older people fear change”
.
I’d like to interview you at age 60 and see if you think this is an accurate statement. This might be a surprising revelation, but old people were young at some point, ha ha. The difference being that young people were never old. I think the best word to use here is actually “experienced”. Most age-challenged people were just as disrespectful of old people’s wisdom and experience when they were young, and you can put me on the top of that list.
.
I don’t think there is an over 50 person alive who looks back and says “I was every bit as smart as I thought I was when I was 25”.
.
There is nothing wrong with people challenging the status quo, and it should continue to be encouraged. That being said, one lesson to be learned is things are the way they are for good reasons … usually. Social and governing experiments didn’t begin in the year 2010 when some millennial managed to turn 20, there is actually a lot to be learned from examining the experience of the previous 5 billion inhabitants of earth. This is just ignored as inconvenient data (for example the failures of economic socialism). I know people ignore this because that is exactly what I did, because you know, I was way smarter than those old fools.
.
Some challenges to society are valid, and some aren’t. The trick is determining the difference. The technical revolution has reset the rule book. Imagine growing up without the Internet. I did. It might be worth pondering that old people … built the Internet when they were young. And guess who resisted those changes kicking and screaming? Old people’s old people.
.
Old people see it from both sides. The word fear is incorrect. There is definitely an element of being set in their ways and prioritizing less on changing the world and adapting to those changes. It’s not exciting, it’s unnecessary tiresome work.
.
Same sex marriage, meh. Challenges to the 1st amendment? Really bad idea, that’s there for very good reasons.
Ben Sasse has a piece in today’s WSJ on why the courts have become so politicized. His opinion is that it’s because Congress doesn’t want to do its job, passing laws, and has delegated a lot of its power to the administrative agencies. That leaves the courts as the main resource to reign in (or egg on) the bureaucrats. The reason for the delegation of authority is so the representatives don’t have to take personal responsibility for individual votes, making it easier to be re-elected. Re-election is the primary goal of most representatives.
Brett Kavanaugh has been accused of hating women, hating children, hating clean air, wanting dirty water. He’s been declared an existential threat to the nation. Alumni of Yale Law School, incensed that faculty members at his alma mater praised his selection, wrote a public letter to the school saying: “People will die if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed.â€
It’s predictable now that every Supreme Court confirmation hearing will be a politicized circus. This is because Americans have accepted a bad new theory about how the three branches of government should work—and in particular about how the judiciary operates.
In the U.S. system, the legislative branch is supposed to be the center of politics. Why isn’t it? For the past century, more legislative authority has been delegated to the executive branch every year. Both parties do it. The legislature is weak, and most people here in Congress want their jobs more than they want to do legislative work. So they punt most of the work to the next branch.
The consequence of this transfer of power is that people yearn for a place where politics can actually be done. When we don’t do a lot of big political debating here in Congress, we transfer it to the Supreme Court. And that’s why the court is increasingly a substitute political battleground. We badly need to restore the proper duties and the balance of power to our constitutional system.
My form of libertarianism is: Hey government, go build some roads and then stay the (redacted) out of my life. I have been this way since I was 13 when the authorities in my house wanted to impose social order on me. It has nothing to do with age. I get emotionally triggered anytime a group of busybodies deems they know what is best for me … this is important … without my input or vote. Anti-collectivism is the strongest political instinct I have, and yet I can still understand the benefits of collective action. What I don’t particularly like is * social * collectivism. I can accept gay marriage as the choice of society and respect all individuals, but don’t construct social fictions that everyone must celebrate it.
DeWitt,
Yes, representatives and senators want mostly to continue being representatives and senators, the country be damned.
.
But I think part of the problem is that the side with fewer votes on any issue reverts to obstruction of the process, doing their best to avoid the changing of laws rather than accept rescission or compromise. This leads to absurd government: federal law prohibiting sale and use of marijuana everywhere is ignored by law enforcement agencies, while state laws permitting it are tacitly accepted by Federal law enforcement. Same with state laws on the books for sodomy, a Federal requirement to have health insurance with no means of enforcement, Federal refusal to enforce immigration laws, and more. Laws should be enforced or rescinded; Congress seems to completely lack the required courage (wisdom?) to do anything sensible.
Max,
.
The op-ed isn’t of general interest, so I’ll drop that subject after this. I would like to remark to you in particular though that I view this as confirmation that indeed there are public officials who break rules in order to resist Trump. I think this point originally arose between us in discussion with regards to whether or not special counsel would break rules in order to try to make a case against Trump. If I recall you expressed skepticism or incredulity regarding this notion.
To be sure, the op-ed is pretty light on details:
…many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations…do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office…gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing…
Nobody can know what this actually means in terms of day to day practices, it’s ambiguous. But I can make a case that this internal Resistance fellow is behaving dishonestly at the least. He seems to me to be suffering from the noble cause corruption I’d mentioned earlier.
If somebody had suggested to me that Trump’s senior officials were dishonestly ‘working diligently to frustrate’ his agenda, I’d have considered that a conspiracy theory and demanded evidence. But lo and behold! The New York Times of all things hands it to me.
It’s food for thought.
[Edit: Obviously, special counsel isn’t part of Trump’s administration. Not suggesting it is. The point remains – at least some people in government are going out of their way to resist Trump, and at least some are doing so in a dishonest way.]
Last thing – I doubt Steven Mosher has much interest in the political discussions here, but should he chance by, a question: Any insights on who may have written the op-ed?
The op-ed is pointless noise. It’s just red meat for the resistance. That there are people in the WH who don’t like Trump has been clear since all the leaks. The fact that everyone isn’t on board for all of Trump initiatives or that they try to temper his worst excesses is also not especially illuminating and probably a good thing. Anonymous people resist unknown things in unknown ways. Politics has become a drama about destroying the opposing side above all else.
NJ’s Booker openly says he will leak confidential emails on Kavanaugh yesterday. Today the NYT gets leaked emails. This after the left went into faux outrage over not getting all the emails.
.
Remember when the NYT refused to print any ClimateGate emails because they were “stolen”? Ha ha. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/us/politics/kavanaugh-leaked-documents.html
.
The NYT has become so nakedly partisan they might as well be the DNC at this point.
SteveF (Comment #170304)
“There are lots of things I would very much like to change, but I accept those changes must take place legally and constitutionally. Far too many on the left reject the legitimacy of the Constitution and current law, and even the legitimacy of the self governing nation state, and so subvert rather than attempt legal change. That is the biggest difference between progressives and conservatives.”
________
SteveF, if progressives are more likely than conservatives to break laws they don’t like, it could be because progressives are more likely to be young people. Youth tend to be rebellious.
I guess among conservatives too, the young would be more likely to break disliked laws than the old. Little Rock school integration
resistance back in 1950’s might be an example, but I’m not sure.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170308)
September 6th, 2018 at 8:13 am
“Older people fear changeâ€
.
“I’d like to interview you at age 60 and see if you think this is an accurate statement. This might be a surprising revelation, but old people were young at some point, ha ha. The difference being that young people were never old.”
__
Old people have been young, but young people have not been old.
Thanks, Tom, I like that one.
____________________________
“Old people see it from both sides. The word fear is incorrect. There is definitely an element of being set in their ways and prioritizing less on changing the world and adapting to those changes.”
Tom, I believe it is fear, at least in part. As people age, they experience more things to fear and become more cautious.
That’s good unless the fear becomes exaggerated and keeps
them from doing things that involve little risk, things that
would make their lives fuller. I’m talking about this because
I have witnessed it.
mark bofill (Comment #170312)
September 6th, 2018 at 9:13 am
Max,
.
“The op-ed isn’t of general interest, so I’ll drop that subject after this. I would like to remark to you in particular though that I view this as confirmation that indeed there are public officials who break rules in order to resist Trump. I think this point originally arose between us in discussion with regards to whether or not special counsel would break rules in order to try to make a case against Trump. If I recall you expressed skepticism or incredulity regarding this notion.”
______
mark, I see your point, although I’m not sure breaking rules or trust
by White House staff is the same as prosecutors breaking the law.
The thought some of Trump’s staff are trying to keep him from hurting the country is shocking, shocking because they think
they need to.
The thought some of Trump’s staff are trying to keep him from hurting the country is shocking, shocking because they think they need to.
Pardon me Max, because I dislike it when we run up against blunt disagreement, but it’s not shocking at all. People rationalize, it’s what humans are all about. I sincerely doubt ‘they need to’ do anything besides their honest best at doing their jobs, but I’m completely unsurprised that they think they need to do something else. You know, noble cause corruption is a thing. I didn’t just make it up one day for my own entertainment.
Whatever.
Jobless claims at 49 year low. 4.2 growth in the economy last quarter. Stock market near record high. Consumer confidence at 18 year internet bubble high. This in spite of a hyper negative end of times media. It’s fair to say that media/politics and the economy are highly uncorrelated. It’s hard to see the economy getting much better at this point. https://www.nationalreview.com/news/jobless-claims-fall-49-year-low-us/
.
Increases in consumer confidence may be offsetting any negative effects of the trade war.
Tom Scharf,
If Trump walked across the Potomac tomorrow morning, in full view of assembled reporters, the headline would be “Trump found unable to swim!”.
.
The disconnect between the MSM and reality is real and persistent. They are ‘elite’, wealthy, and extremely progressive. They will criticize Trump without pause no matter what he does, and no matter how large their 401k’s grow due to Trump’s policies. Trump would be well served by limiting press briefings to two or three per week, with a pool of a couple dozen reporters, chosen randomly from the White House press corps, and with no TV cameras allowed. They are clowns who need a circus to perform in. Better to deny them that circus.
OK Max,
” if progressives are more likely than conservatives to break laws they don’t like, it could be because progressives are more likely to be young people.”
.
More likely progressives hold the law in low regard. Oh say, a youngster like Barack Obama.
Oh, this, just to tidy up loose ends:
although I’m not sure breaking rules or trust
by White House staff is the same as prosecutors breaking the law.
I don’t think prosecutors break the law when they use aggressive, hard bargaining tactics in plea bargaining. I thought that was clear from reviewing plea bargaining earlier. I don’t think Mueller’s team is breaking the law in aggressively going after people with relatively petty infractions (by the standards of such things in Washington) and offering them deals to try to get information on Trump. In fact, I don’t think Weissmann breaks the law when he gets somebody to plead to something that’s not a crime. My impression was that its your position that that would somehow be breaking the law, but my understanding is that this is just the way the system works.
But – if you believe these guys with Mueller violated some rule or some law, well. Alright. I give you Trump’s anonymous senior admin member as evidence that people break rules when they think they are serving some higher good.
The political shift to nativism vs globalism in the UK/US. https://promarket.org/democracy-fails-reduce-inequality-blame-brahmin-left/
.
“To do so, Piketty tracks electoral trends across three countries—the US, Britain, and France—from 1948 to 2017. Despite their vastly different electoral systems and political histories, he finds, a similar trend can be found in all three countries: left and center-left parties no longer represent the working- and lower-middle-class voters they were traditionally associated with.
Instead, both the left- and right-wing parties have come to represent two distinct elites whose interests diverge from the rest of the electorate: the intellectual elite (“Brahmin Leftâ€) and the business elite (“Merchant Rightâ€). Piketty calls this a “multiple-elite party systemâ€: the highly educated elite votes one way, and the high-income, high-wealth elite votes another.
With the major parties on both sides of the political spectrum becoming captured by elites, it’s no wonder so many voters feel unrepresented.”
I think it’s OK for prosecutors to threaten criminal prosecution to the underlings to climb the tree to the real target. What is not OK is to threaten to punish underlings differentially from what normal citizens would get. They need to be punished according to normal sentencing guidelines.
Tom wrote “left and center-left parties no longer represent the working- and lower-middle-class voters they were traditionally associated with.”
.
No shit. This ended with Tony Blair in the UK, when he came to power in 1997, reformed the Labour Party and turned it into “New Labour”. The real irony is that the new labour party was really the enemy of the working class in all but name, viewing them largely as racist, ignorant oafs etc and doubled down on policies that would affect them the most, while belittling their protests. The era of Blair saw the rise of political correctness and the beginning of the removal of institutionalized British culture to make way for “multiculturalism” aka “respect every culture but your own”.
mark bofill (Comment #170319)
September 6th, 2018 at 11:52 am
The thought some of Trump’s staff are trying to keep him from hurting the country is shocking, shocking because they think they need to.
“Pardon me Max, because I dislike it when we run up against blunt disagreement, but it’s not shocking at all. People rationalize, it’s what humans are all about. I sincerely doubt ‘they need to’ do anything besides their honest best at doing their jobs, but I’m completely unsurprised that they think they need to do something else. You know, noble cause corruption is a thing.”
_________
mark, I’m afraid I didn’t make myself clear about what shocked me.
I was shocked because I hadn’t seen it happen to a president before. Perhaps it has happened, but wasn’t revealed, or was revealed and I didn’t know.
I am not shocked that people will intervene when they believe it’s necessary or that intervention may require being less than truthful to the person who needs help. My wife and I know this from trying to help someone with dementia. We weren’t shocked that we had to in effect lie to the woman, trick her, to get her car keys away from her. But I would be shocked if Trump was so bad off he needed to be lied to or tricked for his own good and the good of the country.
Maybe it happened to Reagan and Nixon ?
Max,
Bless your heart honey. Get some rest.
Oh no! Mark has thrown down a “Bless your heart, honey”!!!!
(I’ve tried to explain the meaining of that to some people in the UK who are convinced American’s are unfailingly literal while they use euphamisms, irony and so on. )
Max_OK
I was shocked because I hadn’t seen it happen to a president before. Perhaps it has happened, but wasn’t revealed, or was revealed and I didn’t know.
I would be very surprised if the number bureaucrats and political appointees inside previous administration who try to manipulate the sitting President in various ways and replace his policies with their own “better” policies was zero. In fact, I’d suspect it’s rather common. It’s common in other places too- private industry, clubs, school systems and so on.
It’s uncommon for the people doing these things to (a) contact the press to tell the press and (b) have the press think it’s a story worth reporting. One of the reasons they don’t do (a) is it’s easier to achieve your goal if the person you are manipulating doesn’t really know. Another is that the press generally isn’t going to thing “Oh. I work for the government. Sometimes I behave passive aggressively to try to promote my policies rather than the policies of the people officially in charge.”
If you think that sort of behavior is rare, you’ll be mystified by this long running BBC show
Lucia,
It was kindly and charitably meant. I dont know how we got from what we were discussing to Alzheimer’s, but. Maybe Max had a long day or something. I’ll get back to the discussion when he feels more focused.
mark bofill (Comment #170323)
“I don’t think prosecutors break the law when they use aggressive, hard bargaining tactics in plea bargaining. I thought that was clear from reviewing plea bargaining earlier. I don’t think Mueller’s team is breaking the law in aggressively going after people with relatively petty infractions (by the standards of such things in Washington) and offering them deals to try to get information on Trump. In fact, I don’t think Weissmann breaks the law when he gets somebody to plead to something that’s not a crime.”
______
Mark, I believe it would be contemptuous of the court for the prosecutor and defendant to enter into a agreement whereby the defendant agreed to plead guilty to something the prosecution knows isn’t a crime. The same could be said for a guilty plea where both the prosecution and defendant know the defendant is not guilty. Prosecutors have enough power to do their jobs without resorting to such dishonesty.
OK_M: “I believe it would be contemptuous of the court for the prosecutor and defendant to enter into a agreement whereby the defendant agreed to plead guilty to something the prosecution knows isn’t a crime. The same could be said for a guilty plea where both the prosecution and defendant know the defendant is not guilty.”
….
I am not a criminal lawyer, but I agree with the thrust of your position. Wiki gives a good summary of civil liability in this type of situation:
…..
“Abuse of process is a cause of action in tort arising from one party making misusing or perversion of regularly issued court process (civil or criminal) not justified by the underlying legal action. It is a common law intentional tort. It is to be distinguished from malicious prosecution, another type of tort that involves misuse of the public right of access to the courts.
The elements of a valid cause of action for abuse of process in most common law jurisdictions are as follows: (1) the existence of an ulterior purpose or motive underlying the use of process, and (2) some act in the use of the legal process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings.[1] Abuse of process can be distinguished from malicious prosecution, in that abuse of process typically does not require proof of malice, lack of probable cause in procuring issuance of the process, or a termination favorable to the plaintiff, all of which are essential to a claim of malicious prosecution.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse_of_process
…..
I strongly suspect, but don’t know, that there are criminal analogs to abuse of process and malicious prosecution. In any event, the cooperation of the NY US Attorney and Cohen in probably agreeing to an unsubstantiated guilty plea to campaign violations is improper, highly unethical and probably a criminal act.
JD
JD Ohio,
“.. the cooperation of the NY US Attorney and Cohen in probably agreeing to an unsubstantiated guilty plea to campaign violations is improper, highly unethical and probably a criminal act.”
.
Sure, BUT TRUMP!!! After which the ends justify the means.
Alright. Done with the open house thing at my kid’s school. Let’s [dispose of] the junk:
I was shocked because I hadn’t seen it happen to a president before. Perhaps it has happened, but wasn’t revealed, or was revealed and I didn’t know.
You appear to be implying the article is about Trump suffering from dementia or Alzheimers. The anonymous author did not suggest this at all. So. I guess when and if you decide to quit beclowning yourself regarding this we might talk about it, till then the best I can offer is indeed ‘Oh, bless your heart.’
Regarding the other, I’m no lawyer of any sort, and I certainly respect JD’s opinions. Perhaps both of you are correct and I’m dead wrong with respect to the pleading to something that isn’t a crime. In which case, I repeat:
But – if you believe these guys with Mueller violated some rule or some law, well. Alright. I give you Trump’s anonymous senior admin member as evidence that people break rules when they think they are serving some higher good.
SteveF, from what I’ve seen, I think it is possible to walk across the Potomac, or at least run and jump across.
I’m sure Mosher’s trying. It looks like it was deliberately written to hint towards certain people. Mike Pence uses ‘lodestar’ a lot. ‘free markets, free peoples’ is probably another feint. NYT says they got it thru an intermediary. I wonder if Trump wrote it.
lucia (Comment #170330)
“I would be very surprised if the number bureaucrats and political appointees inside previous administration who try to manipulate the sitting President in various ways and replace his policies with their own “better†policies was zero. In fact, I’d suspect it’s rather common. It’s common in other places too- private industry, clubs, school systems and so on.”
“If you think that sort of behavior is rare, you’ll be mystified by this long running BBC show”
___________
lucia, thanks for the link to the Yes, Minister episode, a Brit sitcom
from the 1980’s. I like the Brit sitcoms from that era. I was disappointed it’s not available for streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime, Britbox, or Acorn, but I see quite a few episodes available on Youtube.
Trump hires staff who can advise him, which of course means they influence him. I have never had a job that consisted primarily of advising a boss, so I can only imagine what it would be like. I guess
trying to advise a boss who is capricious or irrational would be
frustrating, even exasperating, and I might complain about it to
co-workers who I believed were experiencing the same problem.
The temptation to make unflattering comments about the boss
could be strong.
JD Ohio (Comment #170333)
JD, thank you for your comment. I’m glad we can partially agree.
OK_Max,
The temptation to make the unflattering comments about the boss to coworkers, spouses and all sorts of people is likely irresistable. People grouse about their bosses all the time and even do so when the bosses are more or less normal.
Actually talking to the press about the boss is something most people don’t do.
mark bofill (Comment #170335)
“You appear to be implying the article is about Trump suffering from dementia or Alzheimers.”
I don’t believe Trump suffers from dementia or Alzheimers. He suffers from being full of himself and craving attention. No, I take that back. It’s we who suffer from him.
BTW, I have been trying to remember rules I may have broken for a higher cause. So far I haven’t recalled one
OK Max,
“He suffers from being full of himself and craving attention.”
.
Sure, and unlike most politicians, makes no attempt to hide it. Unlike most politicians, he also makes no attempt to hide his contempt for people. A big difference is who he finds contemptible. For too many politicians and ‘elites’ it is the the unwashed masses… the deplorables… while for Trump it is those who find half the country deplorable, including, of course, the MSM.
Max,
BTW, I have been trying to remember rules I may have broken for a higher cause. So far I haven’t recalled one
Good for you. I don’t follow your point though. So?
.
I expect Trump is nigh unbearable to work with. I’ve worked directly for CEO types in startups, and some of those guys were pretty intolerable. Arrogant, stupid, absolutely convinced of their own genius, narcissistic, ignorant, domineering, inconsistent, disagreeable, so on. This doesn’t mean they don’t get to be the CEO though. I think it’s much the same with Trump.
.
We elected the guy. If he’s an amoral populist pig who’s got negative characteristics that make him a PITA to work for, that’s too bad. Go find another job. If he’s insane; if he’s constantly trying to launch a nuclear first strike against the rest of the world for example, alright – invoke the 25’th amendment and take your chances removing him from command that way. If not, deal with it. We elected him, amoral populist pig that he is, warts and all, and it’s not for a bunch of bureaucrats to override that because they happen to not like his style or happen to disagree with some of his decisions.
“I wonder if Trump wrote it.”
.
Ha ha HA! That brightened up my morning.
“trying to advise a boss who is capricious or irrational”
.
Almost everyone knows this feeling at some point in their lives. Pretty frustrating. Sometimes it is the employees who are irrational, particularly in small business, who do not understand the stresses of just keeping a business afloat. Every day can be a different existential crisis for a struggling small business.
.
One of my lifelong ways to deal with that kind of stress is “Sanity will prevail”, and it almost always does. There are enough limits and filters to Trump’s worst impulses that they get filtered out. This is one of the primary responsibilities of a staff, unsurprised that it happens. I believed (or hoped?) Trump’s most crazy thoughts would never see the light of day when I voted for him because of the rest of government, and that is exactly what has happened. The style of Trump is an ugly circus, but the execution of Trump is pretty standard conservative policy. Durable institutions are built this way, and there is no doubt that the US institution is being tested here, and so far it is passing.
Tom,
I believed (or hoped?) Trump’s most crazy thoughts would never see the light of day when I voted for him because of the rest of government, and that is exactly what has happened.
Fine. Let me rephrase. I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy for the plight of the poor administration officials and staff who feel they have to ‘filter out Trumps impulses’. I don’t think they are doing any noble service that deserves my praise or admiration.
.
I still think that if Trump is making a mess, it’d be better to let him make a mess. As a voter I’d like to know that for future reference. If he’s making such a damn mess that our country isn’t going to survive it, the staff needs to get their shit together, document their case, grow a pair of fortitude and declare Trump “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office”. If not, let him screw it up. We’ll survive. Maybe we’ll learn something that way. BTW, I think it ought to be their necks (the officials removing the President from power) if in the aftermath it turns out that they didn’t have a case that withstands hostile scrutiny, to keep them honest.
.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
The laundry list of extreme actions predicted before the election by our valued experts, who only support truth and fairness, has not come to pass. You know, the jailing of journalists, shredding of the constitution, and police beat downs of minorities in the streets just for the fun of it. Mostly because Trump never actually supported those things to start with, and some things that he did support like The Wall(tm) have also been tabled.
.
In their minds even if these predicted things didn’t actually happen, well … they did happen … or … they are still going to happen, because they only care about the truth and facts. It is their solmen and thankless duty to inform the citizens of their moronic errors causing death to democracy. If that sounds confusing and incoherent, it’s only because it is truth, facts, and fairness.
.
What baffles me the most is the shame campaign to try to force anyone competent from working in the Administration. If one was to believe the stated goals of these pundits then this is the exact opposite of what you would want to do. After endless sham transparent performative displays of their high morals written in elegant prose that ultimately boil down to simple tribal propaganda it is little wonder Trump is in office.
Also – assuming that the anonymous author is as honest and caring and devoted to keeping America on the right track as he would have us believe, going to the NYT with the op-ed appears to be an extremely dumb thing to do. What’s the work environment going to be like at the White House now. Does the publishing of the op-ed: a) improve the situation, b) leave it the same, or c) make it worse? I think it’s like pouring gasoline on a fire, it’ll make things considerably worse.
I don’t buy it. Either the author doesn’t give a fig what’s good for the country, or the author is too stupid to understand publishing anonymous op-eds make the problem worse. Either way, Deep State Throat isn’t my hero here.
NYT has published anonymous government senior officials before.
These e-mails were tracked down, and it was a single entry level person.
Max,
One more thing. Look at me. Do you see any evidence of rationalization? You ought to, because it’s there. I will tell you with a straight face that I speak from rational conviction and I can argue my case. I can give you reasons all day long why Trump’s opponents are in the wrong and Trump is basically alright.
Don’t you believe it.
I know my nature, doesn’t mean I can override it effortlessly. Not clear that I override it at all. Sometimes the best we can do is to try to remain aware of the things that affect us behind the scenes.
I truly do believe we humans are pretty much all like this.
Anyway.
mark bofill (Comment #170351): “Do you see any evidence of rationalization? You ought to, because it’s there. I will tell you with a straight face that I speak from rational conviction and I can argue my case. I can give you reasons all day long why Trump’s opponents are in the wrong and Trump is basically alright.
Don’t you believe it.”
I think that rationalization gets too much “credit” in explaining behavior. Yes, it happens; sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not. But putting mental effort into bad decisions is counter-evolutionary. I think that most of what is called rationalization is actually filtering to prevent us from putting too much mental energy into worrying about things that we can not control or that do not much matter.
p.s. to Comment #170352: Belief in the ubiquity of rationalization is a convenient excuse for cynicism. 🙂
Mike,
I’ve heard the counter evolutionary argument – I think it misses the point. Rationalized decisions aren’t necessarily ‘bad’, and the idea that there’s some better way to arrange an intelligence is speculative. It’d be better from an evolutionary sense if we were omniscient, but. So what. We aren’t and there’s no evidence that nature can evolve omniscience. There’s no evidence (so far) nature can evolve a better arrangement than our rationalization system either.
It is important to be able to move on past the realization. I mean, pragmatically, so what. We still have to be able to speak and think and act. I harp on it with Max because it seems to be a constant underlying assumption he’s got, that people generally don’t rationalize things. Examples: If prosecutors bring a charge, they must have good reason. If some anonymous leaker complains about Trump and undermines him, it’s shocking that they think they need to.
I think that most of what is called rationalization is actually filtering to prevent us from putting too much mental energy into worrying about things that we can not control or that do not much matter.
I think it’s probably something like that too.
.
When I talk with Max, or Thomas Fuller, or anybody with a different ideology than me, I like to try to figure out how I can get out of my box and see what they see, see where they’re coming from, how they think. I try to encourage them to do the same. Maybe I harp on it for my own benefit as well, trying to figure it out, so to speak. So I tend to dwell on things I think might be relevant to that.
.
Anyways. I’m sure it gets annoying, and I apologize for that if so. I’ll dial it back some.
.
[Edit: I try to see what they see, but there’s tension in that I try to advance my views as well. It’s hard for me to keep it in balance. I felt that I’d been focused a little too aggressively on advancing my own views, and that maybe there was an opportunity there to provide an example (myself) to demonstrate what I’d been talking about. Anyway.]
mark bofill (Comment #170343) 
September 7th, 2018 at 6:21 am
Max,
BTW, I have been trying to remember rules I may have broken for a higher cause. So far I haven’t recalled one.
“Good for you. I don’t follow your point though. So?â€
_____________
mark, to see if I could empathize with people who break rules or laws for a higher cause.
________________________________________________________
mark bofill (Comment #170354)Â
“When I talk with Max, or Thomas Fuller, or anybody with a different ideology than me, I like to try to figure out how I can get out of my box and see what they see, see where they’re coming from, how they think. I try to encourage them to do the same.â€
________
mark, it’s good you are open to the ideas of others, and I like to think I am too. But if you want to talk on ideology, I’m not sure I have one that’s well defined. Before Obama described Trump as pragmatic rather than ideological, I would have described myself the same way, pragmatic rather than ideological. The suggestion I may
think like Trump is very disturbing to me. So I’m trying to come up with a new way of thinking and new label for myself.
Max,
Heh. Reminds me of the scene from the movie ‘Silence of the Lambs’ when Hannibal Lecter called out to the Senator as she was walking away:
Oh and Senator just one more thing! Love your suit.
(here)
I don’t imagine she ever wore that suit again. 🙂
A slightly more insightful view of Trump supporters
Stalking the Wild Trump Voter https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/09/07/stalking-the-wild-trump-voter/
.
“As one of the few Trump supporters I know put it, in 2008 and 2012 the Republicans nominated two of the most upright and decent politicians in their party as their candidates for president, only to see them ruthlessly maligned and slandered en route to crushing electoral defeat.5 Having learned the lesson that nice guys finish last, in 2016 they chose as their candidate an unprincipled, take-no-prisoners street-fighter who could dish it out as well as he could take it. Indeed, I think my friend has grasped an important truth.”
Romney was super decent, and was as being some sort of alien.
Obama ran an ad in Ohio HE’S NOT ONE OF US.
Pence is treated the same way.
With Trump they resorted to the standard playbook of Stupid/Old/Evil.
But it wasn’t enough because they nominated Hillary, and Trump wouldn’t let the Bernie Bros forget how she stole the nomination.
Breaking news from NYTimes
“George Papadopoulos got a 14-day jail sentence. The ex-Trump aide told The Times he lied to the F.B.I. to protect himself and the president.”
_________
Not much of a sentence. A plea bargain?
From the Manchester Guardian
“The sentence was significantly less than prosecutors’ recommendation of six months. Lawyers for Papadopoulos had requested probation, saying he lied not to impede investigation but “to preserve a perhaps misguided loyalty to his masterâ€.
“The president of the United States hindered this investigation more than George Papadopoulos ever did,†Papadopoulos lawyer Thomas Breen said in court Friday.”
WOW, 14 days instead of 6 months. George must be delighted.
How come the Guardian is faster than the NYTimes?
Six months is an error by the media. The prosecutors actually recommended 30 days.
MikeN,
Whether 14 days or 30 days, considering the financial and personal punishment he has endured, any sentence seems extreme… he has been pursued by the FBI in the hope he had damaging information on Trump, little more. He should serve his 14 days, then spend the next 40 on TV excoriating a corrupt and evil FBI.
Nikki Haley on the anonymous senior administration official:
But I don’t agree with the president on everything. When there is disagreement, there is a right way and a wrong way to address it. I pick up the phone and call him or meet with him in person.
Like my colleagues in the Cabinet and on the National Security Council, I have very open access to the president. He does not shut out his advisers, and he does not demand that everyone agree with him. I can talk to him most any time, and I frequently do. If I disagree with something and believe it is important enough to raise with the president, I do it. And he listens. Sometimes he changes course, sometimes he doesn’t. That’s the way the system should work. And the American people should be comfortable knowing that’s the way the system does work in this administration.
————–
lucia (Comment #170330):
I would be very surprised if the number bureaucrats and political appointees inside previous administration who try to manipulate the sitting President in various ways and replace his policies with their own “better†policies was zero.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170346):
There are enough limits and filters to Trump’s worst impulses that they get filtered out. This is one of the primary responsibilities of a staff, unsurprised that it happens.
As Haley says, there is a right way and a wrong way. Staff trying to influence the President openly is good and proper. Changing or influencing policy surreptitiously is always wrong. It probably happens, but anyone who does that should be fired.That said, there is a place for filtering. It is appropriate for staff to stall when something seems rash, then later ask the boss if he still wants the action taken.
I have never been in a position remotely resembling a CEO. But if I were and found that a staff member was surreptitiously working against me, then I would fire that person immediately. And, I think, do everything in my power to destroy that person’s career.
Max,
But if you want to talk on ideology, I’m not sure I have one that’s well defined. Before Obama described Trump as pragmatic rather than ideological, I would have described myself the same way, pragmatic rather than ideological. The suggestion I may think like Trump is very disturbing to me. So I’m trying to come up with a new way of thinking and new label for myself.
Psychology today has an article that claims that this is reactive devaluation, part of tribalism in politics. I thought you might think the article was interesting.
The last two years has taught me something. I joined in harsh criticism of Mitt Romney and John McCain because I was supporting people I felt were superior candidates.
I wrote once or twice that the republic would survive if either of them made it into office, but most of the time I was very severe.
I still would vote for their opponents if there were a rematch. But I believe I will temper some of my criticism of people on the other side of the fence–at least I hope I will.
But just to confirm my natural bias, I find it a constant source of amusement that the Democrats apparently found the most horrible person in the universe to run for president–three times in a row. What were the odds?
SteveF
He should serve his 14 days, then spend the next 40 on TV excoriating a corrupt and evil FBI.
There’s a good chance of that. Some people will see the short sentence as proof the prosecutors were overly enthusiastic about going after him. Some seeing things that way will be enough to get him a tv gig.
Whether he can keep the gig will depend on how telegenic he is.
mark bofill (Comment #170364)Â
mark, thank you for the link to the very interesting article on reactive devaluation. Some statements from it follow:
‘What appeared to happen is called “reactive devaluation.†Once we discover it was the other side who said or supports something, then we withdraw or withhold our support. It doesn’t seem to matter what was said or proposed (Ross & Stillinger, 1991).â€
“Maybe we can’t admit the other side has a good idea because it would feel like we’re giving in to the enemy. After all the unforgivable wrongs committed by the other side, it might feel unfair or unjust to give them any credit, even if they’re doing the right thing in the moment.â€
“I hate to say it, given how angry and disgusted we can get at the other side, but it might help to try to find something, however small, to like or compliment in the other side. That might offset the demonizing if nothing else.â€
“Put another way, if you have some friends on Facebook who are from the other political side, go ahead and disagree when they talk policy or politics, but you can still click “like†on their cute dog posts.â€
_______
I wasn’t just kidding when I said it disturbed me to think both Trump and I are pragmatic rather than ideological. But after further thought, I see there isn’t necessarily a conflict. Pragmatist put priority on desired results rather than the desired means to achieving results. As pragmatist, Trump and I could agree or disagree on what results are desirable, or we could agree on results, but have different opinions on means.
Is being a pragmatist an ideology in itself? Maybe, depending on how ideology is defined, but I see it as being a position from which I can choose parts of other ideologies. I believe conservatives, liberals, and libertarians all have some good ideas. If I had to place myself in one of these, I guess I would moderate liberal, but I might be to the right or left depending on the issue. I said I was looking for a label for myself. How about wishy-washy pragmatist?
I have close relative who is a very conservative Republican. I enjoy discussions with him because we can talk about politics without getting upset and and share some other interest too (we like talking about cars). I find our differences on debt and spending interesting. He spends all his income and pays interest on credit card debt yet believes the government should not carry debt. I’m just the opposite, live below my means, never pay credit card interest, and believe there are times when the government should increase its debt. The recent Republican tax cut wasn’t one of those times.
Max,
No, I agree that pragmatism isn’t an ideology. I think its ‘adherence to or a preference for what works empirically over what is predicted to work according to a theory’, something like that. I’d like to believe I lean that way as well.
Your story about different debt habits and different political preference is interesting, still thinking about it.
lucia (Comment #170366)
September 8th, 2018 at 10:15 am
SteveF
He should serve his 14 days, then spend the next 40 on TV excoriating a corrupt and evil FBI.
“There’s a good chance of that. Some people will see the short sentence as proof the prosecutors were overly enthusiastic about going after him.”
_________
I don’t know about that. Papadopoulos said in court he lied to the FBI and hoped for a second chance to redeem himself.
I doubt the path to redemption is bad mouthing the FBI because he admitted to telling them a lie.
It would be silly for Papadopoulos to say if the FBI hadn’t ask him a question, he wouldn’t have lied, so it was the FBI’s fault that he lied. He could say he lied about lying, but that would raise the question of whether he’s lying about lying about lying. He could criticize the 14-day sentence and $9,500 fine. I don’t know what else.
He has bad mouthed Sessions. That could please Trump enough to pardon him.
Mike (re 170363),
I couldn’t agree more. Exactly.
One of my clients is an outspoken over the top liberal and absolute flaming environmentalist. We can talk about things without a problem because he doesn’t care that there exists people different from him and doesn’t feel that the world needs to be purged of all non-believers lest it end. He’s a very likable guy. He isn’t trying to convert anybody.
OK_MAx
I don’t know about that.
I know about that. I said some people would think “X”. I know at least one will. I will. That’s enough to make my claim that some people will think it true.
Papadopoulos said in court he lied to the FBI and hoped for a second chance to redeem himself.
Sure. But that doesn’t mean prosecutors didn’t go overboard in pursuing Papadopoulis. Given the definition of lying to the FBI, I’m sure lots of people do it and prosecutors don’t haul them off the court and subsequently to jail.
The sentence is light because the “wrong” associated with what he did was miniscule. Ordinarily, no prosecutor would bother with it. That he admitted doing a wrong thing doesn’t make prosecution anything other than overzealous.
I’ve jaywalked where it is illegal. No one has charged me, or hauled me off to court for it. Most people would be stunned if it happened. It would be considered overzealous prosecution even if I admitted the jay walking.
According to Papad’s wife, his lawyer was never willing to pursue the line that the alleged Russian agent, Mifsud, was actually a Western intelligence asset sent to set him up.
Reading the specifics, it appears he was prosecuted for lying when he did not lie.
For example, in an exchange on Russian hacking and dirt on Hillary, it looks like he was asked four questions in a row, and he gave a single response of No, which would have been truthful to at least the fourth question.
lucia (Comment #170372)
September 8th, 2018 at 3:56 pm
OK_MAx
I don’t know about that.
“I know about that. I said some people would think “Xâ€. I know at least one will. I will. That’s enough to make my claim that some people will think it true.”
_____
Lucia, I should have been clearer when I said ” I don’t know about that.” What I don’t know about is whether Papadopoulos, after serving his 14 days should then, as Steve F suggested, ” spend the next 40 on TV excoriating a corrupt and evil FBI”
I don’t know about whether Papadopoulos should bad mouth the FBI. I can see reasons not to. It might look like he was making things up just to improve his chances of a pardon by pleasing FBI foe Trump. He also said he wants to redeem himself, and I think he meant to redeem himself for lying to the FBI. Attacking the organization he lied to seems the wrong way to redemption for lying. If I wanted to redeem myself for lying, say lying to my wife, I would not start by excoriating her.
You said “Given the definition of lying to the FBI, I’m sure lots of people do it and prosecutors don’t haul them off the court and subsequently to jail.”
I don’t know the FBI’s definition of lying, but I would be sure to find out if being questioned, and I definitely would not go ahead and lie,
thinking lots of people do it and don’t go to jail.
You also said “I’ve jaywalked where it is illegal. No one has charged me, or hauled me off to court for it…It would be considered overzealous prosecution even if I admitted the jay walking.”
Shame on you. That law is for your protection. OK, I’ll admit
to jaywalking too. I was never charged. if I were I would
say everybody does it, why me? But I wouldn’t see the need
for a second chance to redeem myself.
OK Max,
The plain truth is Papadopoulos was being pursued by the FBI because they were (and are) after Trump. It remains unclear who (what intelligence assets) the FBI used, but if an asset contacted Papadopoulos, and the FBI subsequently questioned him about that contact, then it is pure entrapment, and if not unlawful, certainly unethical. I suspect in the end we will find the FBI was actively investigating Trump via multiple unethical if not unlawful means. Most management level staff at the FBI need to be discharged, and the sooner the better… starting with the current director.
Max_OK
I don’t know about whether Papadopoulos should bad mouth the FBI. I can see reasons not to. It might look like he was making things up just to improve his chances of a pardon by pleasing FBI foe Trump.
To some it might; to others it won’t. But I don’t see how some people thinking badly of him ought to concern him. Their opinions are their problem. With only 14 days he doesn’t need a pardon.
He also said he wants to redeem himself, and I think he meant to redeem himself for lying to the FBI.
That part might be made up to reduce the sentences. I think few would blame him for that.
I don’t know the FBI’s definition of lying, but I would be sure to find out if being questioned, and I definitely would not go ahead and lie, thinking lots of people do it and don’t go to jail.
Oy. Go read what lawyers have to say about talking to the police
If you haven’t read Popehat or watched the police video and you think you wouldn’t say things the FBI consider lies — and which could accidentally turn out to be lies– don’t tell us you wouldn’t lie to the FBI. And if you watched it and still tell us you wouldn’t lie, I for one, don’t believe you. I’m not insulting you. Read Popehat.
But I wouldn’t see the need
for a second chance to redeem myself.
Pap my not think he needs a second chance to redeem himself. That might be something he said to help assuage the prosecutors and improve the chances of a low sentences. His lawyer probably advised that. Yeah, it might only have made the 30 day sentence drop to 14 days. But to many people 16 days less in the clink is worth swallowing hard and saying you want to redeem yourself.
Heck, 3 year olds say they are sorry when they aren’t to assuage Mom. Husbands and wives say they are sorry when they aren’t to assuage each other. Most people say similar things. Most people tell “white lies”.
Maybe you don’t. If you, you learn that you are in the “fewer than 1%”.
There is only one way to make sure you never lie to the FBI, don’t talk to them. I often see interrogations by the local police on the show The First 48 and they routinely says things like “Now is your last chance to come clean and tell your side of the story” and such knowing BS by law enforcement.
.
Misremembering is lying to the FBI. If you think your brain isn’t using a lossy compression memory system then I suggest you look into it further. Doing your best to help can get you thrown in jail.
.
They rotely read off Miranda rights to suspects and I have never once in over 15 seasons seen a suspect say “Wait, are you saying I don’t have to answer questions?”. There is one certainty across all city departments though, “I want a lawyer” immediately ends an interview. It very much annoys the detectives, and that should tell you something.
.
There is almost no upside to making a formal statement as a suspect, even if you are innocent. How do you know if you are a suspect? You don’t.
.
All that being said, lying to the cops for common crimes is routine and almost never prosecuted. My boyfriend was home with me during the crime! It seems to be only white collar crimes and the FBI that this ploy is used.
There is allegedly a grand jury looking into McCabe now, unclear if any charges will be forthcoming, but it is being taken seriously. I still eagerly await the report on how Strzok’s “We’ll stop it” text was missed and not disclosed by the FBI. I imagine this is going to be another major embarrassment.
Tom Fuller,
FWIW, I didn’t think Hillary was the most horrible person in the universe. I thought her husband’s term[s] went reasonably well and hoped for (although I did not really expect) a similar result. Maybe a little more blatantly corrupt than usual, but what the hey.
There were many things I disliked about the Obama administration, but I don’t believe President Obama was the worst President we’ve ever had, either – not by a long shot.
lucia (Comment #170376)
“Go read what lawyers have to say about talking to the police”
“Which applies double to talking to the FBI.”
Tom Scharf (Comment #170377)
September 9th, 2018 at 7:32 am
There is only one way to make sure you never lie to the FBI, don’t talk to them.
___________
I might take the precaution of having a lawyer present in interviews
with the police or FBI. It would depend on the situation and nature of the interview. The only problem I can see in insisting on a lawyer is it suggests you have something to hide. The same goes for
refusing to answer a question, and perhaps to a lesser extent for a
“I can’t recall ” answer when it’s something you should be able to recall.
Of course “one way to make sure you never lie to the FBI, don’t talk to them.” Another way is to tell the truth. which includes “I’m not sure” if you aren’t sure.
Speaking of lying, I do not believe Papadopoulos, his lawyer, the prosecutors, and the judge are all lying about the harm Papadopoulos did by lying to the FBI.
It was a material lie, not an innocuous fib(e.g., lied about his weight).
“U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss said Papadopoulos’ deception was “not a noble lie” and said he had lied because he wanted a job in the Trump administration and didn’t want to jeopardize that possibility by being tied to the Russia investigation.â€
“Moss noted that many similar cases resulted in probation but said he imposed a sentence of incarceration partly to send a message to the public that they can’t lie to the FBI.â€
‘Prosecutors say those false statements, made during a January 2017 interview with federal investigators, led the FBI to miss an opportunity to interview Mifsud while he was in the United States in early 2017.â€
‘In court Friday, prosecutor Andrew Goldstein said Papadopoulos’ cooperation “didn’t come close to the standard of substantial assistance.” ‘
“He said Papadopoulos’ deception required investigators to scour more than 100,000 emails and gigabytes of data to reconstruct the timeline of his contacts with Russians and Russian intermediaries.â€
‘In response, defense lawyer Thomas Breen said his client was “remorseful” that his lies impeded the investigation.â€
“Breen also rejected the idea that Papadopoulos was the victim of a witch hunt or prosecutorial misconduct.â€
I’m not sure, but a pardon may mean he doesn’t have to complete the one-year probation and 200 hours of community service.
Tom Scharf,
“I still eagerly await the report on how Strzok’s “We’ll stop it†text was missed and not disclosed by the FBI. I imagine this is going to be another major embarrassment.”
.
A lot more than an embarrassment… it is criminal refusal to respond to a legitimate subpoena from Congress. Someone should be sitting in prison for witholding this message. Unfortunately, the FBI, being a corrupt organization, long ago closed ranks and is in full turtle mode, refusing to provide information to Congress about its rampant malfeasance. So I doubt those responsible will be held to account.
mark bofill,
” I don’t believe President Obama was the worst President we’ve ever had, either – not by a long shot.”
.
That is a perfectly reasonable argument. But on the other hand, he was clearly worse than Carter (and I never thought I would say that!) and operated more lawlessly than even Nixon. IMO he was terribly damaging to both the country in general and political civility.
OK_Max (Comment #170380):
Of course “one way to make sure you never lie to the FBI, don’t talk to them.†Another way is to tell the truth. which includes “I’m not sure†if you aren’t sure.
.
I imagine that is what Martha Stewart thought. And Michael Flynn. And who knows how many hundreds of others who also got the chance to reflect on their error while in prison.
Trump is very unlikely to issue any pardon until at least after the November elections.
Tom Fuller,
“But I believe I will temper some of my criticism of people on the other side of the fence–at least I hope I will.”
.
It is a nice idea, but after watching every single Republican candidate since Reagan accused of being a racist and the second coming of Adolf Hitler, I suspect you will be quite alone in tempering your criticism. There are large and deep disagreements about the best course for the country; over-the-top criticism of those you disagree with is a symptom of the problem, not the cause. Rather than temper criticism, consider accepting substantive compromise on policy. That is far more difficult for most people.
Mike M. (Comment #170383)
September 9th, 2018 at 9:32 am
OK_Max (Comment #170380):
Of course “one way to make sure you never lie to the FBI, don’t talk to them.†Another way is to tell the truth. which includes “I’m not sure†if you aren’t sure.
_________
.
“I imagine that is what Martha Stewart thought. And Michael Flynn. And who knows how many hundreds of others who also got the chance to reflect on their error while in prison.”
_________
Mike M, I’m not sure what you mean.
They thought they were telling the truth but actually were lying?
They told the truth not knowing it meant they broke the law?
Tom Fuller,
I’ve never thought Hillary was the worst person in the world. But I thought she was a horrible candidate in the sense of unelectable. She didn’t know how to run a campaign. She has no charisma. She doesn’t seem to have actual views of how to run the country– she seems scripted. Good campaigners may be scripted but they need to not seem so.
She also exhuded disingenousness which made her a poor candidate.
That doesn’t maker her the worst possible candidate. But she was bad enough to not be unelectable, and lost the election.
Every lawyer worth their degree will tell you to never answer questions posed by a law enforcement agency. You can sensibly extend that to include any Federal agent (like the IRS), where you are similarly at risk if you make any statements. The only suitable comment is: I want to talk to my lawyer.
Lucia,
All those things about Hillary made her a bad candidate. But I would add two more: 1) She had accumulated a substantial personal fortune, with at least the appearance of lots of influence pedaling, and 2) she made clear that she dislikes and disrespects voters who in any way disagree with her policies. I honestly think her “basket of deplorables” comment led to her loss. She was a terrible candidate before that, but she essentially flipped the bird at a huge voting block, and that gave lots of people motivation to vote against her (rather than for Trump).
OK_Max (Comment #170386): “I’m not sure what you mean.
They thought they were telling the truth but actually were lying?”
.
Oh, come on Max. That is such obvious nonsense that it seems designed as a clumsy attempt to set up a straw man. It is NOT possible to tell the truth and lie at the same time. It IS possible to tell the truth but to be mistaken. You have done that more times than you can count, just like everyone else. But if you do that while talking to the FBI, your honest mistake can be characterized as a lie. That is certainly what happened to Flynn. I think it is what happened to Stewart, but I am not sure.
SteveF (Comment #170384)
September 9th, 2018 at 9:43 am
Trump is very unlikely to issue any pardon until at least after the November elections.
____
It’s not likely Papadopoulos can get his 14-day sentence postponed until after the Nov. elections. His lawyer has been critical of Trump, not helpful for a pardon. As some here have mentioned, Pap might criticize the FBI, and that could gain favor with Trump. If he didn’t get the pardon, however, that also might hurt his chances of getting the probation period reduced.
lucia (Comment #170387): “I’ve never thought Hillary was the worst person in the world. But I thought she was a horrible candidate in the sense of unelectable.”
———–
I agree with both statements. She is not even the worst person to achieve national prominence as a politician. But I would add that she was one of the worst people to ever get a major party nomination for President. Possible the worst.
Max, I remember when the Bulls played the Pacers in 1998, game 7 was lost when the Pacers were leading by 3 with about a minute left and Michael Jordan won a jump ball against center Rik Smits. The record says it was with 6:50 left, meaning it was not a near guarantee for the Pacers. If asked by federal investigators I haven’t lied. I have stated my memory clearly.
Steve McIntyre has more details on why The Greek didn’t lie on some counts.
Mike M. (Comment #170390)
September 9th, 2018 at 10:55 am
OK_Max (Comment #170386): “I’m not sure what you mean.
They thought they were telling the truth but actually were lying?â€
.
“Oh, come on Max. That is such obvious nonsense that it seems designed as a clumsy attempt to set up a straw man. It is NOT possible to tell the truth and lie at the same time. It IS possible to tell the truth but to be mistaken.”
______
Mike M, isn’t thinking I’m telling the truth but actually not the same as your “It IS possible to tell the truth but to be mistaken.”? Also isn’t it possible to “tell the truth and lie at the same time” by both telling the truth and lying in one sentence? These questions may not be very relevant to our conversation, but I think are interesting to consider.
Here’s the thing. Both Stewart and Flynn should have known better.
It’s arguable whether Stewart actually broke an insider trading law,
but her attempts at a cover-up was what landed her in jail. She should have know better than to misrepresent and lie to hide her
actions. Flynn should have know better than to break the law about
dealing with foreign governments and to try to cover it up, if he did try.
RE MikeN (Comment #170393)
MikeN, your example is not a material lie anyway. No harm done.
A lot of this Mueller investigation involves activities in London.
Mifsud and the Greek were working at LCILP.
Downer met the Greek in London. One report says he reported ‘dirt on Hillary’ directly in London, and not via Australian government.
Steele is former MI6.
One suspicion is that both parts of the conversation were a setup. They feed to the Greek and then arrange a meeting to receive the info, just to set up a collusion charge.
Some of the senior FBI team were in London just prior to the Downer meeting, I think it was Bill Priestap.
OK_Max (Comment #170395): “isn’t thinking I’m telling the truth but actually not the same as your “It IS possible to tell the truth but to be mistaken.â€?
Yes. Or at lest close enough that the difference would be a quibble. Why do you ask?
I suppose that the reason you ask is that you are pretending that “telling the truth but actually not” is what you said earlier. But you said “They thought they were telling the truth but actually were lying” which is, of course, a completely different thing.
———
OK_Max: “Also isn’t it possible to tell the truth and lie at the same time by both telling the truth and lying in one sentence?”
No it is not, at least if I understand that sentence. If one part of a sentence is true and a different part deliberately is false, then you are telling the truth and lying, but not simultaneously.
However, if you adopt a broad definition of lying (not relevant here), then it is possible to simultaneously lie and tell the truth by saying something that is technically entirely true but is deliberately misleading. But doing so under oath would not be perjury. Bill Clinton taught us that. The law uses the narrow definition of lying as a deliberate falsehood; perhaps JD will correct me if I am mistaken.
———-
OK_Max: “Flynn should have know better than to break the law about dealing with foreign governments …”
Flynn never did anything of the sort. Anyone who says he did is severely reality challenged.
.
OK_Max: “… and to try to cover it up, if he did try.”
He never did that either, since there was nothing to cover up.
Flynn did make an incorrect statement to the FBI about one of many things in his conversation with the Russian ambassador. The FBI agents who interviewed him thought it was an honest mistake. But Mueller, in a massive violation of prosecutorial power (IMO) used Flynn’s innocent error to attack him.
Max, I could construct a scenario where it is material. The point is I would be making a false statement, but thought I was telling the truth.
Then there is the suspicion that the Greek and/or his wife was a spy in the Trump campaign.
Max,
As usual, I don’t really know if I have false assumptions or not, and of course it’s possible I do. I tend to view the FBI more or less as gestapos. These guys have a lengthy and colorful history of breaking the law and abusing their powers.
.
I mean, maybe you’re absolutely right. Maybe it’s a great idea to just carefully and contientously try to tell them the truth, and not lawyer up because of the message that sends that you have something to hide. It seems to me that the folks at Popehat and other places would advise that if that was sensible, but even this isn’t the underlying problem I’ve got. Really my problem is that you seem to assume the FBI are the good guys, and if one tries one’s honest best to cooperate with them that one will come to no harm. I really really doubt this, based on their history and what I read about dealing with them today.
.
But. It’s your assumption set, and far be it from me to suggest you’re not free to believe whatever you like about them. I just don’t know how to work around the differences between my assumptions and yours in discussing this, so I guess I’ll just note it with this comment and drop the subject.
OK Max,
If Trump issued a pardon, the 12 months (parole) supervised release would end immediately.
Another spy sent at the Greek?
Remember he was arrested at the airport.
Before he flew to the US, he was given over ten thousand in cash. George left it overseas in storage.
Did the FBI arrange for him to get this money, hoping to arrest him for not declaring at the airport? They had no arrest warrant beforehand.
OK_MAx
“Moss noted that many similar cases resulted in probation but said he imposed a sentence of incarceration partly to send a message to the public that they can’t lie to the FBI.â€
In otherwords: normally, what Pap did would result in a slap on the wrist, but he got real time. This supports my view that he was treated more harshly and prosecutors and so on where overzealous. That there motive was “to send a message” only means they had a motive to be overzealous. It doesn’t mean they were not overzealous.
The lawyer, Breen, is going to say things that help his client get off lightly. So quoting him doesn’t mean much.
“didn’t come close to the standard of substantial assistance.†‘
“He said Papadopoulos’ deception required investigators to scour more than 100,000 emails and gigabytes of data to reconstruct the timeline of his contacts with Russians and Russian intermediaries.â€
They handled seven times as many e-mails from Hillary over a few days.
Makes sense that you would give a larger sentence in a high profile case, to let the public know this is not a law to be ignored. Martha Stewart probably gets a lighter or no sentence if it was someone else.
MikeN,
Lots of people sympathized with Martha. Lots of people think prosecutors and justice system went over board with her. Not everyone of course. But when someone gets a harsher sentence to “send a message”, that’s not exactly equal justice, which we supposedly value.
That the right voted for Trump “because Hillary/Pelosi/Obama” belies the fact that he won the Republican primary and continues to maintain sky high approval ratings amongst those identifying as Republicans. This is probably why Never Trumpers strike a nerve with them – because they remind the party of ‘moral values and self-responsibility’ that they voted for an amoral candidate who has not hesitated to employ every corrupt means in his business and political career, who has gone on to lead an administration of grifters, and who regularly attempts to gaslight the population into believing that others are the cause of the unprecedented situation he finds himself in. In other words, ‘he may be an a*hole but he’s still their a*hole’.
RB,
Not sure what point you are trying to rebut. Some who voted for Trump did so because they merely thought he was better than Hillary. There’s no doubt that others voted for him because they like him. I don’t think any have claimed that no one supports Trump. Obviously some people do.
As for who “the right” voted for: neither “the right”, “the left”, nor “the center” can vote. Individuals vote. So it’s silly to talk about who “the right” voted for or for what reason. Some on the right voted for Trump for “reason X”, orthers for “reason Y”, others for reason Z.
I didn’t vote for Trump and I didn’t vote for Hillary. I didn’t like either and still don’t. I’m still glad Hillary did not win. I still don’t like Trump. But I do like his SCOTUS picks, his setting aside many of Obama’s high handed executive orders and much of his deregulation. Since disliking Trump and disliking Hillary is a draw, I’m glad I at least see some changes that I consider for the good.
RB,
I can’t speak for others, but my vote for Trump was a hold-your-nose/lesser-of-evils vote. Trump is a buffoon. He is often obnoxious. He is thin skinned, etc, etc, etc. But for me, and many others, putting aside her obvious corruption, Hillary’s policies would have been much worse than Trump’s, and would have damaged the economy and reduced personal liberties. I am sure there are many reasons people voted for Trump, but the ‘not Hillary’ factor is probably the most important.
Re Mike M. (Comment #170398)
September 9th, 2018 at 11:59 am
Example of person who thinks he is telling the truth but is not telling the truth:
You ask if I met with Mr. X last Monday.
I reply, no, I met with him last Tuesday.
But in fact I did meet with him last Monday, but got my days confused. What I told you was not the truth, but since I did
not intend to mislead you it wasn’t a lie.
Later I realize my mistake and tell you the truth. But what if
Instead I do not tell you because I have discovered I can profit
at your expense by leaving you believing I met with Mr. X on
Tuesday rather than Monday? Would I be guilty of a material
lie?
Now for an example of a truth and a lie in one sentence:
You ask me if I met Mr. Y last week.
I reply, yes, I met him last Friday.
Actually, I met him last Tuesday, but I lied to you about the
day because it was to my advantage and, unknown to you,
at your expense.
> continues to maintain sky high approval ratings amongst those identifying as Republicans.
Perhaps this is because those who don’t approve no longer identify as Republicans?
That said, in most states Republican registration is up compared to Democrats.
RB,
This is probably why Never Trumpers strike a nerve with them – because they remind the party of ‘moral values and self-responsibility’ that they voted for an amoral candidate who has not hesitated to employ every corrupt means
Never Trumpers have never bothered me, but I do have a conscience. Heck, I voted for Roy Moore and I knew what he was. [It bothered me more than a little bit to do so.]
.
I don’t look to the President and our politicians for moral behavior. All things equal it would be nice, but it’s not the most important characteristic. I think Jimmy Carter was a moral fellow and a wretched President.
.
I’d prefer a situation where America could unite. Trump is more divisive than Obama in some ways. Unfortunately it takes two to tango. Until that part of the Left that loves division and identity politics loses dominance over the Democratic Party, I will nominate and vote for Donald Trumps and Roy Moores and probably worse. I’m ready to move towards the middle when the other side is ready to quit sprinting left.
.
Shrug.
mark bofill (Comment #170412): “I don’t look to the President and our politicians for moral behavior. All things equal it would be nice, but it’s not the most important characteristic. I think Jimmy Carter was a moral fellow and a wretched President.”
True, true, and true. But there is one sort of morality that I do expect from a President: I want him to do what he says. Trump passes that test with flying colors, unlike no-red-or-blue-states Obama or humble-foreign-policy Bush.
.
mark bofill: “I’d prefer a situation where America could unite. Trump is more divisive than Obama in some ways. Unfortunately it takes two to tango. Until that part of the Left that loves division and identity politics loses dominance over the Democratic Party, I will nominate and vote for Donald Trumps and Roy Moores and probably worse. I’m ready to move towards the middle when the other side is ready to quit sprinting left.”
I agree. But the real division in the U.S. in between the elites (both right and left) and the ordinary people (both liberal and conservative). Trump’s “divisiveness” is aimed at the people who have already divided themselves from the deplorables. He did not create that division or widen it, he only gives a voice to the side that had been largely silenced.
I don’t want the justice department sending a message to anyone about anything except how they apply the law uniformly. That’s not reality because of political pressures that corrupt the process. The OJ jury sent a message, I’m still trying to decode that one. The last thing you want as a defendant is for it to become a high publicity case where people are forced to send messages. Cases are different and some criminal acts are different than others, so we have to use judges to parse them. Drug dealers shooting each other is different than them shooting innocent bystanders, or is it? It’s imperfect.
For all us lucky people with spouses, how many times have you argued about the facts of something you were both present for and can’t agree on? Imagine if your spouse was the FBI, and they could put you in jail for being wrong. I’d still be sitting in my cell right now, but my wife would have a longer sentence, ha ha!
Tom Scharf (Comment #170414)
September 10th, 2018 at 9:53 am
OK_Max,
I posted this a while ago. Popehat (attorney who has worked on both sides of the fence) on talking to the FBI:
Everybody Lies: FBI Edition
Thanks Tom, I have read the Popehat warning. The following is a quote from Popehat:
“You, dear readers, know my advice about talking to the FBI: don’t. If the FBI — or any law enforcement agency — asks to talk to you, say “No, I want to talk to my lawyer, I don’t want to talk to you,” and repeat as necessary. Do not talk to them “just to see what they want.” Do not try to “set the facts straight.” Do not try to outwit them. Do not explain that you have “nothing to hide.”
______
Keep in mind this is lawyer telling us we need lawyers. Nevertheless,
it’s good advice if you are a law breaker, are related to a law breaker, are business partners with a law breaker, or happen to know a law breaker.
It’s also good advice if your fear you may have broken the law but aren’t sure. It might be good advice if you are none of those, but are paranoid, unless you end up being even more paranoid.
I am none of the above. Unless my situation changes I will not be
insisting on a lawyer before talking with the FBI or police. Hiring
an attorney could arouse suspicion and cost me time as well as
money.
I did talk with a couple of Feds one time regarding a security clearance for someone I knew. They may have been FBI, I can’t
remember. I wonder what they would have thought had I insisted
on a lawyer. RED FLAG !
I think an underlying point is if one is super confident that you are just a witness then obviously helping law enforcement is the right thing to do. This is about being connected to a criminal investigation, and whether you know you are. You may get charged because they believe you are holding back information, they are fishing and you pay.
.
Rational people who talk to lawyers seem to be convinced after the talk that it is still in their best interest to not talk. There are way more horror stories of talking then refusing to do so.
.
If you are guilty then one could theorize that by talking one could throw them off the trail by making them believe you aren’t guilty. That doesn’t usually work. It’s better to not help them prove it. Cops are pretty good at assessing a person who is lying, and have way more experience doing it.
.
If you have nothing to hide, then you also have nothing to fear from their potential suspicions. The more important point is to just stop the FBI from doing this, it is a lazy method to pressure people in an oppressive manner. It’s right up there with civil forfeiture, a flashing billboard for abuse.
OK_Max (Comment #170417): “It’s also good advice if your fear you may have broken the law but aren’t sure.”
.
Did you even read the popehat piece? He is not talking about: “Sir, did you happen to see the guy running out of the bank with a gym bag full of money?” He is talking about the FBI wanting to question you in a more or less formal manner; which happens to be what the discussion here has been about. If that happens, it is because either (1) they have reason to think you broke the law or (2) they have reason to think you have information about someone who broke the law. In either case, you had better fear that you might have broken the law, if only as an unintentional accessory.
.
If you look at popehat’s reasons, one is: “You can’t even talk properly”. I can tell you with certainty that one applies to you. Also: “You don’t know if you’re in trouble”. That one also applies, unless you know for sure that you are in trouble.
SteveF (Comment #170388)
September 9th, 2018 at 10:31 am
Every lawyer worth their degree will tell you to never answer questions posed by a law enforcement agency. You can sensibly extend that to include any Federal agent (like the IRS), where you are similarly at risk if you make any statements. The only suitable comment is: I want to talk to my lawyer.
_______
That certainly would be the “only suitable comment” if you have submitted a fraudulent tax return. Otherwise, I think not.
I’ve been audited twice by IRS. Didn’t have a lawyer, didn’t need one.
Why didn’t I need a lawyer? Because I do not lie on my tax forms.
Had I lied, I would have considered hiring a lawyer.
My misinterpretation of depreciation regulations triggered the first
audit, and I had to pay additional tax. The second audit was automatically triggered by the first audit, but IRS found nothing
wrong. During the second audit I spotted a mistake I had made that
resulted in IRS owing me a little money. I learned two things from being audited (1) don’t fear audits, and (2) pay a CPA to do my
taxes.
Max_Ok
Later I realize my mistake and tell you the truth. But what if
Instead I do not tell you because I have discovered I can profit
at your expense by leaving you believing I met with Mr. X on
Tuesday rather than Monday? Would I be guilty of a material
lie?
Evidently not. Here’s a portion wikipedia’s definition of material lie.
Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.[1][A] In some jurisdictions, contrary to popular misconception, no crime has occurred when a false statement is (intentionally or unintentionally) made while under oath or subject to penalty. Instead, criminal culpability attaches only at the instant the declarant falsely asserts the truth of statements (made or to be made) that are material to the outcome of the proceeding. For example, it is not perjury to lie about one’s age except if age is a fact material to influencing the legal result, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits or whether a person was of an age to have legal capacity.
To be a material lie, it must be both a lie and material. Lies must be intentional.
The mistatement was unintentionally false at the time it was stated. So that already makes it not lie. Since it is not a lie, it cannot be an adjective lie. So it is not a ‘material lie’, even if it turns out to be material.
Actually, I met him last Tuesday, but I lied to you about the day because it was to my advantage and, unknown to you,
at your expense.
Its not necessarily at the “expense” of the person lied to. The person lied to has to show they suffered an “expense”.
If you, ask me my weight and I lie to you about my weight, and the only “expense” to you is you continue to not know my true weight but think you know it, taking no action one way or the other based on that weight, you suffer no expense. So that particular lie is then an “immaterial lie”.
To conclude it’s a “material” lie, you need to show that for some reason or other, that information mattered. You can’t merely show its a lie. Otherwise there is no difference between “immaterial” and “material” lies.
Mike M. (Comment #170419)
September 10th, 2018 at 2:51 pm
OK_Max (Comment #170417): “It’s also good advice if your fear you may have broken the law but aren’t sure.â€
.
Did you even read the popehat piece?
Mike M. (Comment #170419)
September 10th, 2018 at 2:51 pm
OK_Max (Comment #170417): “It’s also good advice if your fear you may have broken the law but aren’t sure.â€
.
Did you even read the popehat piece? He is talking about the FBI wanting to question you in a more or less formal manner… because either (1) they have reason to think you broke the law or (2) they have reason to think you have information about someone who broke the law. In either case, you had better fear that you might have broken the law, if only as an unintentional accessory.
______
MikeM, I do not break laws and I do not have information about law breaking by anyone I know. Therefore, if the FBI has reason to think
I do, then the FBI is wrong. If the FBI interviews me, the FBI will find
it is wrong.
You seem to be suggesting I may have broken laws that I don’t know
about. Please tell me what you think those might be.
OK Max,
“You seem to be suggesting I may have broken laws that I don’t know
about.”
If you are unaware of some violation, how could you expect someone else to be aware of it? (real question)
.
So clearly, you won’t listen to the advice of lawyers (you know, the people trained in law and its practice). I suspect Martha Stuart thought the same way, at least before sitting in prison for no underlying criminal activity. Probably she thinks differently now.
mark bofill (Comment #170401)
September 9th, 2018 at 1:03 pm
“Really my problem is that you seem to assume the FBI are the good guys, and if one tries one’s honest best to cooperate with them that one will come to no harm. I really really doubt this, based on their history and what I read about dealing with them today.”
_______
mark, yes, I think the FBI are the good guys.
“If one tries one’s honest best to cooperate with them that one will come to no harm.” That’s true if you haven’t broken a law. If you have broken a law, cooperation can reduce the harm you will suffer
and in some cases eliminate it.
SteveF (Comment #170423)
September 10th, 2018 at 3:59 pm
OK Max,
“You seem to be suggesting I may have broken laws that I don’t know
about.â€
If you are unaware of some violation, how could you expect someone else to be aware of it? (real question)
_______
I believe I am aware of the laws that apply to me in my situation.
That’s my responsibility.
I was not aware of the laws that applied to Martha Stewart’s situation but she should have been. That was her responsibility.
While I am not aware of all the laws that applied to Stewart’s
situation, I do know attempts at a cover up can get you in trouble with the law, and I think that’s what she did.
OK-Max: “MikeM, I do not break laws and I do not have information about law breaking by anyone I know. Therefore, if the FBI has reason to think I do, then the FBI is wrong. If the FBI interviews me, the FBI will find it is wrong.”
……
You think you don’t know of any crimes. Federal and state and local laws are so broad that you do undoubtedly know of crimes. You just don’t realize it.
……
For example, see these Chinese people who were falsely accused by the FBI.
JD Ohio,
He is not going to listen, no matter how many lawyers tell him he is mistaken. Sort of like dragon slayers and “back-radiation”.
Re lucia (Comment #170421)
lucia, thank you for the info on perjury, lies, and material lies. I’m not sure, but 18 U.S. Code 1001 may be a little broader (see below). I recall seeing a legal blog discussing this but can’t readily find it. I will post from it when I do.
“(a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1)falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2)makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3)makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;”
There must be a legal constitutional way to investigate the FBI and DOJ even if the people at the top of these organizations are the ones who need to be investigated but are in charge of initiating the investigations usually.
JD,SteveF, anyone?
If, a very big if but did happen 2 years ago, the republicans do win more seats Trump could use the positive pressure to sack Sessions and put in someone amenable to opening the needed investigations.
Sessions should of course do the decent thing and open a parallel investigation though this would have the automatic effect of standing down the current investigation. On poast form this is not going to happen.
The third thing would be a Lisa Page or Bruce Ohr admission of guilt and implicating the others, Could Trump offer them a plea deal or would this be seen also as interference?
OK Max,
That looks exactly the same as wikipedia to me.
In your first case, the behavior was not illegal because it was not knowing and willful. Because it’s not none of (1)-(3) matter. That amounts to “it was not a lie or falsehood”.
In your second case, it was a “lie” so (a) is triggered. Nothing in your description indicates it’s “material” though. All of (1)-(3) require the thing to be “material”. Material is a term of art. You need to add some additional detail to show the lie was material. You haven’t.
Oh. And bear in mind, the liars motive isn’t what makes it “material”. So my lying to the FBI about my age because I want people to think I’m younger or want a job with the Trump administration who only likes hot young babes isn’t “material” to an investigation about connections to Russia because it doesn’t hamper the investigation or change the outcome in any way. To be material the lie has to make someone come to wrong conclusions about the investigation or something like that.
JD Ohio (Comment #170426)
September 10th, 2018 at 4:29 pm
OK-Max: “MikeM, I do not break laws and I do not have information about law breaking by anyone I know. Therefore, if the FBI has reason to think I do, then the FBI is wrong. If the FBI interviews me, the FBI will find it is wrong.â€
……
You think you don’t know of any crimes. Federal and state and local laws are so broad that you do undoubtedly know of crimes. You just don’t realize it.
________
Regarding the Chinese people falsely accused by the FBI, I am not Chinese, don’t know anyone who lives in China, have never been to
China and have no plans to go. Nor am I going to be in a situation even remotely like theirs. So I don’t fear what happened to the
Chinese people is going to happen to me.
BTW, according to your link “Professor Xi is now suing the FBI, the Justice Department, and the NSA for violating his constitutional rights. In May, three and a half years after her arrest, Sherry Chen won her job back. A federal judge ordered her reinstated with back pay plus interest, concluding that Chen had been the victim of quote “gross injustice.” The federal government is appealing that decision.”
I wish Professor Xi and Sherry Chen the best of luck.
As I said, I do not break laws and I do not have information about law breaking by anyone I know. Therefore, if the FBI has reason to think I do, then the FBI is wrong. If the FBI interviews me, the FBI will find it is wrong. If in finding it’s wrong, the FBI were to cause me harm, I
would do like Xi and Chen, sue for damages.
SteveF (Comment #170428)
September 10th, 2018 at 4:49 pm
JD Ohio,
He is not going to listen, no matter how many lawyers tell him he is mistaken. Sort of like dragon slayers and “back-radiationâ€.
_____
Dadgummit, SteveF, I am listening. Please read my posts more carefully. As I explained’ I don’t believe in my situation I would need a lawyer if talking to the FBI. That does not mean I believe no one would need one.
OK_Max,
Thanks. I now have a much better understanding of how an intelligent person like Martha Stewart can get herself into so much unnecessary trouble.
Though the falsehood must be “material” this requirement is met if the statement has the “natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it is addressed.” United States v. Gaudin , 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995). (In other words, it is not necessary to show that your particular lie ever really influenced anyone.) Although you must know that your statement is false at the time you make it in order to be guilty of this crime, you do not have to know that lying to the government is a crime or even that the matter you are lying about is “within the jurisdiction” of a government agency. United States v. Yermian , 468 U.S. 63, 69 (1984). For example, if you lie to your employer on your time and attendance records and, unbeknownst to you, he submits your records, along with those of other employees, to the federal government pursuant to some regulatory duty, you could be criminally liable. https://www.wisenberglaw.com/Articles/How-to-Avoid-Going-to-Jail-under-18-U-S-C-Section-1001-for-Lying-to-Government-Agents.shtml
.
There is also a discussion here on how to decline to be interviewed.
.
“It is crucial to note that affirmatively declining to discuss the investigation in the absence of counsel is not the same thing as remaining completely silent. If you are not in custody, your total silence, especially in the face of an accusation, can very possibly be used against you as an adoptive admission under the Federal Rules of Evidence.”
OK Max,
“I don’t believe in my situation I would need a lawyer if talking to the FBI”
.
Ya, like I said, you are not going to listen.
.
Federal agents are under no obligation to tell you the truth; they can willfully mislead, they can straight out lie and fabricate, they can try their best to frighten you into saying something mistaken, or even a little exaggerated. They can head off in unexpected directions that you have not thought about and may not remember clearly. They can charge you with a crime based on only that they believe some other person’s conflicting statement instead of yours, or that your faulty memory (though perfectly clear in your own head) conflicts with some factual evidence from long ago.
.
It really is like you did not read the Popehat piece at all. If you look, you will find videos by former police investigators, former prosecutors, etc. telling you that it is simply foolish to make a statement to investigators without the presence and guidance of an attorney. I know you reject all this, and there is no need to continue beating a long dead and rotting equine. But I believe you are very mistaken.
OK_Max,
You want to present the minimal surface area to the criminal justice system. It is an unforgiving bureaucratic machine that grinds people up and spits them out. Not committing crimes is a good way to do that. If you miscalculate your blood alcohol level on New Years Eve and get nailed at a checkpoint, you are a criminal in every sense of the word. Good intentions might matter in liberal politics but they mean nothing to the criminal justice system. This is how the criminal justice system will view you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP5aqAC8PPY
angech,
“Sessions should of course do the decent thing and open a parallel investigation though this would have the automatic effect of standing down the current investigation.”
.
He already assigned US Attorney for Utah John Huber to investigate irregularities at the FBI and DOJ, including rampant leaking of information to the press. So far, not a peep has been heard from John Huber. It’s hard to say what if anything will come of it.
.
The DOJ and FBI are overwhelming staffed by people who are opposed to Trump. It is not realistic to think they will ever willingly admit to actively opposing Trump in their work. They will continue to say “Yes, I hate Trump, and I hate his stupid voters, but that never had the slightest influenced on how I investigated Hillary…. or Trump.” Of course any rational eight year old knows that is ridiculous. Washington is filled with people who believe voters don’t have the awareness of eight year olds.
Measuring economic inequality is pretty hard it seems, and tainted with agendas and the usual media lack of effort to clarify anything.
.
Comparing household incomes only obfuscates what you want to know. Comparing older people’s dual earner household income to young people’s single earner household income distorts what you want to know.
.
The bigger issue is how spikey the top 1% incomes actually are. It turns out that something like 90% of people in the 1% aren’t there year to year, but just have a particularly good single year. These people are switched in and out every year. One of the reasons is that capital gains are counted as income, so someone who cashes out capital gains from a 10 year investment has the entire amount counted in a single year and it isn’t averaged over the time of investment, distorting the person’s income. So this ends up being an income bracket comparison, not a consistent human to human earnings ratio comparison.
.
The same holds true for the bottom 20%, something like 95% of people in the bottom 20% will grow out of that bracket over time as their earning potential improves. Income inequality isn’t measuring what most people think it does, and the media continuously quotes distortions that aren’t helpful to understanding things.
Max_OK
“I don’t believe in my situation I would need a lawyer if talking to the FBIâ€
I believe in my situation, the likelihood the FBI would ask me to come in to talk to them is practically zero. However if they called me in for reasons unknown to me to question me on some matter, I would take that as an indication that I may well need a lawyer.
lucia (Comment #170440)
“I believe in my situation, the likelihood the FBI would ask me to come in to talk to them is practically zero. However if they called me in for reasons unknown to me to question me on some matter, I would take that as an indication that I may well need a lawyer.”
______
If the FBI did contact you, I think the most likely reason would be to
ask you about the background of someone applying for a security clearance, a person you know. I presume the FBI still is the agency doing this work.
Earlier we were discussing material statements and § 1001. I thought
the following info from http://www.lawfareblog.com was interesting:
“In its present form, § 1001 sweeps incredibly broadly: just about any material statement to an official of any branch of the federal government on a matter they are investigating. It implicates many written representations to the federal government as well. In yesterday’s hearing, Representative Adam Schiff requested that Director Comey provide the committee with a copy of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s SF-86, presumably to see if Flynn disclosed foreign contacts and payments. In three separate locations on the form, the SF-86 warns of criminal penalties under § 1001. It even requires an affirmative acknowledgment that the preparer understands that withholding, falsifying, or misrepresenting information on the form is “subject to the penalties for inaccurate or false statement (per U.S. Criminal Code, Title 18, section 1001).â€
Because the lie need not occur in an official proceeding under oath, the existence of an ongoing investigation raises the likelihood that § 1001 would be relevant: it will sweep up almost all misrepresentations made to government officials in the course of that investigation. To the extent any leak investigations proceed, § 1001 is commonly the basis for charges in those cases as well.”
Tom Scharf (Comment #170437)
September 10th, 2018 at 6:45 pm
OK_Max,
“You want to present the minimal surface area to the criminal justice system.”
______
That’s good advice for both criminals and non-criminals. Minimize exposure.
As a non-criminal, my only exposure is driving. Obeying traffic laws requires constant attention when driving. It also requires constant attention to other drivers. I fear them more than the traffic laws. I no longer drive on Christmas Eve or New Year’s eve. Too many drunks on the roads.
Says ” he U.S. Office of Personnel Management, a central agency that serves as the corporate human resources organization for the federal government, performs the majority of background checks”
Not FBI.
On what you wrote
just about any material statement
Still needs to be material. Some lies are not material.
You were previously trying to get the definition of “material lie”. You seem to be trying to go somewhere else on this now.
lucia (Comment #170443)
September 10th, 2018 at 11:13 pm
“You were previously trying to get the definition of “material lieâ€. You seem to be trying to go somewhere else on this now.”
_______
Yes, after reading the following quote from my previous link, I wondered if failure to correct an unintentionally incorrect material statement made earlier could be breaking the law, since such failure
would be a misrepresentation:
“Because the lie need not occur in an official proceeding under oath, the existence of an ongoing investigation raises the likelihood that § 1001 would be relevant: it will sweep up almost all misrepresentations made to government officials in the course of that investigation.”
Re FBI and security clearance, I was wrong. I had this confused with the FBI background check, which is a check on an individual’s criminal record. Sorry, for the confusion.
SteveF (Comment #170436)
September 10th, 2018 at 6:30 pm
“I know you reject all this, and there is no need to continue beating a long dead and rotting equine. But I believe you are very mistaken.”
________
Well, isn’t it moot since the FBI has no reason to be interested in me.
But anything can happen, and I should have a plan. If the FBI wants to meet with me, I will call my lawyer and my CPA, and do whatever
they recommend. The possibility the FBI will contact me, however, will be at the bottom of my list of things to worry about.
Tom Scharf,
Yes, people in the top 1% (and especially in the top 0.1%) tend to have a lot of year-to-year variation in income. As you said, this can be due to capital gains, but can also be because those individuals own small to medium size businesses, where year-to-year variation in earnings is potentially large. They can also be in investment banking or hedge funds, where earnings are often linked to stock market prices.
.
A better measure of economic inequality is the huge range personal assets (or if you prefer, personal wealth). I believe who is in the top 1% of wealth varies less year-to-year than who is in the top 1% of earnings. For the top 0.1%, in wealth, year-on-year income is much less important. For the top 0.01% in wealth, year-on-year income variation is mostly irrelevant.
.
A winning issue for Democrats (were they ever able to get past their derangement over Trump) would be the huge discrepancy in how different kinds of income are treated; the very favorable treatment of earnings for mostly super-wealthy individuals (eg the “carried interest” treatment of huge incomes, very low rates for capital gains, etc) tends to “lock-in” the secure position of the very wealthy with tax benefits most voters do not and never can enjoy. But since Democrats protect the super-wealthy from taxes (that is after all where they get a lot of their their funding), and can’t stop machinating about Trump 24/7, it is unlikely they will ever seize this issue.
OK_Max,
No. Failure to correct afterwards doesn’t make it breaking the law.
Traditioally perjury only happened after a person had been sworn in (often for a jury). That meant the person questioned was on alert there was legal (not just moral) jeopardy for lying. The part you are quoting only extends the “breaking the law” bit to cases where you have not been sworn in at all and the FBI is asking “in the course of an investigation”.
So now, even if you have not been sworn in and you don’t know they are asking “in the course of an investigation”, if you intentionally mistate anything that is “material”, you are committing a crime.
That’s what’s happened to people in the Trump administration. They were not sworn in.
Lucia,
I think very few people understand that you are always under oath when you talk to a Federal agent of any kind (heck, even a Fish and Wildlife agent!). Which is why you are under no obligation whatsoever to answer questions posed by Federal agents; to be so obliged would violate your 5th amendment right to not testify against yourself (under oath!). The requirement of the “Miranda warning” addresses the specific case of criminal arrest, but I think there needs to be a Miranda-like warming required any time a Federal agent wants to ask someone a question.
SteveF (Comment #170446)
September 11th, 2018 at 6:41 am
Also stock options and bonuses. Whatever happened to income averaging for federal taxes?
Kenneth Fritsch,
“Whatever happened to income averaging for federal taxes?”
.
Expired for most taxpayers in 1986. Still in place for farmers and fishermen. I suspect income averaging reduced taxes too much for too many individuals with large year-on-year income variation. I used it twice, just before it expired; it was a substantial benefit.
.
Yes, there are many tax advantages for very wealthy individuals. But nobody in Congress is going to touch this issue; too many campaign contributions put at risk. Revocation of the carried interest rule was (unsurprisingly) quietly dropped from the tax reform bill passed by Congress last year. You’ll also be burning corn ethanol, and extra money, in your car for the rest of your life, even if corn ethanol doesn’t make a pinch of difference in total CO2 emissions, and spending far more for foods with sugar in them than you should have to. The soft corruption of political influence peddling is, sadly, everywhere.
SteveF (Comment #170446): “A better measure of economic inequality is the huge range personal assets (or if you prefer, personal wealth).”
Wealth is an even worse measure of inequality than income. Yes, it usually varies less from year to year. But it is far more age dependent. I think it also excludes pensions, which makes it very misleading for moderate income persons. And it excludes intangible assets.
Consider two people, same age. One has a net worth of $0.00. The other has a net worth of -$100K. Which one is wealthier? The guy living under a bridge. Who is better off? The doctor with a bunch of outstanding student loans.
.
Personally, I see no good reason to measure inequality.
Mike M,
“Personally, I see no good reason to measure inequality.”
.
Which seems to be why you object to any measure of wealth at all. Sure, wealth is not always simple to measure, and can often include intangible assets (like a newly minted medical doctor’s degree) but there are indeed huge discrepancies in wealth. There is no reason to exclude pensions, or 401Ks, or any other asset, from an evaluation of individual wealth. And yes, wealth does tend to increase with age for many people (though certainly not all); that is not even relevant.
.
I have no problem with people becoming wealthy. I have no problem with people having large incomes. I do have a problem with wealthy people getting favorable tax treatment for their income because they are politically influential. I also have a problem with sugar farmers and corn farmers, and the whole of the corn-ethanol industry, getting protection from far more efficient competition… only because they are politically influential. I have a problem with unions being able to coerce people into paying union dues when they want to have nothing to do with the union… again, a symptom of political influence.
.
There is a good reason to be aware of the large inequality in wealth: poor people vote, and with little skin in the game, they may not vote to sustain the current economic structure. If they are being disadvantaged by the structure of tax laws, and I believe they clearly are, then they will vote accordingly. At present, 1% of the population controls ~42% of all wealth, while the bottom 50% of the population controls just over 1% of all wealth. The multi-decade trend is for an ever increasing share of total wealth to be in the hands of an ever decreasing fraction of the population. This is politically unsustainable. Tax laws that don’t give favorable treatment to the income of the wealthy seems to me a perfectly reasonable way to start addressing the problem.
SteveF (Comment #170450)
September 11th, 2018 at 7:28 am
It helped me several times before it expired.
Taxes should be viewed in light of what motivates politicians to impose taxes. It is two fold: 1. To grow government ever bigger and 2. Tax whatever is most expedient politically as in tax the wealthy because their are fewer voters in that class and tax the lesser wealthy by using emotional issues like sin taxes or do it indirectly by taxing an entity that will pass the tax onto prices paid by the less wealthy.
There are no Civics 101 high minded motivations or well thought out issues such as fairness behind taxation no matter what big government advocates might want us to believe.
Apparently most of the 1% get their income through capital gains instead of salary. It has become similar to a signal to noise measurement, the noisier the individual measurements (income) are, the large the ratio of percentiles are. Before measuring this ratio, the income noise needs to be removed for this intended purpose.
.
It’s not hard to measure income or wealth disparities by age bracket. Here is breakdown by age and percentile which is the best way to look at it I think. https://dqydj.com/the-net-worth-of-different-age-groups-in-america/
.
Also see the income vs. net worth vs age chart here: https://dqydj.com/correlation-of-income-and-net-worth-america-2016/
.
The wealth disparity (vs income disparity) is very large. A wealth ratio is pointless because these numbers easily go negative. The number of people with near zero or worse wealth (20%) in this country is dominated by the young, especially now with college debt. Wealth also has an income thresholding function, you need to have extra income to generate wealth.
.
A wealth tax should be a very seductive issue for politicians, that is one tremendous pile of money. Some states have personal property taxes that are recurring asset taxes. I consider this double, triple, … taxation so am opposed on those grounds, as well as the point that this wealth is not sitting around in Uncle Scrooge’s vault but is invested in wiser ways than what the government would do. No doubt wealthy donations will disappear once somebody supports that.
.
The entire tax system is a Rube Goldberg machine. Once you give somebody a tax break it is really hard to take it back. The left is making almost zero noise on recalling the Trump tax breaks.
The * perception * of unfair treatment regarding income and wealth will cause social upheaval, regardless of if it is true. This is why using a measurement that tells you what you really want to know is vital. Unfortunately these are messy statistics that are hard to get right even when you have no agenda. An exacerbating problem is the declining trust in (wealthy) elite expertise and the media. “Trust us, those sub prime mortgages aren’t going to cause a problem, we are Ivy Leaguers”. It’s making this volatile and the risks of exploitation by those with agendas is high. Economic socialism is the answer!
.
Part of the increasing wealth disparity is that the total wealth is expanding which makes the PDF tails spread out in both directions. Long tail statistics are easily mined for great sounding talking points, see climate change.
The link below allows one to see who pays most of the federal taxes currently.
Income inequality is something that will always be with us in a capitalistic oriented economic system and allows wealthy individuals to invest their capital and grow the productivity of the economy which in turn improves the standard of living for all.
This argument is probably too complicated for most politicians to use and/or they see it as greatly reducing the influence of politicians and thus they use income inequality in attempts to extract more taxes for growing the government.
In socialist oriented societies you have more equal and low incomes by just about all except those running the government directed show.
Government expenditures vs GDP is about 38%. So we are getting taxed at about 38% (ignore debt for the moment) one way or the other. Everywhere there is a pile of money, the government is taxing it.
.
There are way too many stealth taxes which makes individual overall level of taxation very difficult to measure. Everyone pays gas taxes and sale tax. Medicare, social security, corporate taxes passed to customers, cable and cell taxes, property taxes, state income tax, city taxes, county taxes, license fees, and on and on and on.
SteveF (Comment #170452): “I have no problem with people becoming wealthy. I have no problem with people having large incomes. I do have a problem with wealthy people getting favorable tax treatment for their income because they are politically influential. I also have a problem with sugar farmers and corn farmers, and the whole of the corn-ethanol industry, getting protection from far more efficient competition… only because they are politically influential. I have a problem with unions being able to coerce people into paying union dues when they want to have nothing to do with the union… again, a symptom of political influence.”
.
I agree with all of that
.
SteveF: “There is a good reason to be aware of the large inequality in wealth: poor people vote, and with little skin in the game, they may not vote to sustain the current economic structure.”
.
That is why I object to the way wealth and income stats are misused. The misuse of those stats is designed to make inequality seem far greater than it is in order to drive a wedge into society and undermine the economic system that produces our wealth.
.
SteveF: “At present, 1% of the population controls ~42% of all wealth, while the bottom 50% of the population controls just over 1% of all wealth.”
.
That stat is so misleading as to be entirely bogus. In the U.S., retirement funds amount to about $19 trillion, compared to about $90 trillion in total wealth. A big chunk of that $19 trillion belongs to the bottom 50%. A big chunk of the bottom 50% consists of students and people just starting out, they often have negative net wealth. A person with a $250K home and a $200K mortgage controls far more wealth than his net worth.
.
The large majority of the bottom 50% are not poor in any meaningful sense.
.
SteveF: “The multi-decade trend is for an ever increasing share of total wealth to be in the hands of an ever decreasing fraction of the population.”
.
Only because of starting from an entirely atypical point in time and by ignoring most of the wealth of ordinary people.
The amount of retirement savings the bottom 50% have is quite small. The median retirement savings for all families (includes those without retirement accounts) is about $8,000 at age 55. 30% have zero.
.
One can imagine that future social security/pension benefits could be reasonably counted as wealth.
lucia (Comment #170447)
September 11th, 2018 at 6:44 am
So now, even if you have not been sworn in and you don’t know they are asking “in the course of an investigationâ€, if you intentionally mistate anything that is “materialâ€, you are committing a crime.
_______
Yes, clearly the defendant committed a crime if his misstatement was intentional and its material. On the other hand, If defendant’s material misstatement was unintentional, and he discovers his error later(say in a few days), but fails to inform the authorities, he also may have committed a crime by keeping his mouth shut. Or maybe not. I don’t know.
I feel like I’m going in a circle on this subject. I’m sorry for wasting your time if we have already covered it.
_______________________
Back to your Comment #170440
You said “I believe in my situation, the likelihood the FBI would ask me to come in to talk to them is practically zero. However if they called me in for reasons unknown to me to question me on some matter, I would take that as an indication that I may well need a lawyer.”
_____
If the FBI wants to talk someone, I don’t know how it goes about setting up the interview (when, where, the subject, etc). If agents just show up unannounced at your work place or home, I suppose
requesting (or demanding in a nice way) an appointment at a later
date would not seem unreasonable, depending on their reason for wanting to talk. Unless it were about an urgent matter, I imagine
the FBI would contact you to arrange an appointment. I don’t know how much they would tell you ahead of time about the subject of discussion.
I also don’t know what the FBI would think if you insisted on having your lawyer present before answering any questions. The agents might think you are just doing what they would do in your place
or they might suspect you have something to hide.
I know one thing for sure. If the FBI wanted information on a possible crime that occurred in my neighborhood, say a kidnapping, I most certainly would not say “I ain’t saying nothing until I have a lawyer.”
I would try to be as helpful as I could be.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170459)
September 11th, 2018 at 10:38 am
The amount of retirement savings the bottom 50% have is quite small. The median retirement savings for all families (includes those without retirement accounts) is about $8,000 at age 55. 30% have zero.
.
One can imagine that future social security/pension benefits could be reasonably counted as wealth.
______
Sounds reasonable. Your Social Security wealth depends on how long
you live, which means you don’t know for sure how wealthy you are when you start drawing it. But when you are about to expire, you can know how wealthy you have been.
Looks like Florence is predicted to make landfall and then basically stop for a couple days. This is very rare and now it has happened 2 years in a row. Gargantuan rainfall when this occurs. This will no doubt be called the “new normal” because of climate change. The models always predicted what the last storm did somehow, but they can never tell us that beforehand for some reason, ha ha.
Mike M,
“That stat is so misleading as to be entirely bogus. In the U.S., retirement funds amount to about $19 trillion, compared to about $90 trillion in total wealth. A big chunk of that $19 trillion belongs to the bottom 50%. ”
.
Actually it is not bogus at all. If you think a big chunk belongs to the bottom 50%, please show data supporting that. The $19 trillion in retirement funds is not mostly in the hands of the bottom 50%, it is mostly in the hands of the middle and upper middle class.
.
There is no need to get bogged down in the details. No matter how you look at it, the changing nature of the US economy (indeed the global economy) financially rewards some people (“knowledge workers”) much more than others, and those that are falling behind are those who do not have the skills in demand in today’s economy. The multi-decade trend is very clear. The growing disparity in accumulation of wealth is a natural consequence of growing disparity in income. How could it be otherwise? (not rhetorical)
.
If conservatives choose to simply ignore the growing disparity in wealth, bad (political) things will happen to them. The current tax structure is heavily tilted to give very favorable treatment (low tax rates) to the income of wealthy individuals. This needs to change, and very soon, or Republicans will find themselves in the political wilderness.
SteveF (Comment #170463)
“No matter how you look at it, the changing nature of the US economy (indeed the global economy) financially rewards some people (“knowledge workersâ€) much more than others, and those that are falling behind are those who do not have the skills in demand in today’s economy.”
________
Some attribute the long-term decline in the male labor force participation rate at least in part to “those who do not have the skills in demand in today’s economy.” Others believe the decline results from a supply side deficiency, basically saying more and more men aren’t worth a sh*t for moral reasons rather than lack of skills.
Regardless of the reason, a growing imbalance between labor force supply and demand could turn into a big problem for society and the
economy. I believe people need to feel useful.
The top 2.7% pay over half of income taxes. I’d argue that until you get to $100 k of AGI, you’re being carried. The bottom 62% of earners pay 5.6% of the income taxes.
SteveF,
If our tax structure is tilted towards those with high incomes, then how come after the Trump tax cuts, the top 20% of filers by income is estimated to pay a larger fraction of total income taxes in 2018 (87%) than they did before the cuts (84%, 2017)? In fact, the US has an extremely progressive income tax, possibly the most progressive in the world since we don’t have a VAT. The top 1% is estimated to pay 43.3% of total income taxes in 2018 compared to 38.0% in 2017
The cut in the corporate tax rate makes the US corporate tax rate comparable to the rest of the developed world rather than leading it by a large margin.
Max_OK,
Sure it’s hard to know the net worth of Social Security and Medicare for an individual, but that’s what actuaries are for. The estimates as a group are as accurate as mortality statistics allow, which is pretty accurate.
In 2015 the net present value (lump sum) of Social Security benefits for the average retiree at age 66 was ~$280,000 for a male and $335,000 for a female. For someone collecting the maximum benefit, the lump sum value was $572,000 for a male and $683,000 for a female. Note that delaying collection of SS benefits has little effect on the net present value. IMO, it makes little sense to spend down your capital, assuming that you have it, to collect higher payments in the future unless you know for sure you’re going to live past 100.
Likely a similar calculation can be done for Medicare benefits and employer pensions. I’ll leave it up to someone else to look that up.
Max_OK.
On the other hand, If defendant’s material misstatement was unintentional, and he discovers his error later(say in a few days), but fails to inform the authorities, he also may have committed a crime by keeping his mouth shut. Or maybe not. I don’t know.
He hasn’t. I don’t understand why you seem to keep not knowing this. It only matters if it was intentional at the time he made the mistatement. If it was not intentional at the time he made the mistatement, then it was not intentional. It cannot become intentional because of something that happens after the statement was made. So: not illegal according to the statue you found.
Unless you find another statute that says the person is required to come in and correct when they realize their error, it is not illegal. Because the statue you posted merely says it has to be intentional. If I mistate unintentionally on Tues. Sept 11, at 5 pm, and then realize my mistatement on Wed Sept 12, my mistatement was remains unintentional. Remembering does not suddenly make what I did the day before intentional.
Now… it would be true I might be intentionally not going in and correcting the record. Maybe that’s just bad as intentionally mistating. But it’s still a different act, and this different act is not described as illegal in the statute. If this different act is not made illegal by a statute, then it is not illegal.
DeWitt,
Of course, income tax is not the whole story. Payroll tax, medicare, and employer matching are far more important for lower income employees.
.
But don’t misunderstand me: I am suggesting that it is the very wealthy who get special tax treatment for most of their income. For example, the top 20% or top 10% in income do pay at relatively high marginal rates. But a very wealthy person who gets most income from capital gains and/or share dividends pays much lower marginal rates than the maximum. The absolute amount paid is not the issue (a billionaire pays a lot of tax, in absolute terms, of course), it is the low rates the very wealth pay that is the issue.
People in the top 1% of income changes from year to year, with people selling businesses.
Even the other 99% has a lot of S corp being listed under personal income tax.
Capital gains tax is a tax on new money, and similar to regulations serves the interests of the wealthiest in adding costs to competitors.
Re lucia (Comment #170467)
lucia, I’m afraid I have beat this subject into the ground, so if you
spend little or no time in responding, I will not complain.
Inaccurate statements on a form (e.g., a form SF-86) are subject to criminal penalties, under U.S. Criminal Code, Title 18, § 1001, according to the linked source. Possibly inaccurate material statements given verbally during an investigation could also be subject to criminal penalties under this code. My interpretation is “inaccurate statements†includes unintentional misstatements. My interpretation could be wrong.
But suppose unintentionally inaccurate verbal material statements aren’t subject to criminal penalties, the defendant has made such a statement, discovers his error before the investigators find his
statement to be untrue, and either (a) informs the investigators of his error, or (b) remains silent. If he reveals his error, the investigators may be inclined to accept his explanation that the error was just the result of a faulty memory rather than an intentional deception. On the other hand, if he has remained silent, the investigators may believe his intention was to deceive, and consequently charge him with lying. So in effect the unintentionally inaccurate material statement ends up being subject to criminal penalties anyway.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170466)
“If our tax structure is tilted towards those with high incomes, then how come after the Trump tax cuts, the top 20% of filers by income is estimated to pay a larger fraction of total income taxes in 2018 (87%) than they did before the cuts (84%, 2017)?”
___
DeWitt, I believe that referred to households with incomes of $150,000 or more, an arguably low amount to be considered a high income. I wonder if the results would be different if the cutoffs were raised to households with incomes of $500,000 or more, $750,000 or more, and $1,000,000 or more?
You said “Sure it’s hard to know the net worth of Social Security and Medicare for an individual, but that’s what actuaries are for. The estimates as a group are as accurate as mortality statistics allow, which is pretty accurate.”
Dewitt, thank you for those interesting statistics on Social Security payouts. While the dollar amounts don’t necessarily apply to a specific individual, since no individual knows with certainty how long he will live, these amounts can be helpful for an individual’s
planning.
“I believe people need to feel useful.”
.
This is the biggest problem we face i believe. People don’t scream for money, they scream for (well paying) jobs. Those who think universal income will solve things are wrong in my view. Most people have a yearning to be respected and useful, and to be contributing team members of their family/tribe. Desire for respect is not correlated to cognitive ability.
.
The losers in the cognitive lottery want to be respected, and they most certainly are not being respected by a certain segment of society. This is an explosively stupid way to treat people. “They don’t understand facts, they are racists, they are xenophobes, rednecks, deplorables, etc.”. People are murdered routinely over disputes on respect. Feeling disrespected and humiliated are very powerful emotions. The left preaches that lesson for gays, trans, and immigrants. Class based disrespect is a dangerous tool to use for those on top. It costs almost nothing to treat people with respect.
SteveF would you care to elaborate on what you see as political means to a more equal distribution of income and further how equal should that income distribution be.
There are tried and true means of getting incomes more equal and considerably lower on average, but that requires a very large and authoritarian government. It usually results in everybody being unhappy and the need for an even stronger government to keep the populace from revolting.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
To be illegal it has to first be knowing and willful. That’s the mens rea. If there is no mean rea, it’s not a crime. Abbreviated text on a form that forgets to mention the “knowing and willful” part does not change the law. That’s not how our legal system works.
Honestly, it’s amazing that you both think you could be breaking this law by doing something that is unknowing and not willful and also think you somehow would not need a lawyer when talking to the FBI merely because you didn’t know or ever intend to lie! If it was actually illegal to lie unintentionally you would obviously need a lawyer when you talked to the FBI merely to prevent you from ever, ever, ever making a false statement. That amounts to having the lawyer force you to answer either “Let me check and verify.” or “I don’t have a record of that in my diary so I can’t really be certain” as an answer to every single freakin’ question!
But in short: it doesn’t matter what that freakin’ form says if the mistatement was neither knowing nor willful it is not illegal. If it was neither of those at the time you said it it can’t become “willful” retroactively later. Not going back to clear things up is a different act from making a willful statement and doesn’t violate that statute. If it violates anything, someone needs to point to that other statute.
OK_Max,
For that matter, to check on the lawfare blog’s completeness, go read the form. It ways
The U.S. Criminal Code (title 18, section 1001) provides that knowingly falsifying or concealing a material fact is a felony which may result in fines and/or up to five (5) years imprisonment. In addition, Federal agencies generally fire, do not grant a security clearance, or disqualify individuals who have materially and deliberately falsified these forms, and this remains a part of the permanent record for future placements. Your prospects of placement or security clearance are better if you answer all questions truthfully and completely. You will have adequate opportunity to explain any information you provide on this form and to make your comments part of the record.
The blogger left out the words “knowing and willful” from her blog post. A blogger leaving these words out does not delete them from the form nor the law. I realize you are very impressed with that blog post. I’m sure it was not the intention of the blogger to mislead or confuse you. She just wants to put this in context of Flynn and the risks that happen when discussing the FBI. But if you want to understand the specific issue about “willful” which she does not address, you need to read the underlying documents. If you read them you “uncertainty” about this should disappear.
So in effect the unintentionally inaccurate material statement ends up being subject to criminal penalties anyway.
No it doesn’t. Because a blogger writing a brief post that leaves out the issue of “intentionality” both from the statement of the law, and when describing the warnings on the form, cannot magically change the actual law which requires it to be intentional.
An important distinction on “unintentional” lies is who has the burden of proof on knowing, willful, etc. once that lie has been made and shown to be a lie. I “suspect that the suspect” has this burden, ha ha. Every intentional liar is going to claim it was unintentional.
.
Some lies could be easily proven unintentional, ESPN reported the Yankees lost 10-7, the suspect said “the Yankees lost 10-7”, but the Yankees really won 10-7 because ESPN misreported it. He technically lied but had a reasonable basis for saying that statement. Somebody has to judge the lie. This is not a knowing lie, but only for illustration of how there are lies of different classes.
.
If you do an Andrew McCabe, then you lied multiple times, determined that your lie was exposed, then went in to correct the record after that. This isn’t going to cut it. Andrew McCabe should have the burden to correct the record before his lie was exposed to avoid prosecution.
One of these lying exercises I have run across is when you apply for new auto insurance, you typically get queried for previous claims as insurance companies don’t always share information. So I tell them everything I know, then they said “what about that 2009 claim?”. This is a material lie of omission that I would be motivated to make for financial gain. I just forgot about it. They asked me to detail claims live on the phone, I did my best, but failed because my memory is flawed.
.
Who is to say if this was intentional or unintentional? How could you possibly prove it? It’s quite convenient to say I forgot, forgive me.
.
Which is one example of why it is dangerous to go into a live interview without knowing what you will be asked. If the FBI told me “We are going to interview you on auto claims under penalties of a felony if you don’t get it right” then I would certainly remember the 2009 incident. Going to jail because I “lied” about the 2009 incident isn’t something that seems like fair justice.
.
One doesn’t need to be too cynical to understand that the FBI uses live interviews because they actually hope you will lie. It’s a useful tool to help them get their answers. The problem is the penalty compels reasonable people to not talk to them at all.
SteveF:
“But a very wealthy person who gets most income from capital gains and/or share dividends pays much lower marginal rates than the maximum.â€
What you said is true. My main job is doing personal income tax returns. The Mitt Romney effect where he looked bad for paying only about a 12% rate on his huge income.
Qualified dividends can be taxed favorably with a lower rate. Part of the logic is that corporations pay a tax and from what’s leftover after that, they may pay out as dividends, that can be taxed again. Almost all dividends are taxable income with some exceptions being things like, return of capital which is a rare situation.
A lower long term capital gains rates has some kind of logic like, It’s good to investment in places like Amazon. So then Amazon will pay corporate taxes and hire people. It was good for people to invest in Apple so that my son can buy the latest phone and have a MacBook. And that was a good scene in Forest Gump. One less thing to worry about.
Favorable taxation of qualified dividends and long term capital gains are good for at least one reason. To offset the many decades of us listening to people tell how bad corporations are.
Today’s most humorous news. $1 million was crowdfunded, if Sen. Collins votes for Kavanaugh then they pay her opponent the $1M. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/12/activists-raised-million-defeat-susan-collins-if-she-votes-kavanaugh-she-says-its-bribery/
.
It is almost universally acknowledged that this is illegal. This of course happens all the time in reality, but not blatantly in the open by unsophisticated people. Consider the quid pro quo of NRA election funding.
.
“Adav Noti, a senior director at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, which works on rules of ethics and finance in government, told The Post that he thought the listing was illegal, noting that bribery is a federal crime.”
Kenneth Fritsch,
There are no panaceas, because the growing inequity in wealth has many causes, not the least of which are globalization of production and increasing compensation for those able to most contribute economically to the global economy.
.
The tendency for people to consider only income tax when looking at the progressiveness of taxes ignores reality on the ground: lower income people pay a substantial portion of their income to Social Security and Medicare, while wealthy people pay only a very small fraction of their income for these taxes. Social Security and Medicare benefits are hardly connected to lifetime social security taxable income; the suggestion that people “earn” their Social Security and medicare benefits is a fantasy, and one we can do without when considering federal tax burdens.
.
That said, there are a few things which I think would help under the heading of “Stop giving very wealthy people very favorable tax treatment”: First, no more ‘carried interest’ scam. Second, treat all exercised stock options granted to employees (the difference between the option price and the actual stock price) as normal income on the day of exercise or upon death of the employee. Third, capital gains should be treated as normal income, with an automatic inflation adjustment for gross profits on the sale of assets held more than 2 years (this eliminates most of the “inflation risk” for legitimate long term investments). Fourth, stop taxing C-corp profits which are distributed as dividends, and treat those dividends as normal income (fully taxable) for the shareholders; tax retained profits at C-corps at the highest marginal rate for individuals.
.
There are other things that can be done, but the above is a reasonable start.
Tom Scharf,
“Hurricane Florence is Trump’s fault says the WP editorial board.”
.
Of course it is Trumps fault. Everything bad that happens in the world is Trump’s fault… and the fault of the people who voted for him.
SteveF (Comment #170483): “The tendency for people to consider only income tax when looking at the progressiveness of taxes ignores reality on the ground: lower income people pay a substantial portion of their income to Social Security and Medicare, while wealthy people pay only a very small fraction of their income for these taxes. Social Security and Medicare benefits are hardly connected to lifetime social security taxable income; the suggestion that people “earn†their Social Security and medicare benefits is a fantasy, and one we can do without when considering federal tax burdens.”
.
Uh, no. Social Security benefits are tied closely to tax eligible earnings. https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/question-and-answer/how-are-social-security-benefits-calculated.html
There is a progressive component to the benefits, but that makes the overall system beneficial to the lowest income people.
.
Medicare benefits are the same for all, but the tax is an uncapped flat tax, plus the Obamacare surcharge on high earners. So again the overall effect is progressive.
.
A progressive tax, like the income tax, is appropriate for paying the common expenses of the country, like defense and internal improvements. But is is not appropriate for entitlements like Social Security and Medicare.
.
I strongly agree with SteveF that all income should be treated the same. As Ragnaar noted, the justification for treating unearned income differently is the corporate income tax. That tax accomplishes all sorts of other mischief and should be eliminated. But only if all income is to be treated equally.
There is also some progressive rules for how much of your SS it taxable. If you have no other income than none of it is taxable. If you have a bunch of other income (401K, IRA, etc.) then your SS is completely taxable. Sliding scale in between.
SteveF (Comment #170483)
September 12th, 2018 at 11:58 am
SteveF, as a libertarian I would not want to increase anybody’s tax burden and at the same time would like to reduce the size of government.
My plan would be along the lines of eliminating all government subsidies to businesses, and including farmers, and other groups and entities such as foreign aid. I would eliminate the SS and Medicare taxes for all low income people and at the same time means test the SS and Medicare payments with a publicized plan of continuing over time to lower the means levels for the means test so that higher income people could make plans accordingly. Means testing is something that liberals counter-intuitively oppose and thus must be a good tool for reducing the size of government. I think they see it as a way of eventually eliminating these programs and I, of course, would have to agree. I would also immediately reduce our military presence in the world and no longer support military bases in regions of the world where the US had military conflicts that have been concluded for decades. Also at this point I would not have the government involved in space programs on the basis that if it cannot be handled and justified for private investment it is not a good investment for government. I would also wean R&D from dependency on government money.
My instincts for the need for capital investments for increasing productivity and thus standards of living would go very much against higher taxes on capital gains. Our politicians are currently too much into the mode of Keynesian thinking that savings and investments are bad for the economy. That tendency allows politicians to ignore the growing debts at all levels of government.
One of my biggest problems with government that has not been sufficiently exposed is that arising from Federal Reserve policies whereby artificially low interest rates have been justified as a means to keeping the economy humming. Printing money out of thin air definitely favors those that have first dibs on this money and it greatly favors the wealthy and investments in equities as opposed to bonds. I do not hear those who complain about wealth distribution pointing to this action as a problem.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170486)
September 12th, 2018 at 2:47 pm
Only up to 85% as I recall.
Tom Scharf,
Up to 85% (not 100%) of Social Security benefits are taxable if income (adjusted gross income and nontaxable interest plus one half of Social Security benefits) is greater than $34,000 for an individual or $44,000 if married and filing jointly. Below $25,000 for an individual or $32,000 for a joint filing, there is no tax on SS benefits. For the intermediate range, up to 50% of benefits are considered taxable income. The taxes on benefits go into the ‘trust fund’.
As long as there is a cap on maximum benefits, then there should be an income cap on Social Security taxes. In 2015 only 6% of workers earned more than the cap of $128,400.
Kenneth,
I do not hear those who complain about wealth distribution pointing to this action as a problem.
Trump has, in fact, castigated the Federal Reserve for hiking interest rates. Like tariffs, this would hurt the majority of his base.
Mike M,
The Medicare payroll tax is 2.9% (half out of your paycheck and half indirectly paid by your employer). Medicare tax is not applied to income from other sources (interest, dividends, capital gains etc.). It is true that the Medicare tax is not capped for payroll earnings, but that is irrelevant: wealthy people pay absolutely nothing on non-payroll income, which is often most or even all of their earnings.
.
“But is is not appropriate for entitlements like Social Security and Medicare.”
.
Why? (real question) How about food stamps, unemployment benefits, general welfare benefits, Medicaid, veteran’s benefits and other “entitlements”; is funding from general revenues inappropriate for all those things as well? (real question) If so, why? (real question) Seems to me money is fungible, and it is quite irrelevant where a specific dollar in the US Treasury came from. If you consider payroll taxes as taxes, the US system is not nearly so “progressive” as income taxes alone would suggest.
.
But that is not my biggest concern. My concern is that very wealthy people (like Mitt Romney) pay very low tax rates on very large incomes; Democrats pointed out how little tax Romney paid, and it hurt his candidacy. Trump (smarter than Romney!) simply refused to disclose his very low tax rate. But the real scandal is the very low tax rate for the very wealthy, not that some well known wealthy person took advantage of the low rates.
DeWitt,
“As long as there is a cap on maximum benefits, then there should be an income cap on Social Security taxes.”
.
Demonstrating that Franklin Roosevelt’s bedtime story about Social Security being “like insurance” lives on.
Minimum current Social Security benefit (required earnings of ~$60,000 in 2018 dollars over a total of ten earning years…. $6,000 per year) is about $1,200 per month. Maximum benefits (paying the maximum possible amount over 40 years, say roughly equal to paying taxes on ~$3 million 2018 dollars) is just under $2,900 per month. So, a 50-fold change in contributions generates a 2.4 fold change in benefits. There is little connection between benefits and contributions.
lucia (Comment #170476)
“Honestly, it’s amazing that you both think you could be breaking this law by doing something that is unknowing and not willful and also think you somehow would not need a lawyer when talking to the FBI merely because you didn’t know or ever intend to lie!”
______
Of course I would want a lawyer in that kind of situation, but it is extremely unlikely I would ever be in that kind of situation. As I said to you in my Comment #170380 back on Sept. 9, “I might take the precaution of having a lawyer present in interviews with the police or FBI. It would depend on the situation and nature of the interview.” I believe that was my initial comment on the subject. As I said to SteveF in my Comment # 170445 “If the FBI wants to meet with me, I will call my lawyer and my CPA, and do whatever they recommend. The possibility the FBI will contact me, however, will be at the bottom of my list of things to worry about.” I can see how some of my comments in between those two could be misinterpreted as a change in my position, but it has not changed.
The article starts by saying “You, dear readers, know my advice about talking to the FBI: don’t. If the FBI — or any law enforcement agency — asks to talk to you, say “No, I want to talk to my lawyer, I don’t want to talk to you,” and repeat as necessary.â€
Can you imagine yourself saying “No, I want to talk to my lawyer, I don’t want to talk to you,” if the FBI showed up at your door investigating a kidnapping in your neighborhood.
Not there wasn’t any good advice in the article, but I did find it exaggerated the risk of talking to the FBI or police.
For those of you counting at home, SS is based on your top 35 earning years, so if you have 35 decent years of earning you are pretty much maxed out, early retirement won’t change your benefits. The SS website has that record.
.
I have found the decision to collect at 62 versus 70 to be mind numbingly confusing. If you knew what future investment returns were and how long you are going to live then it is easy. If you have just 401K’s and IRA’s (as opposed to a fixed pension) then it may be best to collect later for a hedge against living a long time and running out of money. If you have enough to fund you for a long time then more money sooner might be advisable.
SteveF (Comment #170491): “How about food stamps, unemployment benefits, general welfare benefits, Medicaid, veteran’s benefits and other “entitlementsâ€; is funding from general revenues inappropriate for all those things as well?”
.
I was using entitlements in the older, narrower sense of something to which one is contractually entitled in return for having done something. So pensions, Social Security, Medicare (yeah, I know you refuse to admit that). I know people use entitlement to mean social welfare spending, but I resist that since it destroys a perfectly good word without gaining anything. Welfare would not fit the narrow definition of entitlement. Veteran’s benefit’s would, but that is obviously part of defense spending.
.
SteveF: “Seems to me money is fungible, and it is quite irrelevant where a specific dollar in the US Treasury came from.”
If you refuse to recognize distinctions that 250 million or more other people recognize, then you will come to different conclusions than those people. That is your prerogative. But please don’t pretend that it is impossible for others to see things differently, especially when you know that most people do.
.
SteveF: “If you consider payroll taxes as taxes, the US system is not nearly so “progressive†as income taxes alone would suggest.”
Yes. If you assume your conclusion, then your conclusion inevitably follows.
.
SteveF: “the real scandal is the very low tax rate for the very wealthy, not that some well known wealthy person took advantage of the low rates.”
On that, we agree.
SteveF (Comment #170493): “Minimum current Social Security benefit (required earnings of ~$60,000 in 2018 dollars over a total of ten earning years…. $6,000 per year) is about $1,200 per month.”
As I understand it, the benefit is based on contributions, but is not linear. Much like the income tax.
Max,
Can you imagine yourself saying “No, I want to talk to my lawyer, I don’t want to talk to you,†if the FBI showed up at your door investigating a kidnapping in your neighborhood.
Not there wasn’t any good advice in the article, but I did find it exaggerated the risk of talking to the FBI or police.
Heck yes, I can imagine it. The FBI have sent a lot of innocent people to prison over time and they know it. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/fbi-evidence-single-hair-kirk-odom
I said I’d shut up about this, but as our Almost Madam President famously said, at this point what difference does it make.
[Edit: From the article (and this is only three years ago mind you):
I asked Whitehurst why he thought the FBI had stuck with hair comparisons years after the scientific credibility of the technique had been called into question. “It got convictions,†was his simple reply.
I tell you, these guys are not on your side.]
Tom Scharf (Comment #170474)
“It costs almost nothing to treat people with respect.”
_________
Amen !
I think it’s its own reward, but I suppose some don’t get anything out of treating everyone with respect
I guess it’s human nature for the rich to look down their noses at the poor, the educated at the uneducated, the pious at the sinner. It’s not a good part of human nature.
Thankfully, we do have upward mobility. Some cultures don’t.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170495): “I have found the decision to collect at 62 versus 70 to be mind numbingly confusing.”
I decided it was easy. My idea is that it is not about maximizing money, it is about minimizing risk. I do not need my SS or CPP (that’s Canadian for Social Security) in the short term, so I will wait until I am 70 to maximize the monthly benefit. That will be a hedge against investments going bad or old age getting really expensive (always a possibility).
mark bofill (Comment #170498)
September 12th, 2018 at 6:17 pm
Max,
Can you imagine yourself saying “No, I want to talk to my lawyer, I don’t want to talk to you,†if the FBI showed up at your door investigating a kidnapping in your neighborhood.
Not there wasn’t any good advice in the article, but I did find it exaggerated the risk of talking to the FBI or police.
Heck yes, I can imagine it.
____
It was supposed to go without saying that you didn’t take part in the kidnapping.
:p
Read about it Max. https://www.businessinsider.com/people-may-have-been-wrongfully-executed-because-the-fbi-messed-up-evidence-2015-4
Nine (9) people have been executed based at least in part on bogus FBI hair microscopy. Twenty one (21) are still on death row.
These people were innocent. You would have advised them that they had nothing to fear from the FBI. Their lives were destroyed, and nine of them were killed.
.
I don’t care what you believe. Still, periodically if you insist on proclaiming here that it makes no sense to lawyer up against the FBI when you know you’re innocent, I may rebut you because readers at a casual glance might mistake silence for agreement.
“Hurricane Florence is Trump’s fault says the WP editorial board.â€
Along with Iraq War and high spending, hanging George W Bush with Katrina was a major media campaign in 2005 leading to Democratic takeover of the House.
The polls are not coming in as favorable to Democrats as they’d like, and they are getting desperate.
SteveF:
Attribute carried interest existing to the swamp. Assume the tax treatment is a scam. It’s about 0.001% of all taxable income.
“…treat all exercised stock options granted to employees (the difference between the option price and the actual stock price) as normal income on the day of exercise or upon death of the employee.â€
From what I see, most of it is. I call them one day trades. The employee walks away with cash and and their ‘gain’ is treated as wages. As for the people that hold the stock, we aren’t talking about a lot of money. As long as we’re talking about capital gains, we could talk about capital losses that are capped at $3000 a year.
Lower long term capital gains rate have a long history. They were highest when Nixon, Ford and Carter were in office. You just won when they reduced the difference between ordinary rates and long term capital gains.
Your fourth point is making this too complicated. What if they retain them for 6 months and then invest them leading to an eventual write off? You’ve already taxed them, and then you need to make up more rules following what Congress thinks is fair. Get rid of the corporate tax. The corporate tax rate is the most discussed issue as a whole party dislikes them or acts like they do. Just listen to Sanders talk.
MikeN (Comment #170503): “Along with Iraq War and high spending, hanging George W Bush with Katrina was a major media campaign in 2005 leading to Democratic takeover of the House.”
Bush was not blamed for Katrina. He was blamed for the incompetent government response to Katrina; most of that blame was deserved. FEMA is almost entirely patronage, not Civil Service, and Bush replaced the Clinton people who did a good job with his own people who did not.
Max-OK “Can you imagine yourself saying “No, I want to talk to my lawyer, I don’t want to talk to you,†if the FBI showed up at your door investigating a kidnapping in your neighborhood.”
…..
I can. The FBI is legally entitled to lie.
…..
A short example as to how the FBI tried to frame my father many years ago. My father was golf pro at a public course. People were selling stolen tickets to the old Cleveland Open PGA golf tournament at the golf course. My father (an Italian) had nothing to do with it, but was aware that stolen tickets were being sold.
When the FBI first questioned my father, he lied about knowing about the stolen tickets at the golf course. (Wonder whether that was a crime at the time — He was afraid that if he got involved some Mafia types might knife him) He felt guilty about it and called the FBI and told them that he had lied and had seen stolen tickets at the golf course.
…..
What was the FBI’s response? When the Cleveland Open was played several weeks later, instead of asking holders of the stolen tickets where they got the tickets from, the FBI asked them whether they got the tickets from Tom (not father’s real name) If one person had lied about the source of the tickets, and said that my father had sold them, my father would have probably been convicted of theft and some sort of conspiracy or fraud.
JD
Should have said above that my father called the FBI the next day to tell them that he had lied and seen the stolen tickets.
Peter Strzok text message:
“Also, apparently Times is angry with us about the WP (Washington Post) scoop and earlier discussion we had about the Schmidt piece that had so many inaccuracies. Too much to detail here, but I told Mike (redacted) and Andy they need to understand we were absolutely dealing in good faith with them,†Strzok texted to Page on April 14, 2017. “The FISA one, coupled with the Guardian piece from yesterday.â€
Still, periodically if you insist on proclaiming here that it makes no sense to lawyer up against the FBI when you know you’re innocent, I may rebut you because readers at a casual glance might mistake silence for agreement.
_______
I don’t insist on that. I insist you read my writing more carefully. I insist you read your linked Business Insider article on hairs more carefully. Here’s a couple of quotes from that hair article:
“It’s possible that some of these people who were executed were wrongly executed,” Paul Cates, communications director of the Innocence Project, told Business Insider.
mark, this means it’s possible some and it’s possible none.
“The 33 inmates on death row now could have been wrongfully convicted as well, Cates noted.”
mark, this means could have or could not have.
BTW, it’s irrelevant, but did you know Asians have bigger hairs than whites?
OK_Max
I knew the hair diameter of most Asian hair is larger than that of most whites.
JD Ohio (Comment #170506)
September 12th, 2018 at 8:31 pm
Max-OK “Can you imagine yourself saying “No, I want to talk to my lawyer, I don’t want to talk to you,†if the FBI showed up at your door investigating a kidnapping in your neighborhood.â€
…..
“I can. The FBI is legally entitled to lie.”
_________
JD, I’ll give a more detailed scenario about the kidnapping.
Two FBI agents come to my door seeking information as a part of a kidnapping investigation. They want to know if I have seen anything
that might help them with the case.
FBI Agent: “Mr. Max do you recall seeing a small child and an adult getting into a car across the street yesterday afternoon?”
Me (being helpful): “Yes, I saw a little girl who lives across the street get into a car with a man and woman, a couple I had never seen. I would say they were in their 20’s, maybe 30’s, the woman was a blond, and the car was a black Camry, I think a 95 because I used to have one.”
or alternately
Me (being unhelful): “I ain’t saying nothing until I get a lawyer. If I’m not under arrest, get off my property.”
Here is another scenario, inspired by mark bofill’s recent post.
FBI Agent: “Mr. Max do you recall seeing a small child and an adult getting into a car across the street yesterday afternoon?”
Me (at mark’s recommendation): I won’t tell you anything without a lawyer, and maybe not even then. I’ve heard about how you FBI
guys operate.
FBI Agent (now lying): OK, but may we have one of your hairs. Collecting hairs is our hobby.
BTW, JD, it sounds like the FBI was just trying to verify your father’s
story, not entrap him.
ucia (Comment #170510)
September 12th, 2018 at 10:05 pm
OK_Max
I knew the hair diameter of most Asian hair is larger than that of most whites.
____
I used to date a Chinese girl. She told me about the hair diameter
difference, and I was skeptical. She plucked a hair from each of our
heads and showed me. Seeing the difference was easy.
I can’t recall seeing many balding Chinese and Japanese men. I read they are less likely to get prostate cancer than whites or blacks. Perhaps it has something to do with hormone differences.
Max: “Me (being unhelful): “I ain’t saying nothing until I get a lawyer.â€
If the FBI is being truthful (you never know if they are), they shouldn’t mind if a lawyer is present. I wouldn’t characterize you as being unhelpful. Just protecting yourself.
…..
Max: “JD, it sounds like the FBI was just trying to verify your father’s
story, not entrap him.”
To verify my father’s story all they had to do was to ask people where they got the tickets. Instead they suggested an answer. It was possible that dishonest people bought the tickets and upon hearing the suggestion they would want to protect the actual seller and finger my father.
……
The FBI was not entraping my father. They were dishonestly suggesting an answer which could have been used to frame my father.
JD
Global native incidence of male pattern baldness: https://www.htandrc.com/images/Apicture4.png
.
If you are male, then the closer your ancestors were to the Mediterranean, the more likely you will become bald. Interestingly, men in Japan do bald at a rate of 20% to 30% (the higher rate in the north of Japan), but usually don’t start balding until their 40’s and 50’s rather than their 20’s and 30’s.
Ragnaar,
According to the CBO, carried interest treatment as long term capital gains results in a difference in taxes collected of about $2 billion per year (maybe a bit more in years with strong market performance). In 2018, total Federal income taxes are projected to be $2,300 billion, so the carried interest treatment represents a little under 0.1% of total income taxes collected (not anything like the 0.001% you suggested). And you know what they say: a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you are talking real money. But more to the point: it is a very valuable tax treatment given to a very small (probably well under 20,000) and very wealthy fraction of taxpayers who are politically influential. Nobody except fund managers can benefit from this special treatment of income.
Mike M,
I was mistaken about the level of “progressiveness” in Social Security Benefits; the benefits are not a progressive as I thought. The table here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)#Estimated_net_benefits_under_differing_circumstances shows that monthly benefits increase by a factor of ~3.6 for an increase in lifetime earnings by a factor of 10. Still, the system is extremely favorable to those with lower lifetime earned income, especially considering that Medicare benefits are the same for everyone. At the higher income levels, the increase in monthly benefits with rising income history is very small, topping out at $2,788 per month.
.
We will have to agree to disagree about whether on not all dollars at the Treasury are the same.
.
But I stand by my original comments: unless substantial changes are made in Federal tax structure, there will be a continuing and politically unsustainable increase in wealth discrepancy. We ignore this at our peril.
Max,
Like any distribution, the extremes are least likely. The probabilities that all of them were innocent and all of them were guilty are lowest. Probably some were in fact innocent and some were in fact guilty.
.
This is neither here nor there.
.
We have an adversarial legal system. The FBI can be a powerful adversary. Fortunately, our legal system provides powerful defenses for those who must deal with the FBI – but those defenses must be exercised by competent representation to be effective. The stakes are extremely high: years of life, reputation, savings, ability to make a living.
.
Don’t trust the competence or supposed benevolence of a powerful adversary who’s interests don’t necessarily coincide with yours. Avail yourself of the powerful protections our system entitles you to. Don’t trust the FBI. It’s not even a secret that they will lie to you, mislead you, and even threaten you if they believe it will further their investigation; this is documented. Get expert protection.
,
That’s all I have to say. I think we’ve already established that Max won’t find this persuasive, this is for any other casual lurkers reading.
SteveF, MikeM,
I tend to agree with SteveF. I tend to see money as fungible and view the notion there are actual “pots” of money as an accounting fiction. That’s true even if legislation is what creates the fiction.
OK_Max
I read they are less likely to get prostate cancer than whites or blacks. Perhaps it has something to do with hormone differences.
Maybe. But it could be diet, exercise, immune system differences…. all sorts of things. Obviously, there are other differences on average like skin tone, hair color, bone thickness and so on. Most are probably not due to hormones, so I wouldn’t guess hormones was more likely that something else.
Lucia,
The Social Security accounting is a fiction because the Supreme Court long ago ruled that the Social Security system is not in any way a binding contract between the voters and the Federal government…. the system can be (and regularly is) changed in any way Congress and the Executive want it to change; increased benefits, decreased benefits, higher tax rates, and even (implausibly!) lower tax rates…. or complete cancellation. People do not have any ownership rights at all to the ‘contributions’ in their ‘accounts’. Social Security taxes are just that.. taxes…. and the ‘accounts’ are as good as the word of politicians. Enough said.
SteveF,
That’s how I see it. They are taxes, collected through this “payroll” mechanism. When collected, they are a regressive tax. At payout, the payouts tend to be more generous to those on the lower end of earnings. Money collected has been collected. There is no guarantee the payouts will remain as currently defined; historically they have changed. (Admittedly, they’ve historically generally changed to be more generous rather than less. But I suspect that will reverse because it has to.)
Above someone discussed the difficulty in figuring out whether to start collecting when you are young vs. when you are old. Most (I think all) are done with the assumption the payout system will not change drastically. That’s probably a fairly safe assumption over 5 years.
If we take the view of 20-30 years of payouts, I wouldn’t be so sure. Congress could decide to reduce payout based on other income stated on IRS forms. They could decide to compress so the difference between max and min is higher or lower. The could decide any number of things and will almost certainly change it in some way.
You can’t really account for that in the calculation other than to recognize checks you get this year are checks you got. Predicted benefits are less certain.
SteveF:
I assume your numbers are correct. I was wrong. Carried interest is AKA money you give your broker for no reason. I use low cost index funds and give nothing to a broker. I do give ballpark 0.12% of my total investments to a large mutual fund each year.
Money one gives to a broker is money one doesn’t have to pay income taxes on as it’s no longer there. The broker does have to pay tax on it unless he’s a crook besides being a broker. Where do I get this uncharitable attitude? I see people’s finances. So anyways, we are down to the differing tax treatment. It does surprise me that 1/10 of 1% of our economy is carried interest. Still 2 billion isn’t much. I think you can get 2 baseball stadiums in Minnesota for that. Or are they football stadiums? Your carried interest numbers are in what context? See the S & P 500 since about 2009. Thank you President Obama. Lately it’s been a lot of money as stock returns have been unusually high in my opinion. Reviewing my attitude about brokers, carried interest is more like ordinary income than capital gains. That didn’t sound right. Without regard to my attitudes about brokers, it’s more like ordinary income than capital gains. Blame it on the swamp. Looking at the bigger picture, we find more people are moving to low cost index funds. The problem is solving itself as people realize brokers can’t pick stocks any better than my cat can.
Ragnaar,
I’m sure my cat can and does pick stocks and lotto numbers very well. The problem is he refuses to tell me which to pick. I’ve asked him occasionally. He just looks away and either walks to the spot that communicates “I want treats”, or the spot that communicates “I want you to brush me”.
I give him the treats and brush him, but he still won’t tell me which lotto numbers or stocks to pick. Dang cats!
Lucia,
“Congress could decide to reduce payout based on other income stated on IRS forms. They could decide to compress so the difference between max and min is higher or lower. The could decide any number of things and will almost certainly change it in some way.”
.
The options to make Social Security “sustainable” are many:
* Means test benefits (some of that already with Medicare)
* Push back retirement age a year or two, then index to longevity
* Increase the maximum wage for FICA taxes
* COLA adjust based on inflation rather than wages
* Raise FICA/Medicare tax rates (yet again) by about 1%
* Other options… like funding from general revenue
.
Will Congress adopt any of these? Each has political downsides, so, no time soon is the best guess.
Ragnaar,
“Still 2 billion isn’t much.”
.
Good to know. I’ll much appreciate if you wire 0.01% of that to me.
😉
The real goal of social security is just to make sure old people don’t die in the streets of starvation, and give them a little self respect if they worked a little bit for a living. Curiously Asians are twice as likely to have multi-generational households. This could be part of their … ummmm … embedded cultural advantages or it may reflect that China was a third world country no less than 50 years ago and this was a financial necessity.
.
I have seen enough of Asian households to stereotype them as both much tighter and much more authoritarian. When you go to “real” Chinese restaurants, especially on the west coast, and observe large Asian families it is almost bizarre how well behaved young children are. I don’t know about today, but a decade ago beating a child in an Asian grocery store on the west coast wouldn’t raise an eyebrow.
.
I often wonder if these cultural differences reveal themselves economically. The US is chaotic and more innovative, Asia is more authoritarian and better at repetitive manufacturing.
I doubt Congress would be brave enough to alter the payout mechanism for existing SS retirees or those near retirement. There would be a voter revolt. They are reducing payouts currently by moving back the retirement age with is 67 for me. They can change the rules for those entering the system or more than 20 years away from retirement with much less career risk.
.
Means testing seems like an obvious answer but I find this emotionally revolting. I go crazy when systems are setup so that the responsible people are punished the most. I lived below my means, I put in the most, but get out zero? Realistically public sector pensions are going to have to solve their problem first and this might be a meaningful learning exercise. A federal bailout of public sector pensions while facing their own SS crisis would be … disappointing.
.
You can lift the cap on SS salary deductions. Mass immigration of working people would also help.
SteveF,
Your proposed solutions to the Social Security unfunded liability problem are a substantial part of the reason I started collecting benefits at 62. It’s called preserving capital. Victorian England was big on that. Too many people only look at cash flow when they should be looking at net worth. Delaying benefits by spending capital early decreases your net worth and makes you more dependent on the government.
If you were:
1. A median income worker
2. Didn’t contribute to SS / Medicare
3. Instead invested that money in stocks / bonds
How much would you have at retirement today?
.
Invested in SP500: $2.07M
Invested in bonds: $510K https://www.crystalbull.com/Social-Security-Privatization-Calculator/
.
Using the 4% rule of thumb one would get $80K / $20K per year. This calculation assumes you wouldn’t have Medicare though.
Privatization of Social Security looks great when the stock market is at an all time high. The results would have been very different if you did the calculation in 2009.
The numbers for 2008 are there. $676K, $379K.
JD Ohio (Comment #170513)
September 13th, 2018 at 12:38 am
Max: “Me (being unhelful): “I ain’t saying nothing until I get a lawyer.â€
“If the FBI is being truthful (you never know if they are), they shouldn’t mind if a lawyer is present. I wouldn’t characterize you as being unhelpful. Just protecting yourself.”
_______
In my scenario there was an urgent need for my information because a child’s life could depend it.Time was of the essence. It would have been unconscionable for me to insist on waiting for a lawyer to be present before providing information.
Tom Scharf,
“Using the 4% rule of thumb one would get $80K / $20K per year.”
.
For ever, without ever reducing the value of your assets!
.
But here’s the thing: the system is not, never was, and never will be an investment or savings program. It has always been and will always be a means to fund welfare for elderly people by taxing youger people. Because politicians are in fact politicians, for almost all of Social Security’s history, much of the collected social security tax was “loaned” to the Treasury at superlow interest rates, and used to fund general expenditures….. the consequences of that are the current “shortfall” in the Social Security ‘trust fund’, along with rapidly growing real (that is, contractually obligated) Federal debt.
.
The only important questions are the future generosity of the welfare, the resulting overall tax burden, and most of all, who pays that tax burden. These are purely political questions.
OK_Max (Comment #170532): “In my scenario there was an urgent need for my information because a child’s life could depend it.Time was of the essence. It would have been unconscionable for me to insist on waiting for a lawyer to be present before providing information.”
It seems to me that OK_Max is stubbornly refusing to listen to JD and mark and they are stubbornly refusing to listen to Max.
Of course there are situations where you would talk to the cops and even the FBI without a lawyer present. But one should not do that when there is a possibility that you, or someone with whom you are associated, is under suspicion.
Even then, there are exceptions. If a cop pulls me over, it is likely because he suspects I have done something wrong. But in most cases, saying “I refuse to speak with you without my lawyer present” would cause me a whole lot of unnecessary trouble.
There is a place for suspicion of the authorities. There is also a place for a bit of common sense.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170531): “The numbers for 2008 are there. $676K, $379K.”
So the privatized account would give you maybe $20K per year. Enough to pay for your health insurance, with a bit left over.
lucia (Comment #170519)
September 13th, 2018 at 7:09 am
OK_Max
I read they are less likely to get prostate cancer than whites or blacks. Perhaps it has something to do with hormone differences.
Maybe. But it could be diet, exercise, immune system differences…. all sorts of things. Obviously, there are other differences on average like skin tone, hair color, bone thickness and so on. Most are probably not due to hormones, so I wouldn’t guess hormones was more likely that something else.
________
The Japanese diet is different (lots of fish, maybe less sugar) and
obesity isn’t as prevalent. Life expectancy is high.
The link talks about prostate cancer, baldness, and testosterone.
Looks like testosterone is a culprit. Maybe diet and obesity affect
testosterone.
If you take the bottom of the worst crash in 40 years and then subtract 10 years of investment returns the number will be lower, yes. This was only an interesting data point, I’m not advocating removing SS. Just comparing alternate scenarios.
.
If you took those low numbers, the annuity calculations for 20 year payout / 4% growth rate:
$676K = $48K / year.
$379K = $26K / year
.
The full term numbers:
$2.07M = $146K / year
$510K = $36K / year
.
Also remember this is for just one person. A two person household median worker / SP500 would retire at $292K per year.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170538): “If you took those low numbers, the annuity calculations for 20 year payout / 4% growth rate:
$676K = $48K / year.
$379K = $26K / year”
Annuity calculators are often misleading. Social Security does not quit after 20 years. It is also indexed. If you buy an annuity that works that way, then in your mid-60’s you pay something like 25 times the initial annual payout. So:
$676K = $27K / year
$379K = $15K / year
Not so great.
There is a trade off between return and risk. Social Security is very low risk. So of course the return is less than with higher risk investments.
I look at my Social Security as part of my portfolio. I regard it as a very valuable part although I would not want more than a minority of my retirement income to work that way.
If you are relying on Social Security for the bulk of your retirement income, then you are either in the income range where it is an extremely good deal or you are very lucky the government did not let you manage that portion of your money.
Wealth inequality used to be a lot worse than it is now. Cornelius Vanderbilt, when he was constructing Biltmore, had an income equivalent to 0.1% of the US GDP at the time. That would be an income of about $20 billion/year in current terms and an adjusted net worth of $205 billion in 2014 dollars. John D. Rockefeller was richer at $253 billion. Bill Gates is twelfth on the CNN list of the top twenty richest Americans of all time at $74 billion. The only other people in recent history on the top twenty list are Warren Buffet and Sam Walton.
Ragnaar is correct, carried interest is peanuts compared to the elephants in the room of the Fed’s multiple Quantitative Easings and ZIRP. The Democrats complained that the Reagan tax cuts were trickle-down economics. QE and ZIRP didn’t even begin to trickle down. It all went to big banks and Wall Street. IMO, they were much bigger factors in increasing income and wealth inequality than tax favored treatment of carried interest income or even capital gains.
Tom Scharf,
“I have found the decision to collect at 62 versus 70 to be mind numbingly confusing.”
.
Not sure why. You are playing blackjack against the house in Las Vegas. The house has to hit 16 and stay on 17… it doesn’t matter if the players at the table have good cards or bad… hit 16, stay 17. The house (the Feds) are always betting on millions of ‘hands’ (millions of retirees), OTOH, you are looking at and betting on a single hand. And the difference is (a very key difference!) you know better your chance of survival to a very old age much better than they do. If everyone in your family dies at 94 to 100 years old, then by all means opt for the later retirement; you will have a long and more comfortable retirement. If most people in your family die by 69, then take the earliest possible benefit.
.
As DeWitt correctly notes, for a retiree with no (zero) information about longevity in their family (eg an adopted child) the boost in benefits with later retirement almost exactly matches the lower expected actuarial benefit period… so it is a wash. For people like me, where most males in the family do not survive much past 78-82, taking benefits at “normal full retirement age” is sensible (earlier would make sense for me except that benefits are taken away if you have continuing income). For the unfortunate few who are likely, based on family history, to die relatively young (eg <75), taking benefits ASAP usually makes the most sense.
DeWitt,
” IMO, they were much bigger factors in increasing income and wealth inequality than tax favored treatment of carried interest income or even capital gains.”
.
Sure, there are multiple causes for the growing discrepancy in wealth, and there is good reason to consider them all. But carried interest treatment of normal income is as much a poster child for gross inequity as anything else… especially if you believe $2 billion per year in avoided taxes by very wealthy people is “not very much”, as Ragnaar suggests. Favorable treatment of capital gains, dividends, and more are designed to help the most wealthy taxpayers avoid anything like the maximum marginal rates. I would be perfectly happy if the very wealthy ($500K per year and up) paid ~37% of their income in taxes. I am a lot less happy if they pay ~16-20%, because people with MUCH lower incomes, and much less ability to pay, pay a much higher percentage. It does not matter if the number of very wealthy people who benefit is relatively small compared to the total population, what matters, both practically and politically, are the existing tax rules which are designed to help those who least need the help. Until this changes, the playing field will be tilted in the favor of the very wealthy.
SteveF (Comment #170543)
” For people like me, where most males in the family do not survive much past 78-82, taking benefits at “normal full retirement age†is sensible …”
_________
Sensible if you are fatalistic. Possibly you could extend your longevity by finding out why most males in you family didn’t survive much past 78-82, and then doing whatever you can to postpone or prevent the same causes from affecting you.
It’s definitely a risk assessment exercise.
.
I think it also matters what your other retirement funds are. I have only 401K / IRA’s. So if I did live to 98 but planned on the other funds running out when I am 85 then it seems that using the fixed benefit of SS after 70 might be the better play.
.
I haven’t done the math of starting at 62, investing all that money for 8 years, and comparing that with larger benefits starting at 70 and then dying at the expected time. My understanding is that it is a wash if you live a normal lifetime.
.
Now if I lived to 95, is it not better to wait until I am 70 to collect? So my thinking was that if you have fixed assets at retirement then you wait until 70 to guard against living too long.
.
But there is more confusion. If you had 2x the money you needed at retirement then the SS at 70 decision is likely inconsequential, but I would collect early just in case I died early to maximize survivor benefits.
.
But then there is more! If you had 2x the money you needed then you can stay aggressively invested in stocks throughout retirement which changes the expected rate of return.
.
You could just buy an insurance annuity with your lump sum at retirement to avoid the length of life risk, but I’m hesitant to do that because I don’t trust the annuity providers, they basically just put your money in the stock market for themselves.
.
That’s why my head spins.
OK Max,
” Possibly you could extend your longevity by finding out why most males in you family didn’t survive much past 78-82, and then doing whatever you can to postpone or prevent the same causes from affecting you.”
.
Sure, and I could also pray a lot (nah, I’m not a believer). As I often say, if you want a long and healthy life, be very careful about choosing your parents.
.
We are engines with a limited lifetime, and that lifetime, though wildly unfair, varies quite a bit; we all have to get over that. It makes sense to avoid known risk factors (don’t smoke, don’t ride a motorcycle, if you do, wear a helmet), don’t be very obese; exercise regularly, and be prudent in what you eat and drink. All sensible, and all unlikely to have much impact on lifespan for most people. Being fatalistic about your demise has its pluses; being rational about your inevitable demise is even better.
OK Max,
I played golf the day before yesterday with a very nice man; a retired cancer surgeon (and obviously very well off, with multiple houses and frequent international travels with his wife). He was about 6′ 1″ and not at all overweight. While he looked 70+ he told me he was just past 63, and retired only 8 months ago. When I asked why he had retired at a relatively young age, he said that most of the people in his family did not make it to 70, and he figured that if he kept working, he would have zero time to enjoy the ‘fruits of his labors’. For me, it was perfectly rational and understandable: he absolutely looked like hell for 63, and even though he is super active (rowing, hiking, skiing, biking, golfing) those things are unlikely to save him from the grim reaper if his clock ticks too fast.
Everyone is a ticking cancer bomb. You have a 40% chance of getting cancer before you die and a 22% chance of dying from it. Color me a bit disappointed in food “science” and other lifestyle “science” that ended up much less reliable than they confidently told us it was. Being obese is a real risk, being overweight isn’t. I haven’t come across very many 300 lb 90 year olds. Being overweight isn’t really very helpful in any way though.
.
And here is an example of this bad science. Look closely at the “Increased BMI associated with decreased life expectancy” chart here: https://www.rethinkobesity.com/the-science-of-obesity/chronic-disease/comorbidities-risk-of-mortality-of-obesity.html
.
Notice something strange?
.
Here is another chart that seems like science: http://asserttrue.blogspot.com/2013/03/body-mass-index-vs-longevity-latest.html
SteveF (Comment #170547)
“It makes sense to avoid known risk factors (don’t smoke, don’t ride a motorcycle, if you do, wear a helmet), don’t be very obese; exercise regularly, and be prudent in what you eat and drink. All sensible, and all unlikely to have much impact on lifespan for most people.”
______
Fatalistic thinking again. Not healthy.
The mind and the body affect each other. If your mind tells your body it will last 78-82 years, your body may just do what it’s told. I’m not sure about this, but it could be.
You mentioned avoiding risk factors but said nothing about routine check-ups. Early diagnosis can be a life saver.
OK Max,
“The mind and the body affect each other.”
.
“You mentioned avoiding risk factors but said nothing about routine check-ups.”
.
So which is it: mind over matter or medicine over fate? (not rhetorical)
.
Good nutrition and immunization against major diseases have made the greatest addition to life spans compared to a century ago. Treatment for some otherwise fatal illnesses help (especially bacterial infections that ended so many lives early). A lesser influence is more effective treatment for illnesses of old age (cancer, cardiovascular disease, etc). Everything else is mostly fooling around at the margins. The average age at death has increased dramatically, of course. The maximum age remains about the same. We are machines with a limited lifespan. Use the time wisely.
OK_Max (Comment #170550)
“You mentioned avoiding risk factors but said nothing about routine check-ups. Early diagnosis can be a life saver.”
Possibly.
but most things discovered at routine check up have to have been there a while, possibly 3 years before a breast cancer is big enough to detect. meanwhile all the other 2 years 11 months missed ones are now 4 years 11 months or later when reexamined.
Furthermore the outcome is dependence on the aggressiveness of the determined cancer, not the stage so much.
In other words the 2 year 11 month one that may kill you has already spread pre the chance of removal and the one that was “OK” is still alright to remove, was not a worry.
Finally checking inconveniences lifestyle and causes unwarranted stress and ill health. Lost count of the number of women who, on hearing they need a biopsy for a detected breast lump, panic and stress for weeks, over nothing. 90% of biopsies reveal benign disease which they then sometimes had unnecessary operations for out of fear.
Colonoscopies higher rate of negative with a risk small but real, have seen 2 perforations of the bowel leading to death.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it is a , not very good but sometimes appropriate maxim.
Note, I like routine testing. Used to order screening CEA, Ca125 tests until gently suggested it was a good idea not to do tests that no-one knew what to do with the results.
SteveF (Comment #170551)
September 13th, 2018 at 7:02 pm
OK Max,
“So which is it: mind over matter or medicine over fate? (not rhetorical)”
SteveF, I think it’s both. A healthy mind and a healthy body
are complimentary. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying you
can will away a terminal disease, but the better the
mind can deal with the anxiety and depression, and the
pain, the less devastating the condition will be. The
medicine can help with the coping.
________________
angech (Comment #170552)
“Note, I like routine testing. Used to order screening CEA, Ca125 tests until gently suggested it was a good idea not to do tests that no-one knew what to do with the results.”
Sometimes ignorance is better than knowledge. Suppose you feel fine, have no symptoms, but a test shows you have an incurable condition than likely will kill you in 2 to 3 years. Who would want that kind of test?
I’m sorry I brought all this up. It’s not a fun topic.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170538)
Tom Scharf (Comment #170529)
September 13th, 2018 at 9:17 am
If you were:
1. A median income worker
2. Didn’t contribute to SS / Medicare
3. Instead invested that money in stocks / bonds
How much would you have at retirement today?
.
Invested in SP500: $2.07M
Invested in bonds: $510K https://www.crystalbull.com/Social-Security-Privatization-Calculator/
.
Using the 4% rule of thumb one would get $80K / $20K per year. This calculation assumes you wouldn’t have Medicare though.
_______
But if everyone mindlessly invested in the S&P couldn’t the resulting rise in the P/E ratio eventually set the stage for a colossal crash?
Since I have a substantial investment in a S&P index fund, I would
welcome more buyers driving the price up, but at some point I would
fear the party is over, and pull out. It might take many years.
DeWitt
Your proposed solutions to the Social Security unfunded liability problem are a substantial part of the reason I started collecting benefits at 62
You seem to have done exactly the calculation I suggested most don’t do. You did it in your head, but basically you know colleting now means you spend your capital more slowly and more importantly you get the SS income before “solutions” get implemented that might reduce later payouts.
They are good at hurricane track predictions now, but they still suck at predicting power. Florence is still offshore and down to Cat 1 now. They might have to resort to calling it SuperStorm Florence, ha ha. I hope the WP gives Trump proper credit for reducing the storm size.
.
It is always amusing when this happens because the weather men / people / persons / they’s / zse’s act so disappointed that it didn’t cause a catastrophe.
Lucia
“..you spend your capital more slowly and more importantly you get the SS income before “solutions†get implemented that might reduce later payouts.”
.
Yes, that does reduce the risk that “solutions” to address the funding shortfall would reduce future payouts. But realistically, changes which would substantially reduce payouts to current (or near future) recipients would be so politically dangerous that few politicians would be likely to support them. For example, a change from indexing benefits to inflation rather than to average wages would have a significant impact on the unfunded liability in the 2040 and later time frame, but would have only a very small effect over the first 10 or so years. People like DeWitt and me would receive benefits that keep up with the cost of living. Only people due to retire well in the future would be impacted, since inflation adjusted average wages tend to increase over time, but benefits would not…. pain far in the future is a formula politicians like a lot. Pain now is avoided at all costs.
Lucia,
BTW, the edit function seems to work about 1 time in 5 now… I don’t know if that is something at your end or mine. Could be a recent Windows update, but I see the same thing running Chrome on a Galaxy S8, so the same problem on multiple browsers and operating systems.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170556): “They are good at hurricane track predictions now, but they still suck at predicting power. Florence is still offshore and down to Cat 1 now.”
Any forecast has a range of outcomes. Florence was always going to weaken rapidly as it made landfall. I think that it lost major hurricane status just a few hours earlier than predicted. Last year they missed the track for Irma enough that it hit the west coast of Florida rather than the east coast.
The real danger from Florence was always the rainfall. They are still predicting 20+ inches over quite a wide area.
Worst case scenarios are vital for emergency planning. The media seize on those while ignoring uncertainties. The result is that things almost always end up significantly less bad than expected, which will lead people to discount warnings in the future. Eventually, the wolf will come and a lot of people will die.
Irma was a close call last year. The media were so busy shouting from the rooftops that Miami was going to wash away that people in Tampa were caught off guard when the track shifted. Luckily, Irma weakened dramatically at land fall.
Tom Scharf (#170556): “I hope the WP gives Trump proper credit for reducing the storm size.”
No credit offered. Based on comparing a forecast with observed conditions to one with “conditions modified to remove the estimate climate change signal from the temperature”
For Hurricane Florence, we present the first advance forecasted attribution statements about the human influence on a tropical cyclone. We find that rainfall will be significantly increased by over 50% in the heaviest precipitating parts of the storm. This increase is substantially larger than expected from thermodynamic considerations alone. We further find that the storm will remain at a high category on the Saffir-Simpson scale for a longer duration and that the storm is approximately 80 km in diameter larger at landfall because of the human interference in the climate system.
HaroldW,
Those people are are absolutley nuts.
Let’s just say the standard deviation for storm strength at landfall is not improving much, and forecast track prediction is. https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/verification/verify5.shtml
.
Hurricane Andrew went from 90 mph to 155 mph in 24 hours as it approached Miami. This is a critical parameter.
.
They are different measurements so they can’t be directly compared. They are absolutely terrible at hurricane season prediction. Not much better than throwing darts, but getting a little better.
HaroldW,
These things drive me crazy. They get a model that is already known to predict increased rain/drought/floods/etc. with climate change, then run it against recent conditions where it rained a lot, and make a striking discovery that the model predicted increased rain. Model validated!
.
It’s likely the model predicts increased rainfall amounts in areas where there are currently droughts. It is really weak tea when they do this, but the media laps it up. Team Science doing their Team Science thing.
.
Ask them to actually predict something, like in the future. You will get a Yogi Berra response “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future”.
And just to complete my hurricane rant. This is the new propaganda with hurricane trends: http://euanmearns.com/atlantic-hurricane-trends-and-mortality/
.
Clearly they are getting worse .. or something. Cleverly hidden to the layman is they are counting all Atlantic “storms”. It is fortunate that they had satellite coverage for the last 150 years so they wouldn’t miss any storms that didn’t make landfall. Turns out they didn’t so they estimate the storms they missed and miraculously get the answer they think is right. Sigh.
.
So what can you count reliably? Landfalling hurricanes and especially major hurricanes that make landfall. These are not missed. A different picture. http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2014/08/normalized-us-hurricane-losses-1900-2013.html
.
What does the satellite era show? https://fabiusmaximus.com/2018/02/17/klotzbach-paper-new-insights-about-hurricanes/
.
What did the IPCC say in AR5:
“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basinâ€
.
Double sigh. I fault the media for only broadcasting a desired political narrative.
Tom,
I fault the media for only broadcasting a desired political narrative.
I think they teach that as the norm in journalism school now. (only slightly sarcastic)
Tom Scharf (Comment #170564)
September 14th, 2018 at 9:14 am
And just to complete my hurricane rant. This is the new propaganda with hurricane trends: http://euanmearns.com/atlantic…..mortality/
________
I don’t know why you cited that article. The author is a fossil fuel guy. He thinks some readers may not appreciate (or even know) that rescue ships and helicopters are powered by fossil fuel, or that wind power and solar power aren’t much good during during a hurricane.
Here’s what he says at the end of the article:
“Fossil fuels, the machines and infrastructure they have built have saved thousands and thousands of lives that were put at risk from hurricanes that are largely, if not solely, of natural occurrence. If you don’t believe me, why not offer the people of the British Virgin Islands rescue by wind and solar power alone and see what happens to them. None of the PV panels that may have been there will now be functioning. They are firing up the diesel generators and calling on the oil fired steel ships and helicopters of the Royal Navy to come to the rescue.â€
He might be interested in How Offshore Wind Farms Could Knock Down Hurricanes:
I don’t know if it’s practical, but it’s interesting.
OK_Max,
I was just pointing out the trend charts I have seen several times lately, I didn’t even read the article, ha ha. Sorry about that.
.
Wind farms knocking down a hurricane is absolutely psychotic and that was roundly laughed at when it came out. The amount of energy in a hurricane is gigantic. This is stopping an elephant with a mite on a flea.
.
Jacobsen is a bit of a whacko. He makes all kind of wild claims about getting the entire country to 100% clean energy by 2050 for low costs. A group of scientists eventually published a response to that as completely unrealistic, so he sued them for $10M. http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-jacobson-lawsuit-20180223-story.html
It’s not slowed down like it was predicted to.
HaroldW, thanks much from that very informative and thoughtful link about Flo’s intensities and the attributions to climate change. I think the deniers posting at this site would do better to note the following excerpt from that link:
This is a counterfactual forecast of Hurricane Florence if it were to occur in a world without human induced global warming.
The fact that the dire warnings about Flo’s intensity (wind speedwise) at land fall may have been off does not at all counter the brilliant work of the authors of this paper. I might well infer that counterfactually, given what actually occurred, had it not been for climate change we are probably looking at worst a tropical storm.
That Trump must assume blame here for pulling the US from the Paris accords must be viewed on a long term basis in that while the accords even if strictly adhered to would not have had any effect on this storm and very little on future storms of this nature the point is that those accords were the groundwork for a gradual path to a socialist approach to a global reaction to global warming – kind of like the frog in a gradually heated pot. Trump and his gang of right wingers and deniers decent reaction to the Flo experience and the linked paper’s conclusion would be to immediately re-instate the US participation in the Paris accords., but that is probably too much to expect from mean and evil people.
We have, of course, the WSJ article today about Flo in an effort to redirect attention to the fact that people continue to move closer to the coasts that are susceptible to hurricanes and with little or no insurance to cover the consequences and that in the end the taxpayer must absorbed where bailouts are instituted. It is as if the WSJ and their ilk do not understand that it is times like this that people need to be reminded with real examples that governments must be ever more powerful and most importantly depended upon by the citizens.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170567)
“Jacobsen is a bit of a whacko. He makes all kind of wild claims about getting the entire country to 100% clean energy by 2050 for low costs.”
_______
Tom, I think 2050 would be too soon even if a revolutionary breakthrough in electric storage technology occurred during the next few years. Clean energy’s share of total energy consumed should grow, but not that fast, and 100% may never be reached.
I see solar panels and all-electric cars in my future. Would buy the mid-priced Tesla if the price comes down. All-electric trucks and buses are a great idea. I hate diesel fumes.
OK_Max (Comment #170570): “I see solar panels and all-electric cars in my future. Would buy the mid-priced Tesla if the price comes down. All-electric trucks and buses are a great idea. I hate diesel fumes.”
Solar panels are a way to transfer wealth from poor people to upper middle income people. All electric cars may never be really practical, or at least not unless supercapacitors get really cheap. They have little advantage over plug-in hybrids. All electric might be really good for buses and delivery trucks. Hopeless for transport trucks.
Mike M,
“They have little advantage over plug-in hybrids.”
.
Well, they have the the distinct advantage of making the owners feel even better about themselves being super righteous and more cutting edge green than plug-in hybrid owners.
Re Mike M. (Comment #170571)
Mike M, I hadn’t thought about solar panels being a way to transfer wealth from poor people to upper middle income people. Are you trying to give me another reason to install solar panels?
I see more and more all-electric cars on the road. This could mean prestige and performance trumps practicality. Tesla owners seem very proud of their cars, and the acceleration is breathtaking! Those puny Prius hybrids save on gas but are snails from a standing start.
You are right about all-electric trucks and buses being good for short-haul but not long distance. But that could change.
OK Max,
“But that could change.”
.
Not unless chemistry is completely wrong. (hint: it’s not) If battery lifetime could be doubled or tripled, it would make a bigger difference than added range.
.
There are buses with huge batteries which can go considerable distances. Unfortunately, they are expensive, and the batteries have a limited lifetime, raising lifetime cost. Those in service in the USA are all (I believe) subsidized. A diesel bus is cheaper. Heck, a trolley powered by overhead wires is cheaper… but limited in route.
Re SteveF (Comment #170574)
“There are buses with huge batteries which can go considerable distances.”
____
Probably, and I imagine truck trailers could carry even larger batteries than buses can carry and go even greater distances. The purpose of these vehicles, however, is to carry passengers and freight, not huge batteries.
Despite subsidies, manufacturers of long-haul trucks may be wasting their time experimenting with all-electric if you are right about technology never making it cost effective. On the other hand, they don’t learn anything if they don’t try.
Self-driving all-electric eighteen wheelers may be the future of over-the-road trucking. Dedicated lanes with overhead wire pick-up might do it.
I had attempted to post a very sarcastic comment about hurricane Florence, but Lucia and/or her filters prevented it from going public. In retrospect it is just as well.
While the deaths and destruction from Florence are serious occurrences, I was not at all surprised that the MSM, with the exception of the WSJ, had little or nothing to say about the the population increases in these storm danger zones with higher property values and with less insurance coverage. Less than 10% of these risky home locations have flood insurance and those that do have insurance that is subsidized by the Federal government. In typical fashion governments are involved after the fact and seldom do we hear about funding either privately or by government to avoid these catastrophes or deal with them. There are major risks for people living in these zones that unfortunately governments have rendered much less risky.
That governments do not want to deal with reality applies to not only hurricane damages but to an item under discussion on another thread here: which is SS and Medicare funding. A great majority of politicians considered even discussing the problems of SS and Medicare as a third rail that must be avoided at all costs. When those who want to increase the size of government do not consider these rather obvious innate tendencies of politicians I have to conclude that their interests are not so much solving any problems but rather wanting bigger government regardless of the consequences.
Kenneth,
While the deaths and destruction from Florence are serious occurrences, I was not at all surprised that the MSM, with the exception of the WSJ, had little or nothing to say about the the population increases in these storm danger zones with higher property values and with less insurance coverage.
That’s understandable because otherwise it casts doubt on the climate change/sea level rise/more severe storms meme which is dogma for the rest of the MSM. The WSJ seems to have a more rational position on that, certainly on the editorial pages.
As far as Medicare/SS/state and government workers pensions go, I don’t think there is a soft landing solution anymore. There will be a reset of some sort with a lot of pain for all in the next ten to twenty years or so.
As far as Medicare/SS/state and government workers pensions go, I don’t think there is a soft landing solution anymore. There will be a reset of some sort with a lot of pain for all in the next ten to twenty years or so.
I agree. Any “catching up” for SS and Medicare and pensions will be a major drag on the economy and that is something that almost all protagonists for bigger government either do not understand or do not want to think about. Most of them will use the wishful thinking line that when the time comes the politicians will apply some “minor” tweaks and everything will be OK.
DeWitt,
“As far as Medicare/SS/state and government workers pensions go, I don’t think there is a soft landing solution anymore.”
.
Maybe, but I still hold out hope that Congress will come to its senses and make changes to soften the impact. Indexing benefits to inflation (rather than wages), pushing back eligibility by a year, indexing retirement age to logenvity, and lifting the limit on wages subject to FICA could, jointly, resolve the shortfall. I am not suggesting Congress will adopt these things (they are, after all, politicians). But there is at lease a reasonable chance, if not to resolve all the shortfall, to push it back the final reckoning by a couple of decades, giving more time to make the program sensible.
‘Windmills that knock out hurricanes’ I get the feeling that this would lead to ‘hurricanes that knock out windmills’.
Not only is Social Security (and Medicare and pension funds) going broke, but the monthly payments to many recipients is quite low and many of those recipients have come to depend nearly entirely or least too much on Social Security because they did not learn to save on their own. There is a great pool of voters here who politicians are going to want entice with ever greater Social Security outlays.
When we speak of fixing Social Security, which in itself is no easy task and without major economic repercussions, we have the political issue of people not saving and depending way too much on Social Security and thus the innate tendency of politicians to make Social Security even more financially unsound.
Social Security is not being used as it was intended, said Ric Edelman, executive chairman and co-founder of Edelman Financial Services in Fairfax, Va. and author of “The Truth about Your Future.†When Congress and President Franklin D. Roosevelt created the system in 1933 (and then passed the bill in 1935), the program was designed to be a safety net for Americans, he said — for those who had no financial support. Now, “a great many Americans are relying heavily on Social Security to maintain their lifestyle in retirement.â€
More than 66 million people received Social Security and/or Supplemental Security Income in August, more than 46 million of which were Americans 65 and older. Social Security makes up a majority of cash income for 61% of elderly beneficiaries, and a third rely on this benefit for 90% or more of their income, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a governmental budget policies think tank based in Washington, D.C. The average monthly retirement benefit under the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance was $1,326, according to the Social Security Administration. Retired workers received an average of $1,371 while spouses of retired workers received $714 and children of retired workers received $659.
I petition Congress to pass legislation that would increase Social Security benefits to provide a livable retirement for millions of Americans and their families, today and tomorrow.
Not only is Social Security (and Medicare and pension funds) going broke, but the monthly payments to many recipients is quite low and many of those recipients have come to depend nearly entirely or least too much on Social Security because they did not learn to save on their own. There is a great pool of voters here who politicians are going to want entice with ever greater Social Security outlays.
When we speak of fixing Social Security, which in itself is no easy task and without major economic repercussions, we have the political issue of people not saving and depending way too much on Social Security and thus the innate tendency of politicians to make Social Security even more financially unsound.
Social Security is not being used as it was intended, said Ric Edelman, executive chairman and co-founder of Edelman Financial Services in Fairfax, Va. and author of “The Truth about Your Future.†When Congress and President Franklin D. Roosevelt created the system in 1933 (and then passed the bill in 1935), the program was designed to be a safety net for Americans, he said — for those who had no financial support. Now, “a great many Americans are relying heavily on Social Security to maintain their lifestyle in retirement.â€
More than 66 million people received Social Security and/or Supplemental Security Income in August, more than 46 million of which were Americans 65 and older. Social Security makes up a majority of cash income for 61% of elderly beneficiaries, and a third rely on this benefit for 90% or more of their income, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a governmental budget policies think tank based in Washington, D.C. The average monthly retirement benefit under the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance was $1,326, according to the Social Security Administration. Retired workers received an average of $1,371 while spouses of retired workers received $714 and children of retired workers received $659.
I petition Congress to pass legislation that would increase Social Security benefits to provide a livable retirement for millions of Americans and their families, today and tomorrow.
I see our politicians are once again making us all proud in the Kavanaugh hearings, ha ha. What a slimy profession. I guess the incentives are just all wrong. Will all politicians please step down who at any point in their lives have squeezed a (redacted) without a formal written contract? They are probably hiding Trump’s phone from him to prevent him for saying something incredibly stupid on Twitter. Beyond a reminder of the ethics of our politicians there is little downside for the Democrats to do this, they basically win no matter where this goes.
Kenneth
have come to depend nearly entirely or least too much on Social Security because they did not learn to save on their own. There is a great pool of voters here who politicians are going to want entice with ever greater Social Security outlays.
Make no mistake. Even people who don’t need SSN payments to live on, want them to increase once they are eligible. In retirement areas, you will find people who one two homes, take vacations eat out and so on favor having their SSN checks increased. These people will always vote for bigger checks. Many become utterly blind to the idea that young whipper-snappers might deserve to have nice lives too.
Tom Scharf
I see our politicians are once again making us all proud in the Kavanaugh hearings, ha ha. What a slimy profession.
Without making any judgement about the woman’s story or how we should respond to it, it’s obvious that if Feinstein thought this was important information and she wanted to serve the nation (as all Congress critters should) and she was eventually going to use it, she should have done so in July or at least no later than August when the woman took a polygraph.
(Polygraphs are inaccurate. But the only reason to take a polygraph is to use the story. And for all I know you can shop around for polygraphs or practice. Nevertheless, once you’ve got a favorable to your story poligraph in anything other than politics there is no point in waiting.)
The reason for the wait is clearly to run out the clock– which is for partisan benefit. Sort of like football teams running out the clock and so no. But. Still….
They did something similar to Clarence Thomas. Once in a while, the camara would show Ted Kennedy!
Those discussing Social Security may be interested in the population projections in the Census Bureau report Demographic Turning Points for the United States: Population Projections for 2020 to 2060.
Chart 2 in the report shows dependency ratios, which are measures of the potential burden on the working age population:
Youth dependency ratio = (population under 18 / population aged 18 to 64) * 100.
Old age dependency ratio = (population aged 65 and older / population aged 18 to 64) * 100
The youth dependency ratio rose from 49 in 1940 to peak of 65 in 1960, before declining to 38 in 2010, but is not projected to decline much lower. The old age dependency ratio rose from 11 in 1940 to 21 in 2010. It is projected to rise sharply to 35 in 2030, and then increase more slowly, reaching 41 in 2060.
As the report says, “In coming decades, the United States is projected to shift from a youth-dependent population toward an elderly- dependent one.â€
Raising the retirement age above 65 is one way to reduce the old age dependency ratio. This has already been done to a small degree. The age for full Social Security benefits has been raised to 66 and 2 months for people born in 1955 and will gradually rise to age 67 for those born in 1960 or later, changes that will of course increases the size of the working population. Immigration of young workers is another way to increase the size of the working population.
These two ways of easing the burden of dependent retirees potentially have the advantage of not requiring an increase in Social Security tax or a reduction benefits , although raising the retirement age could be considered a benefit reduction.
A increase in birth rates as way of eventually reducing the old age dependency ratio has the disadvantage of first increasing the youth dependency ratio, and thus the total dependency ratio. Regardless, encouraging families to have more children likely wouldn’t work without substantial subsidies.
lucia (Comment #170588)
Yes, lie detector test aren’t 100% reliable, but I don’t know whether these tests are useless. I would like to take one to see if I can fool it.
I think I read that she also years ago told her therapist Kavanaugh tried to rape her, and may have told her husband too.
P-E Harvey,
There are similarities and differences with the Anita Hill story. Among the differences: The current woman is describing something that happened when she was 15 and attending an all girls school. Kavenaugh was 17 and attending an all boys school. The woman says she and her friends usually hung out with boys from a different school and Kavenaugh was an “acquaintance”.
Given the level of details revealed in the WaPo interview, it’s possible — even plausible– she barely knew him– or any of the 4 boys she says were at the party. That alone makes the possibility of her mis-identifying her assailant highly likely. Since she would rarely have seen him, and only reported the issue to her own husband later in 2002, she may have, by that point convinced herself it was Kavenaugh. It’s possible that, though mistaken, she believes her own story.
Also: in the story, the kids had all gathered at a spontaneous party at a house with absent parents. Kavenaugh and his friend were supposedly reeling drunk. At these sorts of parties, generally speaking, all the kids have been drinking and that she herself was somewhat drunk. This increases the potential that she might not have known who assaulted her– or easily mis-remembered later.
Bear in mind: even in her story, no rape occurred. So nothing was reported and no investigation happened. In fact, had she reported it, there was no rape. In fact, there was no sex. There may have been an assault or an attempted rape. But, lets defer that for now.
The other boy (whose name appears to be Judge) will likely now as an adult say he doesn’t remember anything about this. There seem to be no witnesses to this incident. She doesn’t report bruising any physical injury a person might have seen after she left the room. So, given the story as she told it, I don’t see how the police would have had anything to work with even if they were merely trying to figure out if a non-sexual assault took place. The story they would be working with would be:
A girl claims that a much larger very athletic in shape boy pinned her to a bed, held her down forcefully, covered her mouth to prevent screaming. He was so forceful, she was afraid she would die. She somehow managed to get away when the other boy jumped on the bed. She escaped with no bruises, no scratches, no evidence of any injury, and none of the other people at the party noticed.
Of course, it very well might have happened. Or not.
And now over 30 years later given memory and so on we can’t really even be sure she remembers the right boy because it sounds like she barely knew him and didn’t see him regularly.
I’m not saying the story is unimportant. And I’m not saying she’s lying. But there’s a lot about this story that suggest it might really match historical truth.
Eliminating the income cap on Social Security taxes would increase the top marginal income tax rate to effectively over 50%. That’s because the employer’s ‘share’ would likely come out of the employee’s future income. That would do severe damage to the economy.
The workaround would be to lower the maximum rate to soften the blow. That would, in the end, make it a wash. So it isn’t going to happen.
As I remember, Elizabeth Warren is strongly in favor of raising Social Security payments. That makes even less economic sense than Medicare for all.
OK_Max
I think I read that she also years ago told her therapist Kavanaugh tried to rape her, and may have told her husband too.
She says the incident happened in the early 80s.
She’s forgotten many of the details. (Where it took place. Who’s house it was. Who was at the party….)
She married in 2002. For at least these 10 years she didn’t mention it to her husband.
Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012,
She revealed this during couples therapy with her husband.
According to the psycholgists notes of that meeting:
She reported an assault, with most specifying detaails omitted. She did not mention Kavanaugh’s name. She did not mention the school the boys went to. The therapists notes say she said there were 4 boys involved in the assualt, the current story says 2. (Fox says that was the therapists mistake. Perhaps. Or maybe Fox did say 4.)
According to her husband who did not take notes, and who would just be learning this shocking news, he remembers her mentioning Kavenaugh’s name. ( Honestly, I consider the therapist’s notes more likely accurate than the husband’ memory of whether a name was said in a conversation 6 years ago. I’d say other things about whether I necessarily 100% believe all shocking revelations that suddenly come up in couples therapy. . . )
Oh– Judge the other boy (now man) also says this didn’t happen and he never saw Kavanaugh act this way. Maybe Judge is lying. Or not.
In fact, the evidence for the story is thin. It’s plausible she is mistaken about the guy. She seems to have told no one about this during the 30 years from “early 80s” to 2012. She didn’t even mention it to her husband for 10 years. It came up at a time during couples therapy when…. honestly…. sometimes a person might be trying to garner sympathy for possibly being a selfish difficult spouse, and when a vague story that identifies no one might do that. And… so on.
Could it have happened? Yes. It might have.
Could it be a figment of her imagination? Yes. Could she have made this up in 2012 to catch a break from her husband and get the therapist to see her as more sympathetic? Not impossible. Could something sort of like this have happened, but she misidentified? Yep.
All sorts of things can be true. I have no idea.
If Feinstein had brought this up in July, there might be time to deal with this. Now? I guess that depends on whether you are hoping to derail, and are rooting for Democrats to retake the senate or whether you want to ensure a Republican on the seat. That’s partisan politics. Feinstein played them; others can and likely will.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170585)
September 17th, 2018 at 9:38 am
If only there was a way in the future to make an electric bus without batteries. http://www.heritagetrolley.org…..tcars4.htm
______
Tom, thanks for the link on trolleys. IMO, cities were short-sighted in getting rid of their trolleys. I like trolleys. It’s easy to see where they are going.
Lucia,
“If Feinstein had brought this up in July, there might be time to deal with this. Now? I guess that depends on whether you are hoping to derail, and are rooting for Democrats to retake the senate or whether you want to ensure a Republican on the seat. That’s partisan politics. Feinstein played them; others can and likely will.”
.
There is a reason Feinstein didn’t bring it up in July: that would give people too much time to investigate/review/consider the charges, and reject them, just as the FBI did. To withhold the allegations until hearings were over and a vote on Kavanaugh was scheduled deprives Kavanaugh any chance to formally address the allegations under oath in the Senate. Disclosing the allegations now is absolutely outrageous, unprincipled, and immoral. I try to imagine the conversation Kavanaugh has had to have with his daughters, and it makes me more than a little angry. This is an ugly, unprincipled business, and Feinstein should be ashamed of herself.
>But the only reason to take a polygraph is to use the story.
It was conducted by the lawyer. Perhaps to use it, or perhaps to determine if the client is lying to her.
If done for use, then Ford would have known going in that if she failed, no one would hear about the result. Less stress, and easier to pass.
Anita Hill also passed a lie detector. Her story is known to be wrong on details.
SteveF
There is a reason Feinstein didn’t bring it up in July: that would give people too much time to investigate/review/consider the charges, and reject them, just as the FBI did.
Yes. If brought up in July, people could go talk to Judge, the other boy. (In fact, he’s named and said Kavanaugh never did anything like this.) People could go try to find the other four boys from the school. People could go try to find the home in which it took place– presumably someone knew whose home it was. People find out if she ever mentioned anything to any girl friends.
All this could be done in time to not delay the vote.
Instead, just as the vote is approaching, the story is leaked slowly, then more. But the woman coming forward actually shows how thin the story is.
It could have happened just as she said. Or something could have happened to her that did not involve Kavanaugh. Or absolutely nothing might have happened. There’s really no way to tell. And right now the stakes of deciding to have the vote and confirm or not are very high.
Partisan politics will be played by both sides.
MikeN,
Polygragh, schmolygraph.
.
Even if a polygraph were accurate (and clearly that is not the case) honestly believed memories from 35+ years ago, on a night likely fueled by alcohol, are themselves very suspect. The facts are clear: whatever happened, it was never reported to anyone for decades; all those involved were minors; there is zero evidence now or at any time in the past of an assault; even the location and date of the alleged assault have never been provided, or even suggested; there is no possible way for Kavanaugh to defend himself against the allegations. Which I guess is the whole point. If Kavanaugh can be defeated based on these charges, then no Republican will even be confirmed without facing very similar allegations. It is 100% over-the-top nuts… Anita Hill on steroids.
Lucia,
“Partisan politics will be played by both sides.”
.
Sure, but I am reminded of the famous admonition:
“Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
And that is exactly to where Feinstein and the rest of the leftist cabal have descended. They should be ashamed of themselves. They should be voted out of office.
vMikeN (Comment #170597)
September 17th, 2018 at 4:06 pm
“If done for use, then Ford would have known going in that if she failed, no one would hear about the result. Less stress, and easier to pass.”
______
Of course because Ford has nothing to lose by failing a lie detector test, she might be under less stress while being tested than Kavanaugh, who would have a lot to lose. But I don’t see that as evidence she passed the test because she fooled it.
I understand the polygraph was done by an ex-FIB person. How do we know multiple examinations weren’t performed by one or numerous non-governmental examiners until she got it right? Seems sketchy to me without a known reliable non-partisan exam being given.
Bob-
Whether ex-FBI or not, it was presumably arranged by and paid for by the woman tested either direction or through some one arranging it for her, possibly her attorney.
Polygraphs are often wrong and need to be interpreted. Being carried out and interpreted by someone paid for by the person being tested does not instill confidence in the outcome.
They can also be practiced and cheated.
Do we know multiple were not done? No. We don’t know that.
Lucia: “Whether ex-FBI or not, it was presumably arranged by and paid for by the woman tested either direction or through some one arranging it for her, possibly her attorney.
Polygraphs are often wrong and need to be interpreted. Being carried out and interpreted by someone paid for by the person being tested does not instill confidence in the outcome.
They can also be practiced and cheated.”
In my workers’ comp practice, I roughly took 1,200 depositions of doctors as expert witnesses. If you are a lawyer and regularly use expert witnesses, you can find an expert to say that the moon is made out of swiss cheese if you pay him. Would almost certainly be easy to find a polygraph examiner very predisposed to find that the subject was telling the truth.
…..
One time, a treating rheumatologist tried to help his patient (my workers’ comp client) and said that my client had traumatic induced scleroderma. (which is ridiculous) In fact, my client worked heavily with trichloroethylene, which caused his scleroderma.
Also, it is well-known that polygraph tests are unreliable. From wikipedia:
” United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment report “Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation”.[30] Similarly, a report to Congress by the Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy[31] on national security concluded that “The few Government-sponsored scientific research reports on polygraph validity (as opposed to its utility), especially those focusing on the screening of applicants for employment, indicate that the polygraph is neither scientifically valid nor especially effective beyond its ability to generate admissions”.
Despite the NAS finding of a “high rate of false positives,” failures to expose individuals such as Aldritch Ames and Larry Wu-Tai Chin, and other inabilities to show a scientific justification for the use of the polygraph, it continues to be employed.”
JD
My guess is the polygraph was more for the WP, and a gate she had to get through before they would even print the story. I noted that the NYT basically didn’t even report on this story until she came forward.
.
She is apparently an outspoken progressive for whatever that is worth. She disappeared her social media before coming forward is my understanding but a few low dollar donations to Democrats are still on the record.
.
This thing reeks to high heaven politically, not that the possibility doesn’t exist it is true. Trigger warning … You just can’t do this to people, I don’t care if what she said is true. You can’t wait over 30 years and then smear somebody at a time like this with very little evidence. The MeToo McCarthyism has simply gone too far. She has a responsibility to take action within 30 years before she tries to ruin somebody’s life with a high profile politically timed smear. Breathing within 10 feet of a person of the opposite sex has become a sexual “assault”. I hold up as evidence his children to prove he has “assaulted” women in the past. If we get to simply assume that Kavanaugh is a 17 year old predator in the 1980’s based on almost nothing, then we should also be allowed to assume she is a politically motivated (redacted) who invited the contact, or assume she is lying or has faulty memories.
.
This mentality where we must now assume all women are the Virgin Mary and all men are Charles Manson for any allegation over the past 40 years is ridiculous. Real sexual assaults should be prosecuted, and a presumption of innocence should be given to the accused. We now have a very low bar for heinous assaults that are not differentiated from each other.
Tom,
Before the accuser identified herself, the story was a zero on on a scale of 0-100. It managed to rise to a 1 when she identified herself and told it. (It’s so scant that it’s hard to put it higher.)
The polygraph is a +1, raising the level to +2/100.
The story is thin.
Ordinarily, given sufficient time, and if investigating is low cost in outcome and actual $$ on salaries of Feds and so on, it would still be worth investigating.
The problem is: this is a political sphere and the time investigating and confirming or not actually makes a difference in a political sense. (That is, of course, why Feinstein waited. She picked her “reveal” for a time where delay to investigate would be as costly as possible for the GOP while benefiting the DEM’s as much as possible.)
For many people, what decision should be made vis-a-vis halting and investigation is based almost entirely on whether they want a conservative judge appointed to SCOTUS or not. It has almost nothing to do with whether they believe Kavanaugh assaulted Fox, or whether this level of assault by a 17 year old is something that means a person should never sit on SCOTUS. (Bear in mind, even in the accusers story, the level of assault resulted in no bruises or torn clothes. We have no idea whether it might have stopped merely due to her protests.
You can call it “attempted rape”, but… uhmmmm… I’m a woman. In my youth I experienced aggressive passes where the guy pressed his case rather uhmmm strongly initially, but did stop when it was clear the answer was no. So based on her story, even if every thing is true, what she describes as happening is not evidence of attempted rape.
.What she describes was aggressive. It’s assault. It’s beyond what is fair. But it’s not necessarily attempted rape. And they were teenagers.
And of course, even given all that, it might not have happened. Or, something similar might have happened but she could be mistaken as to who the boy was.
JD Ohio (Comment #170604)
Polygraphs are often wrong and need to be interpreted. Being carried out and interpreted by someone paid for by the person being tested does not instill confidence in the outcome.
They can also be practiced and cheated.
___________
JD, if anyone can buy a polygraph with a guarantee of favorable results, Kavanaugh has nothing to lose by buying himself one.
_________________________________________________________
Tom Scharf (Comment #170605)
“This thing reeks to high heaven politically, not that the possibility doesn’t exist it is true. Trigger warning … You just can’t do this to people, I don’t care if what she said is true. You can’t wait over 30 years and then smear somebody at a time like this with very little evidence.”
Tom, If it’s true, I don’t see why not.
“This mentality where we must now assume all women are the Virgin Mary and all men are Charles Manson for any allegation over the past 40 years is ridiculous.”
Tom, virginity has nothing to do with it. The law doesn’t make sexually assaulting a non-virgin less of an offense than sexually assaulting a virgin.
OK-Max: “JD, if anyone can buy a polygraph with a guarantee of favorable results, Kavanaugh has nothing to lose by buying himself one.”
….
His choice of a polygraph examiner will be heavily scrutinized. So far, the accuser’s choice of a polygraph examiner and the actual polygraph questions and results haven’t been scrutinized at all. (That I have seen. )
JD
lucia (Comment #170606)
You can call it “attempted rapeâ€, but… uhmmmm… I’m a woman. In my youth I experienced aggressive passes where the guy pressed his case rather uhmmm strongly initially, but did stop when it was clear the answer was no. So based on her story, even if every thing is true, what she describes as happening is not evidence of attempted rape.
___________
Lucia, it sounds like you were a good judge of character, and dated only young men who might make passes but would respect your wishes. Based on statements from Christine Ford’s lawyer, Lisa Banks, I believe the alleged sexual aggression of Brett Kavanaugh was far more serious than what you describe experiencing as a young woman.
“At one point she walked away to go to the bathroom and went up a small flight of stairs, at which point she was pushed into a bedroom. The door was locked behind her,” Banks told NPR. “And Brett Kavanaugh got on top of her on the bed, pushed her down on the bed on her back, began groping at her, trying to take off her clothes.”
“When she tried to scream, he put his hand over her mouth to silence her. Mark Judge was in the room, egging him on. They turned up the music very loudly and at some point Mark Judge jumped on the bed, they all toppled off, and she was able to escape,” Banks told NPR.
Anyway, Senators considering Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court are going to delay his confirmation to next week so they can hear from Ford. Maybe we will learn more then.
JD Ohio (Comment #170608)
His choice of a polygraph examiner will be heavily scrutinized. So far, the accuser’s choice of a polygraph examiner and the actual polygraph questions and results haven’t been scrutinized at all. (That I have seen)
_______
Then I doubt he will take a polygraph. Too Risky.
But if he does, she could do a second polygraph, one having the same level of scrutiny as his.
OK_Max
Lucia, it sounds like you were a good judge of character, and dated only young men who might make passes but would respect your wishes.
Dated? Why would you think dated? I didn’t say dated. And in fact, I did not date the young men who were aggressive in this way.
There were three instances. Let me explain one.
I was living in the dorms during the summer. I went to stop by the room of a male friend I had know since childhood in El Salvador. He was out, so I stopped to chat with two guys I knew who lived on the dorm floor. I had gone to parties with one of these guys always in groups. Not dates.
The one I didn’t know said he needed to work on his cars, took some tools and left. At that point the one I knew better walked to the door, locked it, grabbed me pretty dang firmly, started trying to kiss me, push my blouse off and so on. I pushed him away, but could get him to release his grasp… This did not go on for long because the roommate had forgotten some tools and came back.
I left the room. I never, ever, ever allowed myself to be alone with that guy again. Ever.
This did not result in long term trauma on my part. I have no reason to believe he would not have stopped eventually. But perhaps he would not have. No clothes were torn, I was not bruised. The actions were never enough to press an action of “attempted rape”.
I’m pretty sure I’ve mentioned this to my husband, but I didn’t discuss it with anyone at the time. As I said: I was not traumatized.
That said: I’m pretty darn sure the story got around. Based on other things I saw a bit later, I’m pretty sure the roommate told guys on the dorm floor, because at parties on that dorm floor that fall, I could see that other guys on the dorm floor would actually keep an eye on this overly aggressive jerk and watch out to see if some girl seemed like she might be getting into trouble. (I would not be surprised if something similar hadn’t happened before and the roommate had actually intentionally “forgotten” his wrench in my case.)
OK_Max
I believe the alleged sexual aggression of Brett Kavanaugh was far more serious than what you describe experiencing as a young woman.
Uhmmm… No. Sounds exactly like what I described. I forgot to mention, in the incident above, I was scanning around the room to gauge whether I could jump out the window. (I had, in the past jumped out windows on the 2nd story– for reasons having to nothing to do with any aggression. We were on the 3rd story.)
I don’t think the guy having his mouth on your mouth to prevent screaming is materially different from having his hand on it.
OK_Max
But if he does, she could do a second polygraph, one having the same level of scrutiny as his.
I don’t credit her polygraph as meaning anything much. It makes it a news story. But I don’t take it as evidence she is not lying.
That said, given what life is like, I think her being mistaken about the identity of her assailant is very possible.
Oh– also OK_Max,
Vis-a-vis screaming: During the summer the dorms were nearly unoccupied. Owing to the rules about dorm fees, kids did tend to have roommates because if you did not have one, you paid for a single room. So, only three rooms on that floor were occupied, my friend was the resident advisor and had no roommate, and the other two living on the floor weren’t there at that moment.
The guy grabbing me and I knew we were the only two people on the whole floor. The walls were cinderblock. Let me assure you that I was very aware that screaming for help was pointless. The possibility of escape was the window.
I have no idea why you think this is drastically different from what Fox reports.
lucia (Comment #170606): “That is, of course, why Feinstein waited. She picked her “reveal†for a time where delay to investigate would be as costly as possible for the GOP while benefiting the DEM’s as much as possible.”
.
There is an additional factor. A the reelection bids of a number of Democrat Senators are in serious trouble. Voting against Kavanaugh can only hurt them. A delay of the vote until after the election lets them off the hook.
—————
Tom Scharf (Comment #170605): “You can’t wait over 30 years and then smear somebody at a time like this with very little evidence.â€
OK_Max (Comment #170607): “Tom, If it’s true, I don’t see why not.”
.
There is no way to know if it is true. Even if the accuser is sure it is true, it may not be true.
I look forward to lucia’s “date” being nominated for the SC by the Democrats, ha ha. I do appreciate her sharing that story. It’s not obvious if one is understanding things correctly from the woman’s perspective in these type of cases.
.
Men have a dominance hierarchy. Especially in middle school it is expressed by picking on the people on the wrong side of the dominance curve. I got punched, pushed, and intimidated uncountable times. I was never really assaulted with intent to harm and there was a pretty clear line between those two. There were some mean dudes who you knew not to mouth off to though. I never viewed this as bullying, I viewed it as growing up in the real world and learning to deal with it. I definitely richly deserved some of it. I claim no negative impact and conversely see it as a useful learning experience. I don’t engage in road rage because those are likely some mean dudes. There was one case where there was some real harmful bullying done in my school and the victim had to change schools. The mean dude here ended up in prison eventually.
.
Normally these types of behaviors are not one-offs, they are a pattern of aggressive behavior. For teenagers they might be just not knowing how to act and being drunk and stupid. The “let’s pick a random girl, team assault her, and jeopardize our futures” plans just don’t happen very often, especially between a GROUP of men/boys who are all semi-responsible human beings from responsible households. The high profile cases where this has been alleged have fallen apart on review (Duke Lacrosse, UVA frat). The chances of it happening one on one out of view are at least a magnitude higher.
Tom Scharf,
Obviously, the incident was upsetting. I felt I’d dodged a howitzer. Obviously, I can believe similar things happened to other people. But I also know:
(a) I only specifically remember who it was because I did know him. He was in my social circle both before and after the incident. I saw him every day in the cafeteria. In contrast, Fox’s description suggests she barely knew the boys at the party. They were from a further away school, she mostly socialized with others. She would not have seen the boy who assaulted her much afterwards. The possibility she does not really know who did this is very real.
(b) I remember exactly where this happened. It happened in a North facing dorm room near the center of the 3rd floor north dorms at IIT campus.
(c) I remember exactly why I decided to visit the floor: It was to visit Mario Romero who did not happen to be there.
(d) Oh… above I was mistaken about something. It’s not true I never spoke to him again. We ate at the same dorm cafeteria. I never again sat at a table if I was not yet seated and he was there. I picked other tables. But he did sometimes sit at a table I was previously sitting at. (Tables sat lots of people. It’s a dorm cafeteria.) I did participate in conversations if he was there.
(e) The two main reasons I didn’t share the story with others were there were very few girls on campus at the time. So my friends weren’t there. I didn’t share with my actual boyfriend (who this guy knew) because I’d gotten away to what I would consider unscathed and I didn’t want the drama.
(f) He and I were both older than Fox or Kavanaugh were in Fox’s story.
(g) As noted above: this guy developed a reputation of being a pig among the women and, as I noted, I think among the men. He did, in fact, later get in a fight with a girl-friend’s boyfriend.
(h) I honestly doubt the guy remembers the incident. It wouldn’t have been as traumatic for him. If he does remember, he may remember it differently. His roommate likely also doesn’t remember the specific indicent, but would have if it had been discussed during the month or two after it happened.
(i) No one would have described this as attempted rape. If the roommate has not arrived, perhaps it would have turned into that, but it wasn’t that yet.
(j) I did not think the guy might accidentally or on purpose kill me. But I contemplate jumping out the window. No alcohol was involved.
One of the things that strikes me is that I remember a heck of a lot more detail about this than Fox did. And note: it happened the summer of 1978 so longer ago than what happened to Fox. I don’t remember details of most things that happened that summer but I remember this. So, honestly, I’m a bit surprised Fox would remember so few details about exactly when, where and so on. Yes, supposedly, she remembers who when — as far as I can tell– she barely knew him.
He’s never going to be nominated for SCOTUS. He didn’t study law. 🙂
BTW: As for details I remember: I was wearing a pink summer top that had a square elastic neck, and wide straps. It had elastic at the waist. I wore it with fairly short shorts by todays’ standards made of a knit material and elastic waist. I don’t remember the color of the shorts. Not extremely short– 1978 shorts were short though. Not bermudas.)
So yeah…. I remember quite a bit. Fox remembers very little given that she says she was traumatize. (Well… I’m not a psychologist. Maybe she was traumatized and maybe that often makes you forget. Dunno.)
The lawyer said she arranged the lie detector. We don’t know if this test was for the lawyer to know if Ford is lying, in which case she would have an aggressive interrogator, or if it’s for the public to know she passed a lie detector, in which case she has just paid her guy to give favorable results.
I wonder if Ford would have the knowledge to beat a polygraph as a psych professor. She has authored almost 100 papers, which may be routine for Stanford professors. None relate to polygraphs, though.
Lucia,
“And note: it happened the summer of 1978 so longer ago than what happened to Fox.”
.
There is no substantive evidence that anything at all happened to her.
.
I agree that people usually remember when they felt threatened pretty well. I remember very clearly when I was 18 (49 years ago) and pinned against lockers by a guy twice my size, who told me he would ‘punch my lights out’ if he ever again saw me talk to a girl he was interested in. I also remember the girl, her name, exactly what she looked like, his name, exactly what he looked like, that he was the son of a local police officer, and the circumstances which led to the threat of violence (I helped the girl with a couple of physics homework problems in the 5 minutes before class started).
.
Ford’s vague recollections are not convincing.
“Nevertheless, I expect she will be “credible”. She has had four decades – or at any rate the six years since she first mentioned the incident at “couples therapy” in 2012 – to fix the summer of ’82-ish in her mind.” https://www.steynonline.com/8836/docksider-dregs-of-seersucker-society
.
If this were at all scientific, now would be when the word ‘unfalsifiable’ starts popping up.
Assuming Ford’s story is true, how did she know it was Brett Kavanaugh that did this?
She went to a girls school, and generally socialized with a different boys school than Kavanaugh’s. How likely is it that she went to this party and knew the full names of the people there?
Max, I’m finding two different names for Ford’s lawyer, Lisa Banks and Deborah Katz.
Ledite,
“If this were at all scientific, now would be when the word ‘unfalsifiable’ starts popping up.”
.
That the claims are absolutely unverifiable and also unfalsifiable are features, not bugs.
SteveF,
Agreed: Longer ago than she says it happened to her.
Bear in mind, at this point there would probably be no evidence that the incident I relate involving me happened– other than my saying so. In my case, it’s not important politically so no one is going to investigate it. If they did maybe the room mate would remember, but I doubt it. The whole thing might not have struck him as strongly as me.
There’s a reason crimes have statutes of limitations. At some point, a crime no matter how vile is not worth investigating because no evidence can be obtained one way or the other.
I this case, the details are so vague, Kavanaugh can’t effectively rebut much because everything is so vague. The claimed incident occurred near where he lived. It’s unlikely he is going to be able to say he was never at any small party at any house with absent parents during any unknown date in 1982. I barely partied in high school, but I think I went to two of these. One for sure: Ring ceremony senior year, my juniors and seniors from my all girls schools got out a few hours early. The group I was with went to a party at a rich girls house in winnetka. The parents were not there; a keg was. It was fairly out of control– but all girls. Another: I went to a party after work with a work friend. I think the parents weren’t there. We didn’t really know anyone there and left after about 1/2 an hour.
I’m betting Kavanaugh who played football, and whose family was well off and whose friends were well off probably had access to rides and probably got to one or two of these parties during his senior and junior year. Just a hunch. So must likely, he’s not going to be able to say he lived a monk-like existence and never went out.
But what strikes me is she remembers almost nothing surrounding the incident. I remember tons of stuff including (or perhaps especially) the color the top he was trying to get off me. She’s a smart woman. I find it difficult to believe she would remember almost nothing surrounding this incident.
Like me: your remember details of those incidents that stood out.
Not remembering exactly where and when the event happened is a bit unusual if she was traumatized by it. Most traumatic events are called traumatic because they are stored in the precious permanent memory of the brain in detail, not that I am an expert. My trauma events are all characterized by strong memory. Memory loss is common for traumatic injury events but that I think is more of a physical thing. I don’t think they understand why that happens. I read it is the brain protecting itself from traumatic memory, I postulate that memory is an ongoing compression process that takes time to occur, a traumatic injury resets that process. I present zero evidence for this theory.
Lucia, your memory of the parties you went to would let you definitively say you were not at a party like the one Ford describes, even though we can’t say where or when this party happened.
Kavanaugh is reported by Hatch to have denied being at this party. While he presumably was at many, perhaps he can definitely say he wasn’t at one: in high school, without parents, drinking, at a place with a pool, just four boys total with at least one girl(lawyer now says at least 2) but not many, girls from a specific school.
MikeN,
Like me, Kavanaugh may well remember what parties he went to. The “ring ceremony” party had a pool. Some of the drunk girls started throwing other girls (drunk or not) into the pool. Jennie Stepan who was very modest got thrown in the pool. Her blouse went transparent and she was very embarrassed. I lent her my blue vest which I had made and which she was afraid would get wrecked. I told her it was a blend and would be fine, which it was.
I don’t remember everyone who attended, but I remember some who did. There were pretty many there. So I wouldn’t mistake it for a party of only 4 boys and 1 or 2 girls. My guess is it was probably 40 or so girls, maybe more. But I didn’t count. At the time, I could have named all of them by name, but I only remember a few people who were there. (Seniors included Aleca Uncovskoy, Lisa McDonald and Jennie Stepan. Elizabeth ?? a junior was there. Other that, I don’t remember.)
The other party I went to…. I remember less. I did’t know many people none of whom I knew, but my co-worker knew some. It was in libertyville. The kids were in the basement. There were pretty many and mixed boys-girls We left.
There may very well be evidence of something. This could be a planned staged event to take down Kavanaugh (regardless of whether it is true). Do it anonymously, then bravely come forward etc. Any evidence will show up a day before the hearing, another “witness” or something. I’d like to get all self righteous but there may be karma for the Merrick Garland incident.
Tom Scharf, Kavanaugh was named as a likely first Supreme Court pick for President Romney or any other Republican in a New Yorker article March 26, 2012. Could the therapist notes have been part of a setup? Alternatively, reading the article is what triggered the reveal to the therapist. Declaring to the therapist he went to an ‘elitist’ school is suspicious. Wasn’t her school elitist?
MikeN (Comment #170624)
September 18th, 2018 at 11:14 am
“Max, I’m finding two different names for Ford’s lawyer, Lisa Banks and Deborah Katz.”
________
I too noticed two lawyers, Lisa Banks and Debra Katz, speaking for Ford. I was puzzled until I found Banks and Katz are with the same law firm.
lucia (Comment #170611)
September 18th, 2018 at 6:50 am
OK_Max
Lucia, it sounds like you were a good judge of character, and dated only young men who might make passes but would respect your wishes.
Dated? Why would you think dated? I didn’t say dated. And in fact, I did not date the young men who were aggressive in this way.
______
Lucia, I’m sorry I misunderstood you. I thought you were talking about boys or men you had dated when you said ” In my youth I experienced aggressive passes where the guy pressed his case rather uhmmm strongly initially, but did stop when it was clear the answer was no.”
I was thinking I’ve done that, depending on what you mean by “strongly”. But now that I know what you mean, no I have never done that.
We may have different definitions of “aggressive.” During mutually enjoyable kissing, if I put my hand on my date’s knee, I would consider that aggressive, but I would not persist If she removed my hand or said keep your hands to yourself. Perhaps I should call it taking initiative rather than being aggressive. I believe the
recommended way today would be for me to ask my date if it
would be OK if I put my hand on her knee.
OK_Max,
if I put my hand on my date’s knee, I would consider that aggressive
I don’t see this as aggressive. Someone has to start moving hands around or things don’t go anywhere.
I believe the recommended way today would be for me to ask my date if it would be OK if I put my hand on her knee.
Yes. Which is a stupid rule if one thinks it ought to be one.
Ledite (Comment #170619)
September 18th, 2018 at 10:58 am
Tom Scharf (Comment #170605): “This thing reeks to high heaven politicallyâ€
.
“Brett Kavanaugh’s mother is judge who dismissed a foreclosure action against accuser Ford’s parents†http://www.foxnews.com/politic…..rents.html
______
I don’t get your point. Are you suggesting Ford is being ungrateful for accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault after his mother’s decision as a judge helped her parents?
Lucia: “But what strikes me is she remembers almost nothing surrounding the incident.”
.
Or rather, that she claims to remember some things in perfect detail and fails to remember other things. Could be an indication of fabrication. Could be quite normal. I wouldn’t trust anybody else’s memory and not even my own.
.
A friend was telling, in great detail, where he was when JFK was shot. Except it didn’t make sense. Turned out he was remembering when RFK was shot. Oops.
.
My theory is that usually old memories are not really memories of the event, they are memories of memories (and so on), with a bit of telephone game mutations thrown in.
.
It doesn’t even need to be old. Multiple people see the same thing, they don’t see the same things.’ Even the same person, between one night and the morning after.
.
Who could judge something like this, short of a Perry Mason moment?
lucia (Comment #170634)
September 18th, 2018 at 1:39 pm
OK_Max,
“I believe the recommended way today would be for me to ask my date if it would be OK if I put my hand on her knee.”
Yes. Which is a stupid rule if one thinks it ought to be one.
______
I tend to agree with you. I would feel silly asking such a question, but it would help prevent a misunderstanding.
Ledite
My theory is that usually old memories are not really memories of the event, they are memories of memories (and so on), with a bit of telephone game mutations thrown in.
I think this is true. I seem to remember seeing this in a science special involving making people lose their phobias.
This is why not telling anyone for years and having no record is a big problem. I suspect something happened to her. A guy being really aggressive is not exactly unusual in a girl or woman’s life. But she’s forgotten so much, I don’t believe she is a reliable source for who the guy was. She may think she knows, but she probably doesn’t.
If you would allow a humble lurker to interject a mere anecdote:
A couple of years ago, I attended my 50th high school reunion, where I met up with my best friend from those long lost days. He and I discussed for hours stories of our times together, stories that I have retold over and over again (a habit, I think, of the old). My memories of those events were crystal clear . . . in my mind. But, not in his. Nope, our stories didn’t match. Close in many ways but different in many others. A bit of a shocker, actually. (I can’t say those memories were particularly “traumatic,” but some of the events were darned important to me.)
Turns out our experience was shared by many others at the reunion. Surely, other commenters here can share that same kind of thing. Sorry, but old memories aren’t really memories; they’re stories. not lies, just stories.
I remember many traumatic experiences:
I fell from a tree and landed on a barbed-wire fence.
Stepped on nail that went in bottom of my heel and came out back.
While going barefoot I got burning cigar butt lodged between toes.
Was distracted speeding on my bicycle and crashed into parked car.
Large firecracker exploded in my hand near my head. Dumb mistake.
I came close to being trampled by a Brahma bull. Not bull’s fault.
All these experiences occurred before I was age 15, and I remember the details. So it’s easy for me to believe Ford can remember a traumatic experience she had at age 15.
Max,
How do you error check your recollections? (real question)
OK_Max
So it’s easy for me to believe Ford can remember a traumatic experience she had at age 15.
No one is surprised she would remember the experience. Everyone expects her to remember traumatic experiences.
What everyone is surprised by is how little she remembers. According to the story at WaPo, she remembers almost nothing about the details surrounding it. What house? What month? Heck what year? How did she get to the house? How did she get home?
She remembers none of these details. It’s the lack of memory that is odd.
mark,
It’s difficult. Somethigns you can check:
1) My family did move back to the US when I was in 1st grade. Evidence: Photos, school records.
2) My family moved to Illinois the summer after 1st grade: Also photos school records.
And so on.
Some other things… hard to check objectively. In investigations or trials, you can see how many people agree on concrete things. You might be able to discover a person is especially unreliable.
Thanks Lucia.
I remember that I’ve decided in the past that I personally have a terribly inaccurate memory, although unsurprisingly I don’t recall exactly how I made up my mind about this.
Too good to check news: Ford sent a similar letter against Gorsuch.
Mike,
.
I had to check. Josh Cornett on Twitter appears to be the source. A reasonable argument could be made that he’s being facetious. Another reasonable possibility is that he is demonstrating that unsubstantiated, implausible allegations should be handled with care.*
This said, Feinstein did say ‘Now, I can’t say everything’s truthful. I don’t know.’ to Fox News.
.
* – My money is on this option.
The rumor that she sent a similar letter of Gorsuch looks totally unsubstantiated. They need to find the letter.
Presumably, if it was sent, and forwarded to the FBI it will be in the FBI files.
mark bofill (Comment #170641)
September 18th, 2018 at 6:15 pm
Max,
How do you error check your recollections? (real question)
_____
I’m not sure what you mean. I have no documentation. Do scars count?
ucia (Comment #170642)
September 18th, 2018 at 6:15 pm
OK_Max
No one is surprised she would remember the experience. Everyone expects her to remember traumatic experiences.
She remembers none of these details. It’s the lack of memory that is odd.
________
Yes, that does seem odd. I remember quite a few details about the traumatic experiences I mentioned having before age 15. I had not,
however, been drinking. I don’t know whether Ford had been drinking. Intoxication could affect attention to details, particularly those that didn’t seem significant at the time. But a sexual assault and who did it are more than just details.
The new question: “Are you now or have you ever been a rapist?” — no, make that ‘a toxic male’. No, that doesn’t scan. In the future, all politicians, lawyers, judges, CEOs, film producers, need I go on, will have to be either female or gay. Not because they are better, but because they won’t have any hidden toxic male behavior in their past.
.
I think a lot of people who are “older” feel that they have had past lives. Not reincarnation, but in effect, yes, lives that they know was them, but yet lives of some person who is their backstory but doesn’t feel like them, something out of their novel.
.
The leading man and leading lady in this story were children when these events took place. Is what happened to them as children relevant anymore? Are those adults the same people as when they were children? My take on this is ‘no’. People may make mistakes, people may learn from mistakes and not make them again. Whether a SCOTUS candidate is a person of good character NOW is the only important question. Outside of statute of limitations, to quote Hillary, ‘What difference does it make?’.
.
If you want examples of “flexible” memory, follow divorces. You will find that hatred is retroactive. “I never loved you” kind of stuff.
Ledite (Comment #170636)
September 18th, 2018 at 2:06 pm
Lucia: “But what strikes me is she remembers almost nothing surrounding the incident.â€
.
“Or rather, that she claims to remember some things in perfect detail and fails to remember other things. Could be an indication of fabrication.”
_________
If she were fabricating, why say Kavanaugh’s friend Mark Judge was present during the assault and piled on? She then could have two denying it happened instead of just one, which is what has happened. I read somewhere that this is not a good way to fabricate.
Judge has said he doesn’t remember the incident and he has never see Kavanaugh act that way. If he doesn’t remember the incident how can he say how Kavanaugh acted during it?
Ledite (Comment #170651)
September 18th, 2018 at 10:42 pm
The new question: “Are you now or have you ever been a rapist?
No
“The leading man and leading lady in this story were children when these events took place. Is what happened to them as children relevant anymore?”
Yes
>If he doesn’t remember the incident how can he say how Kavanaugh acted during it?
This assumes there was an incident. Mark isn’t saying what he remembers, but what he doesn’t remember. He says he did not see Kavanaugh act this way ever.
Including Judge does seem an odd detail, but perhaps she thought it added corroboration, given his public history of drunkenness, having written a book about it.
Plus, if this were a long term setup with a deliberate tale to the therapist, then Judge made the news within weeks of the Kavanaugh New Yorker article, with a Daily Caller column about his bike being stolen and the thief was likely black.
OK_Max
I don’t know whether Ford had been drinking. Intoxication could affect attention to details, particularly those that didn’t seem significant at the time.
Evidently, she hasn’t even been specific about the year. Only that they were both in high school. It’s rather difficult to attribute that to being drunk unless she was perpetually drunk.
Also, she doesn’t remember whose house it was at. One might have thought she knew whose house she went to before she got there. That shouldn’t be erased by being drunk.
Given what she does not remember, it’s entirely plausible she doesn’t remember who was at the party or who might have assaulted her. She didn’t know the boys where. The likelyhood of misidentifying the boy is even higher if she was drunk.
Maybe it happened the way she claims. Or maybe she was drunk, confused, and her mind later filled in details. Or maybe it never happened. I sort of lean toward the mistaken memories.
Oh, and BTW, in her story, one of the thing that supposedly terrified her was that her parents would discover she’d been to a party where kids were drinking. My theory of why she was terrified is that she wanted to avoid being grounded so she could continue to go to similar future parties. That’s a common motivation for not telling parents something. But if it was, then I would also suggest she wasn’t all that traumatized. It was closer to the level of “trauma” Steve F experienced being shoved against the lockers and threatened, or I felt during the incident I described. That is: something that ordinary people get over pretty quickly.
(That a victim gets over it doesn’t mean what the aggressor did was ok. It’s not. But I think exaggerating the “life long effect” of this does no one any good when discussing it.)
OK_Max
If she were fabricating, why say Kavanaugh’s friend Mark Judge was present during the assault and piled on? She then could have two denying it happened instead of just one, which is what has happened. I read somewhere that this is not a good way to fabricate.
First, the frame of your question seems to have us assume she’s fabricating and ask why she does it in this way.
The answer to your question: Claiming someone was present sure as heck beats claiming there were no witnesses at all. Also, her story needs someone present to create a way for her to get away from Kavanaugh who, after all, is much larger than she was.
I can assure you that in my story, what with the door locked, and the guy being much larger than I was, I would have had trouble getting away if the roommate had not arrived.
Why pick Judge? He wrote a book in which he constantly drinking and mentions a friend with a last name Kavanaugh. That would make him a good pick in the role of guy who was present. It’s not unlikely she might have read the book or some high school friend of hers read the book. If nothing else, they might have been attracted to reading a book by a student who was on the fringe of their circle of friends in high school. That could supply her with names to make up.
(It could also be the source of names for a false memory btw.)
Anyway: just because something is a poor way to fabricate doesn’t mean she or others don’t chose poor ways to fabricate. Also: if leaving out details is a good way to fabricate, she’s doing a bang up job. Her lack of memory extends to (a) what year, (b) whose house, (c) how she got there, (d) how she left. Her WAPO report does mention if she was drinking. She says four boys (and evidently 1 other girl) were there, these are unnamed in the WAPO article.
I woudn’t take the fact that she’s left out zillions of details that might be used to confirm or refute her allegation. But by the same token, I wouldn’t put in one single potentially corroborating or refuting detail as evidence it must be true because she “risked” having it be refuted. In any case, it turns out Judge doesn’t recall any such event. So this particular detail does tend to refute. (And possibly shows the “danger” of including corroborating details in a fabrication. Or even a mostly true story one might mis-remember.)
Judge has said he doesn’t remember the incident and he has never see Kavanaugh act that way. If he doesn’t remember the incident how can he say how Kavanaugh acted during it?
He didn’t. He said he never saw Kavanaugh act that way ever. And he doesn’t remember any incident like that. He gives no details about how Kavanaugh acted during it.
Full FBI investigation for a teenage groping that occurred in the 1980’s? We are going to have to hire about a million more FBI agents to get to the bottom of these things. To save some taxpayer money, I admit it, I was a teenage groper. #HeToo. I hereby (long winded fake apology and dubious sticky contrition). I also give up my career and plan to donate my retirement accounts to Victims Of Clumsy Teenage Groping. My groping was “accepted” from my viewpoint and even reciprocated, but that is no excuse. Reciprocation only means the victim is so traumatized as to not know what she was doing and only play acting to get out of the situation.
.
Like I said, I don’t even really care if this happened, people should be allowed to straighten out their lives if they show decades of responsible behavior. An isolated event like this as a teenager just doesn’t matter, at least to me. This only applies if this happened and Kavanaugh admitted it. Kavanaugh knowingly lying about doing it would be a different matter.
.
This is increasingly looking like a staged political operation to run out the clock as long as possible. Have the hearing, if she shows up fine, if she doesn’t then move on. Calls for an investigation ring pretty hollow on something they knew about since July.
Tom Scharf,
“This is increasingly looking like a staged political operation to run out the clock as long as possible. Have the hearing, if she shows up fine, if she doesn’t then move on.”
.
Sure. But the Democrats will never agree to that…. it has always been a staged political operation. The disagreement has absolutely nothing to do with Kavanaugh or what happened at a teen-age party 35+ years ago. It has everything to do with a fundamental disagreement about accepting the US Constitution as meaning what the plain words in the document say. The Kavanaugh fight is nothing more than an extension of the “living Constitution” fight (AKA, no binding constitution at all versus a binding constitution).
.
The current POV on the “progressive left” is that much of the constitution is no longer valid, and should be simply ignored. For example, see: http://theweek.com/articles/796519/electoral-college-civic-abomination . The “progressive left” does not, and never has, believed in the rule of law (eg Obama’s lawless executive orders)…. only in raw political power to achieve their political goals, by any means available, constitutional or not, lawful or not.
On a more positive note, than the current news, my son’s college entrance ACT testing saga has ended well. He scored a 33, which included a perfect score of 36 on the reading portion and a 34 on the math portion. He scored a 30 on the English portion, which was 5 points better than his 25 on the June test he took. Worked about 30 hours per week over the summer to improve his June score, which was a 30 overall. (The 33 was in the top 1.3%)
……
To improve on his June score, I offered him a bonus of $750 for each point over 30, and $500 for each point 32 and above on the four individual components of the test. He made $5750, which I am very happy to pay.
…..
My son’s first score in February was a 25, which included a 23 on the the reading portion. His substantial improvement shows that hard work and a moderate amount of coaching can make a big difference. Luckily, my son was motivated and instead of feeling pressure, just took the attitude that he was playing a game.
JD Ohio,
” He made $5750, which I am very happy to pay.”
.
Yikes! You obviously have a lot more money than my parents ever did. If you divide that value by a factor of 6 to account for inflation since the 1960’s, it would have represented about 1 1/2 months of my dad’s net earnings when I was in high school.
JD Ohio!
Great! Now for the scholarship round! 🙂
And some say ACT and SAT prep don’t work… (They work if the kid is motivated. Same as regular school.)
SteveF,
Yep.
I think sometimes poor kids can be more self-motivated than richer kids. JD Ohio probably doesn’t think of himself as rich, but there are certainly people in much more strained circumstances.
Regarding Kavanaugh, for me the question is not so much his behavior as a high school student. The question is his veracity about it today. Given that his answers on some other questions raise doubts about his honesty, I believe further investigation is warranted.
Tom,
I think the investigation should start right away. But I consider testimony by Fox especially and Kavanaugh at the senate part of the investigation. It thing should be the first step.
I’d have favored a more leisurely investigation kicked off by the FBI interviewing Fox to get a concrete story on record and names of people who might be witnesses if Feinstein had brought this up promptly or if Fox had come up publicly more promptly (as in not just sending anonymous stuff), but this is the position the two put us in by electing to wait. And yes, both elected to wait. So I don’t think there’s any reason to say they get to call the shots and say things need to be done in the slowest way possible.
The FBI can be investigating in parallel with Senate hearings . Or FBI investigations can be deferred until we hear the accuser in more detail so as to give the FBI some specifics to investigate. In anycase, testimony will speed along any investigation because we, and the investigators, will then have some information.
Fox speaking in a public form that permits questions and answers is the most efficient way to firm up the story so that investigation can be done efficiently.
I get Fox might not want to do this. (Rumors say she doesn’t– after initially having her lawyer say she’d be glad to do so.) But the only way that speaking to the Seante could have been avoided is if Feinstein or Fox had stayed mum.
Fox did send out letters. She asked for anonymity, but yah’ know…. She’s a 50 something professor of psychology who seems to have managed to enter academia in her early 20s. She is educated, intelligent, well read, and has to have known that you can’t have your story taken seriously if it is completely and utterly anonymous and if you won’t answer questions about it in a timely manner. In this case, the forum was bound to be the Senate.
No matter how traumatic she says this was, the fact is, she wasn’t raped. She seems to not have even been bruised. She supposedly gone through therapy. People aren’t going to see her as a soiled dove of days of your based on this story. Fox knew enough to lawyer up before the story was public and did so. Her lawyer has been preparing for the circus. She ought to be prepared for facing the Senate. So I don’t see how anyone should treat her as a delicate hot house flower who can’t face discussion of this topic.
However traumatic the incident she claims occurred may have been, she hardly seems to be a delicate flower who will wilt in public.
She should accept the invitation to testify in the Senate and get the transparency started. When we hear all that, we can know what precisely the FBI should look into, who they might phone and so on.
Lucia, it’s Ford, not Fox.
Tom Scharf, Ed Whelan has looked thru the claims of Kavanaugh’s lies to Congress.
Ford didn’t just identify Judge as a witness, but also named two other attendees.
One of them has written a letter denying ever being at such a party.
The other is still publicly unknown.
Not knowing whose house it was is consistent with her story that she would be hanging out at some community place and would find out about parties there. But then she should know how she got to the party, who took her there.
MikeN,
Opps….
Yes. Ford.
On Kavanaugh lies: If the Senate things he lied, we don’t need to learn more about Ford’s claims.
They should not confirm him. In that case, they can skip thinking about Ford’s allegations. Trump can nominate someone else. There is no reason for the Senate to waste time on those allegations, just vote to not confirm and be done with it.
If the Senate believes Kavanaugh was truthful,then the fact some are calling his statement lies should have no bearing on whether they look into Ford’s allegations. They should consider Ford’s allegations and new information that needs to be considered.
I think the most expeditious way is to have Ford and Kavanaugh appear before the Senate present their stories and allow questions.
MikeN,
My mistake. I thought she only identified Judge. So two guys supposedly there say the were never at such a party. ‘
But then she should know how she got to the party, who took her there.
Unless she was already blotto before even going to the party. In which case, she’d be prone to mis-identifying who might have assaulted her or even misjudged stumbling into a room for being pushed.
A woman on twitter (facebook) evidently claimed the incident was talked about at the girls school immediately after the incident. Then she took her post down.
There is a difficulty with the woman’s post: Ford said during summer. She does report wearing a bathing suit under her clothes. School is not ordinarily in session in the summer.
Thomas William Fuller (Comment #170663): “Given that his answers on some other questions raise doubts about his honesty, I believe further investigation is warranted.”
Memory is very plastic and often unreliable. I remember the famous science fiction author Isaac Asimov commented that when writing his autobiography, entries from his journal from the time not only did not confirm his memory of some events, but that the event was the exact opposite of what he remembered.
Then there was the recovered memory thing from the 1990’s as well as the satanic ritual child abuse thing. People were convicted and imprisoned for years because of that, not to mention the damage to the children who were made to believe they had been abused.
I would be very suspicious of anyone who claims to remember something from long ago but does not have a lot of detail and corroboration.
And again, you’re not lying if you believe what you are saying is true and aren’t a sociopath.
I don’t think Ford ever explicitly said it was summer, but that makes most sense with the hanging out somewhere and then going to a party and the swimsuit. It could also be end of school year or start with the pools still open.
She told Post the names of two others at the party, and they gave no comment when asked.
If I had to bet, it would be on one of two things:
1) She was at a party like this, got drunk, and this happened to someone else at the party.
2) She heard this tale from one of her students, and retold it.
In both cases she is deliberately targeting Kavanaugh and Judge.
MikeN
From WAPO article
Speaking publicly for the first time, Ford said that one summer in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh and a friend — both “stumbling drunk,†Ford alleges — corralled her into a bedroom during a gathering of teenagers at a house in Montgomery County.
That says “summer”.
Here is text of collaboration letter that was posted and pulled from Facebook.
There is issue of summer vs hearing about it at school, but also how did he hear about it if Ford never told anyone?
Summer it is then. It’s just the month and year she’s a little unclear on.
When it hasn’t been your day, your week, your month, or even your year…
JD Ohio (Comment #170660)
“On a more positive note, than the current news, my son’s college entrance ACT testing saga has ended well. He scored a 33, which included a perfect score of 36 on the reading portion and a 34 on the math portion. He scored a 30 on the English portion, which was 5 points better than his 25 on the June test he took. Worked about 30 hours per week over the summer to improve his June score, which was a 30 overall. (The 33 was in the top 1.3%)”
“Luckily, my son was motivated and instead of feeling pressure, just took the attitude that he was playing a game.”
__________
JD, congratulations to your son. And to you, too.
I think looking at a test like it’s ” a game” is a good approach.
JD,
Your white privilege is showing, ha ha. You may more than makeup for that payment with a scholarship and it will be money well invested for both you and your son.
Betsy DeVos on the philosophy of relativism, i.e. find your own truth:
Too many institutions have tried to pursue truth and harmony, but end up failing in both. Jonathan Haidt, a psychologist and professor at New York University, argues that institutions of learning cannot pledge to pursue truth and at the same time oblige a welcoming atmosphere, civility or even social justice.
The latter are to be voluntarily embraced by each member of the community. A school, on the other hand, must make a choice as to its purpose. Let’s call it “Haidt’s choice.†Pursue truth or pursue harmony. An institution of learning cannot be both a forum for all ideas and an advocate for some at the expense of others.
SteveF “Yikes! You obviously have a lot more money than my parents ever did. If you divide that value by a factor of 6 to account for inflation since the 1960’s, it would have represented about 1 1/2 months of my dad’s net earnings when I was in high school.”
The way I look at it, I invested $6,000 to make $100,000 or $150,000 because he is now eligible for a lot of merit-based free rides. Also, he worked very hard, and I will bet his hourly “salary” for the time spent (on very boring work) was not that high. (Too lazy to figure it out). I would also add that when you give kids bonuses, they end up spending it on things you would often buy for them anyway. So, the real, functional amount comes out to be a lot less than the apparent facial amount of the bonus.
JD
MikeN (Comment #170672)
“If I had to bet, it would be on one of two things:
1) She was at a party like this, got drunk, and this happened to someone else at the party.
2) She heard this tale from one of her students, and retold it.
In both cases she is deliberately targeting Kavanaugh and Judge.”
__________
MikeN, perhaps it didn’t occur to you that your bets don’t exclude Kavanaugh and Judge. Or maybe it did.
You could win the first bet if Kavanaugh and Judge sexually assaulted a girl other than Ford at the party.
You could win the second bet if one of Ford’s female students was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh and Judge at another party.
Of course you could win both bets.
If one can veto a high profile career with 36 year old unverifiable claims then we can certainly assume this isn’t the last time this power will be used. The Republicans are going to need to hold a confirmation vote if she doesn’t testify, or else they will suffer the consequences from their own side. It’s pretty obvious the testimony if it occurs will just result in he said / she said and exactly zero people changing their minds. The goal for Democrats is to get Collins to vote against and delay the vote until after the election so red state Democrats can have cover. She is going to have to testify or this drama will end within a week.
lucia (Comment #170656)
“The answer to your question: Claiming someone was present sure as heck beats claiming there were no witnesses at all. Also, her story needs someone present to create a way for her to get away from Kavanaugh who, after all, is much larger than she was.”
lucia, I see it another way. If she was going to fabricate, why go half way. She could have just claimed he raped her rather than attempted to do it. Adding a witness to a made-up story would not be a good idea.
You also said “He said he never saw Kavanaugh act that way ever. And he doesn’t remember any incident like that. He gives no details about how Kavanaugh acted during it.”
Yes, Judge said he doesn’t remember any incident like that. He’s not
saying it never happened, just that he doesn’t remember. He also said he never saw Kavanaugh act that way. Of course if he didn’t remember any incident like that, and can’t be sure whether it happened or not, then he can’t say for sure that Kavanaugh never
acted that way.
I recall reading something about Judge being unwilling to testify. If he refuses, it will look like he has something to hide about himself,
Kavanaugh, or both.
MikeN,
Presumably one of the boys or the other girl might have known about it and talked. If so, they will want to find the other girl and boys (now adults) to see what they have to say.
But once again: Could be a different incident that was talked about.
Tom Scharf
It’s pretty obvious the testimony if it occurs will just result in he said / she said and exactly zero people changing their minds.
I think the same is likely with an FBI probe. I also suspect Feinstein things an FBI probe would be inconclusive or at least there is a sizeable risk it won’t support Ford. That’s why she waited so long to make this an issue. Had it been brought up a month ago, the FBI could have questioned all named parties, and people who might rise up and support Ford would have done so– and had their stories investigated and so on.
The goal for Democrats is to get Collins to vote against and delay the vote until after the election so red state Democrats can have cover. She is going to have to testify or this drama will end within a week.
Of course.
MikeN (Comment #170665)
September 19th, 2018 at 12:10 pm
Lucia, it’s Ford, not Fox.
______
That’s not the first time lucia has referred to Ford as Fox. I suspect something is going on there. A Fox is a clever animal. Perhaps lucia thinks Ford is like a Fox. The following quote is from the Urban Dictionary:
“Like a Fox” is used after an action that one has just achieved as a discriptive phrase. When you have done something, adding “Like a Fox!” at the end will emphisize the slyness, talent or precision you or someone else has achieved something. “Like a Fox” can also be said; “Like Fox!”. Like a Fox is traced back as far as an ancient phanton comic, where the Phantom states; “Crazy like a fox”
Seen in today’s USAToday, an unfortunate statement by Kavanaugh in a 2015 speech:
“But fortunately, we had a good saying that we’ve held firm to, to this day, as the dean was reminding me before the talk, which is, ‘What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep,’ ” Kavanaugh said, drawing a few laughs. “That’s been a good thing for all of us, I think.”
Like they say about Vegas, except herpes.
OK_Max,
I saw that video. I don’t see it as evidence of anything related to the Ford allegations.
Lots of people say “what happens in vegas stays in vegas” and are not referring to anything disreputable at all.
Of course some kids were young and stupid in high school. Of cousre some kids don’t want to discuss that later. That doesn’t tell us much more than that.
Regarding the possibility that Ford is fabricating her story to some extent, assuming this is the case for a moment. It may be that she wishes her story to remain somewhat consistent with what she has said to people in the past. For example, her therapists notes from six (6) years ago have apparently been reviewed (their contents mentioned here). They seem to be sparse enough on details, perhaps she fears that contradicting them will leave her even less credible than she is now.
This may explain why, assuming she is making up elements of her account, she does not embellish too far as Max suggested in #170682. It may be that she dare not suggest actual rape for this reason.
The FBI does not investigate ‘crimes’ which are not crimes under federal statute. I doubt people will find any “teenage-party-groping” stature in federal law. The whole “FBI needs to investigate” trope is nonsense. Kavanaugh has already had multiple background checks done. Are we to assume all those earlier checks were worthless? I guess so.
Irony alert. There’s lots of chatter about whether he did it or not, based on zero evidence. The masses love it. But not much chatter about due process. Rules of procedure in a court room are pretty strict, and there is a judge to make sure they are adhered too.
.
Here we have a free for all, closer to a lynch mob than a court room.
Directed at someone who is the among the highest of the high in the judiciary, someone who certainly can see the difference. It’s a sad day, and the future of democracy isn’t what it used to be.
.
The masses haven’t had so much fun since OJ.
lucia (Comment #170686)
I saw that video. I don’t see it as evidence of anything related to the Ford allegations.
Lots of people say “what happens in vegas stays in vegas†and are not referring to anything disreputable at all. and are not referring to anything disreputable at all.
______
lucia, no one has ever said to me “what happens in vegas stays in vegas.†All I know is what I’ve read, including dictionary definitions. I believe this idiom implies something happened you aren’t supposed to talk about, something that needs to remain secret.
I took Kavanaugh’s remark to mean the students at his school did things that it would be best not to talk about. What do you think he meant?
The following explanation of “what happens in vegas stays in vegas†is from the Free Dictionary:
“Any scandalous activities that happen when one travels in a group are not to be discussed with other people afterward. The phrase alludes to Las Vegas, Nevada, a popular vacation destination with a reputation as a city of hedonism (due to its casinos and clubs). The phrase can also be used simply to emphasize that something needs to be kept secret. Primarily heard in US. A: “Guys, please don’t tell my wife what happened while we were on vacation.” B: “Sure, man—what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas!” I really want this party to be a surprise, so please don’t share the details we discussed here with anyone else—what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, OK?”
BTW, I used to live in Las Vegas.
Will evil and stupid in the US Senate rule, or will law rule? It is a sorry question, but one that needs to be asked, and one where the answer is not at all clear. If Kavanaugh is defeated based on tripe: a no-date-no-location-no-corroboration claimed offense from 35+ years ago, then democracy under the rule of law is lost. Thank goodness for the second amendment; that will at least give the leftist crazies pause.
Max,
Your interpretation of the expression is correct as far as I know. I have personally known people to use the expression. To the best of my knowledge, none of the people I have personally known to have used the expression were referring to attempted rape.
I’d hope this goes without saying, but to take the use of this expression as evidence against Kavanaugh is downright shameful in my view.
OK_Max (Comment #170690): “I took Kavanaugh’s remark to mean the students at his school did things that it would be best not to talk about. What do you think he meant?”
————-
I would think he meant that when they were teenagers they sometimes behaved like teenagers.
OK_Max, Mike M.
I thought the same thing Mike M. thought. Often parents don’t want to talk about their teenage behavior when their kids are around. This can include things as innocuous as dancing on tables.
They are perfectly happy reminiscing about the behavior when they get together!
mark bofill (Comment #170692)
Mike M. (Comment #170693)
lucia (Comment #170694)
I don’t believe Kavanaugh was referring to horrible crimes when he said “What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep.” But he may have meant mischievous acts, including wha SteveF in Comment #170688 called “teenage-party-groping.”
While it may not have been Kavanaugh’s intent, the axiom implies don’t snitch on your buds.
mark bofill (Comment #170692)
Mike M. (Comment #170693)
lucia (Comment #170694)
I don’t believe Kavanaugh was referring to horrible crimes when he said “What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep.” But he may have meant mischievous acts, including wha SteveF in Comment #170688 called “teenage-party-groping.”
While it may not have been Kavanaugh’s intent, the axiom implies don’t snitch on your buds.
In a sane world the burden of proof is on the accuser, OK_Max seems to be wondering into the burden is on the defendant territory. Feel free to correct that.
.
What the level of proof should be for removing Kavanaugh is a personal opinion. For a criminal case this would be tossed out of court in 2 minutes on statute of limitations, and lack of evidence even if the limitations weren’t an issue.
.
Evidence is what matters, anyone can think anything they want without it. There are separate questions of which way the evidence leans, and if the weight of the evidence is strong enough to conclude anything no matter which way it leans.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170697)
September 19th, 2018 at 9:51 pm
“In a sane world the burden of proof is on the accuser, OK_Max seems to be wondering into the burden is on the defendant territory. Feel free to correct that.”
______
Tom, I’m glad you said “wondering” instead of “wandering.” It’s good to know you think I’m curious rather than just aimlessly moving about. Discoveries, however, sometimes are made by aimlessly moving about.
I’m “wondering into” the Ford’s allegation territory. A thorough investigation is needed to get to the truth. I want to know the truth. What’s wrong with my wanting to know the truth?
Of course I know getting to the truth can take time and Democrats want to drag out filling the SC vacancy until after the mid-terms. It reminds me of the Republicans wanting to wait until after the presidential election for the same reason. Both parties either stall or hurry when it helps them.
Re OK_Max (Comment #170696)
Correction: It’s an idiom not an axiom.
Max OK: “A thorough investigation is needed to get to the truth. I want to know the truth. What’s wrong with my wanting to know the truth?”
No investigation will get to the truth because too much time has passed. A reasonable response to an additional query such as: “What is wrong with an investigation — there is some chance it may find something” — is last minute very old accusations are subject to manipulation. If someone can, at the last moment, hold up a Supreme Court nomination with such flimsy allegations, then this will be an endless tactic in this case and other areas.
……
An additional reason why an “investigation” is not warranted is that even if the accuser’s allegations are true, they should not matter. Approximately, 35 years have gone by and Kavanaugh has compiled a very good record in all areas, including his treatment of women. One bad mistake, if in fact it occurred, should not overcome the many other things that Kavanaugh has done since he was 17-years-old.
JD
If other girls talked about what happened at this party at school, then they would have also talked to Ford about it.
Same if it was the boys who talked about it, only then Judge and Kavanaugh would know it is foolish to claim it never happened.
From Ford’s high school yearbook, it sounds like such activities would have been routine talk, and no one could say it 35 years later, yeah it happened with Kavanaugh.
What is surprising is the parents and faculty of Ford’s school were OK with publishing details of this party atmosphere:
I probably should refrain from commenting when I don’t have time to do it properly, but I’m going to anyway.
SteveF,
Will evil and stupid in the US Senate rule, or will law rule? It is a sorry question, but one that needs to be asked, and one where the answer is not at all clear. If Kavanaugh is defeated based on tripe: a no-date-no-location-no-corroboration claimed offense from 35+ years ago, then democracy under the rule of law is lost.
Max,
Of course I know getting to the truth can take time and Democrats want to drag out filling the SC vacancy until after the mid-terms. It reminds me of the Republicans wanting to wait until after the presidential election for the same reason. Both parties either stall or hurry when it helps them.
Both parties have their objectives, for example in this case appointing [or preventing the appointment of] a conservative SCJ. Of course there is also our structural rule system which can (and often is) gamed by means fair and foul to give one side or the other an advantage in pursuing their ends.
The trouble with ‘dirty tricks’ or means foul as opposed to fair IMV is that employing dirty tricks degrades the degree of civility remaining between the two opposing parties in our political system. Dirty tricks may be analogous to innovation in warfare; they can give one side or the other a transient advantage, but over the long haul what happens is that the other side copies the innovation and uses it, and the advantage is lost.
I think this is why both liberals and conservatives should reconsider using dirty tricks. It would be better for us as a people to informally agree that we won’t use such tactics against each other to settle our political differences.
This won’t happen (agreement not to use dirty tricks). I’m thinking about why, what makes this seem so unlikely. It might have something to do with tribalism and distrust.
MikeN,
Those yearbook pages are, ahem…. a little different from the pages of my high school yearbook. So according to the yearbook, drinking until you pass out at parties was not uncommon among students at this all-girls, private high school, and that kind of drunken party with students from nearby all-boys private schools was common. Wild parties were common when someone’s parents were not at home. Ford probably doesn’t remember who’s house it was because she never knew in the first place.
.
This information makes it easier to understand why Kavanaugh’s accuser is reluctant to testify. I expect she will never testify publicly under oath, where she would face questioning about the drunken-partying culture at her high school. Her risk of perjury would be very real if she claimed to not to be part of the party scene and/or did not drink and former classmates could testified that she was/did.
MIkeN,
Yes. If, as the other girls said, it was widely talked about, someone would almost certainly have talked to Ford about it. Then, presumably she would know everyone knew about it. One would think part of her “trauma” would be having the relive the experience while everyone talked about it.
The other girls story superficially look corroborating. But it’s actually not consistent with the few things Ford tells us about what happened.
SteveF,
If she claims not to be part of the drunken party scene, I will find that utterly unbelievable. The story she does tell has her waiting at the community center because that’s where you find out about parties. She knew someone who gave her a ride.
I have no doubt that some of the girls in my high school sometimes went to drunken parties somewhere. Living far from nearly all my classmates, if they did, I had no idea of it. But I know it wasn’t a “thing” the way it’s described in Ford’s yearbook. And I know girls who haunt locations because that’s where you find out about the parties are girls who regularly go to parties. After all: That’s going to parties is precisely why they learn about and haunt those locations.
There’s nothing really wrong with having been a party girl in high school. But I suspect she doesn’t quite what her children to be aware of that. Most parents want to put limits on their kids partying (for good reason.)
Moreover, as I mentioned before, she evidently was terrified her parents would find out she’d been at a drunken party. My guess is that was because she enjoyed drunking parties, and that not withstanding the “trauma” she says she experienced, she very much wanted to continue to go to drunken parties. (Where, like it or not, she would be at risk of precisely the behavior she claims happened with Kavanaugh. That said, teens and even adults are foolish. So the fact that going to future parties would have put her at risk of a repeat event might not put her off the parties.)
Lucia,
If Ford testified that she did go to parties and did drink, then that testimony would make her memory of the claimed events much less credible; the memories of people who are drinking are generally not very credible. Should there be a former classmate who would testify Ford drank heavily at parties, then her memories would be even less credible.
.
If she testified that that she did not drink, or never to excess, then she would be at real risk of perjury.
.
So, I very much doubt she will ever testify under oath. Refusing to testify maximizes the chance Flake and Collins will vote against Kavanaugh, defeating his nomination. My bet is that Flake will vote against Kavanaugh no matter what… to punish Trump before Flake leaves the Senate. I think this because Flake has acted in their feud almost as much an ass as Trump has… and he is angry that Trump’s supporters made his re-election just about impossible. So it will likely be Collins is who controls the outcome.
mark bofill (Comment #170703): “The trouble with ‘dirty tricks’ or means foul as opposed to fair IMV is that employing dirty tricks degrades the degree of civility remaining between the two opposing parties in our political system.”
————
Excellent point. Ultimately, that is why we have laws and civilization rather than savagery. Make that “rather than the war of all against all”; even savages have rules.
.
Once again, it seems like the Left does not care about the unintended consequences of their actions. I have begun to wonder if that is because the consequences are actually intended. That is, maybe they want to destroy our society. I am pretty sure that is so for an element of the Left and I am certain that it is not so for the average left leaning person. But I do not know how widespread it is.
SteveF,
If Ford testified that she did go to parties and did drink, then that testimony would make her memory of the claimed events much less credible; the memories of people who are drinking are generally not very credible.
Yes. It will suggest the possibility that all of the following are possible owning to booze induced memory loss:
(a) Mistaking who. (Very important.)
(b) Misinterpreting “pushed” for “we all stumbled”.
(c) Not really knowing if the door was locked.
(d) Lots of possible memory glitches.
The fact of not knowing where, when, how she got there and etc. will then be seen as natural given that she was drunk.
That yearbook is going to be brought forward. It’s rather remarkable evidence of heavy boozeswilling at her school. In the short term, lots of people are going to suspect lack of candor if she claims she did not drink given the evidence of the school culture and the evidence that she sought out boozie parties and the fact that the claimed incident happened at what must have been a boozie party (albeit with few partiers in attendance).
If she claims she did not drink in highschool, and she did, there will be the potential for perjury charges since (I’m pretty sure) she will be sworn before the Senate. If she drank regularly, evidence is very likely to come forward that she drank.
If her story is true and she’s willing to tell the truth, the “OK_Max” standard says she should testify. 😉
Of course, everyone else’s standard is she should bring a lawyer with her. Or decline to avoid perjury charges. 🙂 She arranged for the lawyer long ago; she already had a well known crack lawyer in place long before she went public with the story.
Testifying to the Senate is not much different from the FBI– it’s just more expeditious and more people are informed of what she said more quickly. Since this is a very important political issue, and voters deserve information, the greater, quicker, transparency is appropriate. Also, since the Senate will allow private testimony, she ought to be able to avoid a complete circus (which I would advise her to do btw.)
While the harassing emails and death threats may be real (and I bet they are), there’s no reason to believe they will stop whether or not she testifies. Refusing to testify will motivate just as many additional death threats as testifying will. So those are no reason not to testify to the Senate in private.
Her life is already disrupted. There is no reason she can’t fly in and out to DC. But my understanding is the committee may have offered to fly out to her which would mean the time out of her schedule would be even smaller. (I’m googling to determine if that rumor is true.)
MikeM
Once again, it seems like the Left does not care about the unintended consequences of their actions. I
They may.
But to be fair, you need to recognize that to some extent neither party cares about unintended consequences if the intended consequences matter enough. Some of the unintended consequences are unpredictable etc.
Getting rid of filibuster bit Dems in the ass, only because they lost the Senate which they did not anticipate. Now they have this Kavanaugh thing which is almost as “good” for their purposes.
Politics is politics. There will always be “tricks” by both sides.
“Once again, it seems like the Left does not care about the unintended consequences of their actions.”
.
Ending the judicial filibuster. Endorsed by the NYT. Oops. Actually they did support the filibuster in 2005, were against it in 2013, and for it again in 2017. I’m sure who the President was had no impact on their thinking and they would be glad to tell you so with great self righteousness.
SteveF (Comment #170704)
September 20th, 2018 at 6:18 am
MikeN,
Those yearbook pages are, ahem…. a little different from the pages of my high school yearbook. So according to the yearbook, drinking until you pass out at parties was not uncommon among students at this all-girls, private high school,
_________
Mine too. Now I know why my wife, who went to a Catholic girl’s school, has never shown me her school yearbook. She denies even
having one, probably because there are photos of her and her classmates doing things she doesn’t want me to see.
I’ll bet that Catholic girl’s school is were she learned to cuss like a sailor.
If she went to parties and was drinking the real danger IMO is sending the wrong signals to drunken boys. I find it unlikely that an event like this at a party (if it happened) wasn’t preceded by flirting. A girl may very much want to start a relationship with a boy she met, but she may just as likely determine that she does not want rough aggressive treatment when things progress, then everything stops. I’m only blaming the victim because sometimes the victim deserves some of the blame.
.
I don’t really buy the “rich boys from private school attempt to rape girl who they never talked to at a public party”. I find the drinking and flirting escalated too far and things didn’t go well argument much more compelling. Even when drunk the vast majority of men know attacking women against their will is very wrong. Raging hormones, alcohol, and not knowing how to interact with women appropriately can result in awkward encounters.
.
What is missing here is no discrimination between a class 10 sexual assault with intent to rape versus flowers and poetry. This discrimination has been banned from discussion in polite society.
.
I went to lots of drinking parties in high school, and hosted 3 different ones myself when my parents were gone. Couples finding an empty bedroom at a drunken party did happen sometimes, but was not common. I remember several times seeing girls passed out on the floor in my youth. Welcome to WV circa 1980 folks. This was the culture and they were a ton of fun.
Dirty politics are used because dirty politics work. When they become reliably counterproductive then they might stop. We aren’t close to that day yet.
What’s to investigate about this (real question)?
As far as I can tell, we already know everything there is to know at this late date. Since it’s a he said/she said thing, there remains only the credibility of the witnesses. It would be very wrong to have law enforcement, particularly the FBI, opine on witness credibility, as they could do in a criminal investigation, when you have a Senate Committee hearing as the alternative.
But then it’s not clear there is a crime to investigate and certainly not a federal crime. We also don’t need any further politicization of the FBI. The key prosecution witness refusing to testify would certainly result in dismissal or acquittal in a trial. If Ford refuses to testify to the Senate on Monday, the hearing should be cancelled and a vote called.
Lucia,
“..you need to recognize that to some extent neither party cares about unintended consequences if the intended consequences matter enough.”
.
Absolutely. Democrats cared enough about Obama appointing ‘progressive’ judges that they eliminated the filibuster…. which really ticked off Republicans, who were until then blocking many of Obama’s very liberal nominees. The Republicans cared enough about keeping a fifth liberal off the Supreme Court (which would have ensured favorable rulings for progressives for a decade or more) that they refused to even consider Obama’s nominee for the last 9 months of his presidency, which really ticked off Democrats… who are now using any means available (no matter what) to keep a fifth conservative off the Supreme Court. Wash, rinse, repeat.
.
One interesting point is that Garland was the first nominee by a Democrat who was not confirmed since before Roosevelt, whereas four previous nominees by Republicans were rejected, the most famous of which was Bork. In each case, the rejection was based mainly on the nominee being skeptical of an activist, progressive Supreme Court…. the same as the basis for opposition to Kavanaugh. Progressives have used the SC as a super-legislature to advance their policy goals since at least the 1960s, which is why it has become ever more important to both Democrats and Republicans.
.
I do not see a way forward from here: So long as the President and the Senate are controlled by different parties, confirmation of future SC appointments appears nearly impossible. What ought to be an apolitical institution has for several decades been a very political institution, and one often used (IMO) to subvert the meaning of the Constitution in order to avoid the need for amendment (which would not likely succeed!). That is the ‘original sin’ which has damaged the function of both the Court and the Senate.
Whatever happened to (the girl who wrote the stories in the yearbook)? — she shows a lot of promise. Maybe she went on to become a famous novelist, or failing that a not-so famous journalist. Gossip columnist? Or a screen writer — “based on a true story” or “inspired by actual events”. The stories do give a feeling of what it was like back then that more straight, traditional yearbooks do not.
.
I’ve seen countless parents-away-parties in the movies. They come across as believable — in some other universe than mine. I see what I missed out on by being a nerd. The things I never knew! (and the traps I avoided that I didn’t even know were there).
SteveF (Comment #170716): “One interesting point is that Garland was the first nominee by a Democrat who was not confirmed since before Roosevelt”
There was the blocked elevation of Abe Fortas to chief justice.
.
“whereas four previous nominees by Republicans were rejected, the most famous of which was Bork. In each case, the rejection was based mainly on the nominee being skeptical of an activist, progressive Supreme Court”
That would be widely disputed in the cases of Haynsworth and Carswell.
MikeM,
“That would be widely disputed in the cases of Haynsworth and Carswell.”
.
Most everything associated with Supreme Court nominees will be widely disputed. 😉
.
Haynsworth and Carswell were two conservative southerners opposed to judicial activism. Carswell was clearly considered by many to be “less qualified” based on his background and rulings. Haynsworth was very qualified, but was strongly opposed based on his political views.
MikeM,
“There was the blocked elevation of Abe Fortas to chief justice.”
.
All his votes after that counted the same. An insult by conservative Senators? Yes. Meaningful? No. Besides, he had lots of real ethical issues and resigned from the Court shortly afterwards.
JD Ohio (Comment #170700)
“No investigation will get to the truth because too much time has passed.”
JD, you can’t be certain no investigation will get to the truth. It might at least provide more information.
“If someone can, at the last moment, hold up a Supreme Court nomination with such flimsy allegations, then this will be an endless tactic in this case and other areas.”
JD, I don’t know what you mean by ‘if’. Hasn’t Ford already held it up?
What’s wrong with holding it up a little longer? An FBI investigation could be finished before mid-term elections.
OK_Max,
So far investigation by the media, public, social media has revealed:
* Ford identified herself and gave an account with very, very, very few details.
* Mark Judge says he never witnessed any such event.
* The girls school had quite a rip-roarin’ year book suggesting wild parties and drunkenness was rampant at Ford’s high school.
* One woman says the incident was widely discusssed at school, then took down her facebook post and said she has no first hand knowledge.
* A bunch of women sent letters of support for Ford. (This seems to amount to “we’re on your side!” with nothing relevant to the accusation.)
* A bunch of woman say Kavanaugh is a swell guy. (This is only slightly less irrelevant than the above.)
I’m sure we’ll hear more. It’s only Thursday and Monday is several news cycles away!
Tom Scharf (Comment #170713)
“If she went to parties and was drinking the real danger IMO is sending the wrong signals to drunken boys. I find it unlikely that an event like this at a party (if it happened) wasn’t preceded by flirting”
________
Are you suggesting women at parties should like nuns ?
I fondly recall a very attractive girl flirting with me at drunken party. I didn’t interpret her behavior as a signal to jump on top of her. Even as a drunk teenager I had better sense than that. Never saw her again.
Edit not working. First line in reply should be
Are you suggesting women at parties should act like nuns ?
lucia (Comment #170722)
lucia, thanks for the summary.
I believe Mark Judge has said he doesn’t want to testify. I don’t know what he has said, if anything, about an interview with the FBI.
IMO, Ford’s HS year book is being used in a way to damage her character ( associate drunken teenage girls with easy virtue),
and that could backfire. Lot’s of women voters may be offended
by the suggestion that drinking makes them loose women.
OK_Max
I don’t think he’s suggesting that. I think he’s suggesting that even taking Ford’s story at face value, it’s edited to leave out details. FWIW: to some extent those details– like drunkenness– might suggest a higher than normal rate of misinterpretation on everyone’s part and might also suggest less than accurate or complete recall.
One doesn’t need to expect 15 year old girls at parties should act like nuns to also suggest that certain behavior might result in poor recollection and so on.
IMO, Ford’s HS year book is being used in a way to damage her character
Perhaps. But that being one of the uses doesn’t preclude it being used in another way: To get an idea of the type of parties that were frequent in her social set, or to get an idea of the type of behavior she was used to witnessing in her social set.
Lot’s of women voters may be offended
by the suggestion that drinking makes them loose women.
No one here said drinking makes someone a loose woman. They have said:
1) Drinking makes people have poor memories.
2) It makes people be unaware of how their behavior is perceived.
3) It makes them less able to diagnose signals other people are sending.
4) It makes them stumble, and possibly mistake being pushed intentionally with a push due to a stumble.
And a number of other things. But not that it makes someone a loose woman.
In this case, of course, we are discussing girls and boys, not men and women.
If someone is offended by those observations, they are offended by reality. I’m a woman, and I’m offended by the claim that the behavior Ford says happened to her would be particularly traumatic. I could see it being traumatic if she’d been raped or possibly if she’d even been bruised or something. But I’ve experienced similar levels of aggressiveness and I assure you, I was not “traumatized”.
OK_Max
I didn’t say Mark Judge talked to the FBI nor anything about possible Judge-FBI involvement. I said ” Mark Judge says he never witnessed any such event.” Newsreports say he said that.
OK_Max,
The important date isn’t the midterm’s in November, It’s October 1 when the next session of the Supreme Court opens. If Kavanaugh isn’t confirmed by then, the Court would have to hold and re-argue any case that ends up with a 4-4 tie. There don’t appear to be any blockbuster cases on this term’s docket, though.
Having the FBI investigate the allegations, which would likely have to be ordered by Trump to proceed, is just another delaying action. There isn’t anything to investigate since there are no details as to time and place. There has been no complaint filed with local police either. In terms of background checking, the FBI has done about all it can by including the letter in Kavanaugh’s file.
If there were corroborating witnesses for Ford’s allegation, they would have shown up by now. In fact, 65 women, almost all of whom knew Kavanaugh personally, signed a letter backing Kavanaugh. I suspect they didn’t realize how strongly they would be attacked.
Meanwhile, the alumnae of Ford’s school who signed a letter declaring that an investigation is needed were mostly not acquaintances of either Ford or Kavanaugh.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170728)
The important date isn’t the midterm’s in November, It’s October 1 when the next session of the Supreme Court opens.
“In terms of background checking, the FBI has done about all it can by including the letter in Kavanaugh’s file.”
_________
Yes, first, Oct. 1 is important. Then what happens up to the mid-terms is important.
Not sure which letter you mean, but if it included reference to Mr. Judge, did the FBI interview him?
lucia (Comment #170727)
September 20th, 2018 at 1:57 pm
OK_Max
I didn’t say Mark Judge talked to the FBI nor anything about possible Judge-FBI involvement. I said †Mark Judge says he never witnessed any such event.†Newsreports say he said that.
______
Yes, but not under oath. He doesn’t want to testify. Maybe because he would be under oath.
In other news the stock market continues to “never recover from Trump” as it hits an all time high. Trade war, schmade war.
Maybe he doesn’t want to testify under oath because he is not insane.
OK_Max
Not sure which letter you mean,
The letter placed the letter Ford wrote in Kavanaugh’s file. After reading it. Likely after discussing it and seeing there were no details one could follow up on.
OK_Max
Yes, but not under oath. He doesn’t want to testify. Maybe because he would be under oath.
Ford and her lawyer are being rather coy. But they sure are doing their best to say they are willing to testify to the Senate (under oath) and simultaneously giving reasons not to accept the invitation.
If you are going to speculate Judge doesn’t want to do it because he’d be under oath, you should equally speculate why Ford doesn’t want to do so.
Ford at least was prepared for this. She wrote a letter. She lawyered up. And so on. This totally blindsides Judge. He might not want to spend money on a lawyer and so on.
The fact is: almost no one should want to testify in this sort of atmosphere. But Ford sent the letter. And she lawyered up in preparation. And she and her lawyer are strongly suggesting investigations of Kavanaugh. She basically kicked this off. Judge has done nothing similar.
And you know, this isn’t even like Anita Hill. Hill didn’t proactively send letters or talk to anyone. She was interviewed because she worked for Thomas. Other than say what she believed was true when her statements were solicited she didn’t do anything to kick things off. That’s not true of Ford. Ford acted to get this rolling. And now she and her lawyer are saying things that at least make it sound like they might refuse to talk to the Senate, or suggesting there should be preconditions and so on.
Ford deserves to be heard. And we the public and the Senate deserve to have her testify, under oath, and be presented questions that the public can evaluate.
I don’t know why people place a lot of weight on testimony in a he said / she said case. In my view a likable and accomplished liar will win a debate without evidence against somebody near the autism spectrum every single time. Every time. Kavanaugh will no doubt declare his innocence robustly and with conviction but the “believe women” crowd aren’t going to care, they demand an unlevel playing field. Testimony will give us more than nothing, but I’m not sure very much more if no further evidence is uncovered and the predictable testimony occurs. They both must be cross examined for it to have any merit. I’m all for testimony, I just don’t think that it is going to help find the actual truth.
Lucia,
I am pretty sure she is not going to testify on open session. If she were to agree to testify in closed session, she would probably do so only if her testimony will not be disclosed to the public. The Republicans will have none of that of course.
.
I read that all her social media was taken down before Feinstein announced the existance of Ford’s letter. Does the wayback machine maintain copies of social media pages?
Tom Scharf (Comment #170731)
September 20th, 2018 at 3:39 pm
In other news the stock market continues to “never recover from Trump†as it hits an all time high. Trade war, schmade war.
______
Glad the market (Dow) finally got back to where it was 9 months ago. Actually about 1% better than it’s peak in late Jan., but trailing
the return from some money markets. I fear the market is overpriced
but I’m not changing my stock/bond allocation. Not a good time for bonds anyway.
OK_Max,
This is a good time to take some profits, sell losers and have some cash on hand. If (when) there is a downturn, you need liquid assets to take advantage.
Tom Scharf,
The stock market is really good at ignoring bad things for an unpredictably long time until it doesn’t. Then it can be really good at ignoring good things.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170738)
September 20th, 2018 at 4:36 pm
OK_Max,
This is a good time to take some profits, sell losers and have some cash on hand. If (when) there is a downturn, you need liquid assets to take advantage.
______
Thank you, DeWiit, that’s good advice. I am holding more in cash than usual.
Mike M,
I have begun to wonder if that is because the consequences are actually intended. That is, maybe they want to destroy our society. I am pretty sure that is so for an element of the Left and I am certain that it is not so for the average left leaning person. But I do not know how widespread it is.
Great point. I have wondered if this might help, that I imagine many on the Left do not want to destroy our society. A path to common ground. But there’s no common ground to be had with those few who want to burn the whole system to the ground.
SteveF,
I hadn’t thought of it, but your comment made me realize- yup. SCJ serve for so long and can be so influential, it’s probably worth the cost in the eyes of most people who care about politics in the first place to fight regardless of the cost.
Thanks all.
4 words: Buy low, sell high.
.
I’m basically a buy and hold guy so it doesn’t matter to me. I thought the market would correct by now, it hasn’t, but it undoubtedly will eventually. If we knew where the tops and bottoms were we would all be rich.
Google is just begging for govt. intervention.
.
“The email traffic, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, shows that employees proposed ways to “leverage†search functions and take steps to counter what they considered to be “islamophobic, algorithmically biased results from search terms ‘Islam’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Iran’, etc.†and “prejudiced, algorithmically biased search results from search terms ‘Mexico’, ‘Hispanic’, ‘Latino’, etc.—
…
The list of ideas included:
“Can we launch an ephemeral experience that includes Highlights, up-to-date info from the US State Dept, DHS, links to donate to ACLU, etc?†the email added.
Several officials responded favorably to the overall idea. “We’re absolutely in…Anything you need,†one wrote.
. https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-workers-discussed-tweaking-search-function-to-counter-travel-ban-1537488472
.
Google can do what it wants to do, but what it can’t do is * secretly * alter results as a search * monopoly * for an ideological agenda and avoid big brother stepping in (they claim there was no action taken here). Stop It. Get out of politics or suffer the consequences. This is really getting tiresome.
Tom Scharf,
“Stop It. Get out of politics or suffer the consequences. This is really getting tiresome.”
.
Progressives never stop pursuing their political goals. Google will never agree to be apolitical with their search engine or any of their other endeavors. They do risk political consequences. They don’t care.
Tom Scharf: “Google can do what it wants to do, but what it can’t do is * secretly * alter results as a search * monopoly * for an ideological agenda and avoid big brother stepping in”
Why do you say they’re a monopoly? They have a dominant position, but it’s hardly a monopoly.
It’s not that I approve of biasing their search results to fit a political agenda, but I can’t see anything good coming from having the government interfere.
Steve F: “Progressives never stop pursuing their political goals. Google will never agree to be apolitical with their search engine or any of their other endeavors. They do risk political consequences. They don’t care.”
….
The only solution is for people who disagree with their actions to stop using the service. Also, conservatives need to start up and fund their own tech companies.
I stopped using the Google search engine about 6 years ago. (Bing works fine). I also don’t use Paypal. You can’t reason with the Left. It is too stupid and simple minded in its bubble of self-righteousness to listen to reason. All that gets the Left’s attention is money. (ESPN seems to be partly getting the message)
JD
Ed Whelan said yesterday that he believes within a week Kavanaugh will be exonerated.
Today he follows up with an argument for mistaken identity:
I’m not sure whether it is a monopoly by the strict definition, but it has 90% market share in search. If it isn’t an official monopoly it must be very close to one. The barrier to entry into this market is also very high. There used to be a lot of competition in search. Yahoo, Alta Vista ha ha.
.
If I could give them advice today it would be “Stop trying so hard to make me dislike you”. Bill Gates spends a $1B of his money trying to extinguish malaria, Google want to manipulate search results to make me think correct thoughts. I don’t want to pick products by politics, but it’s getting increasingly difficult to separate the two with respect to Google. They are getting just as arrogant as MS did.
Mark Judge’s denial seems carefully worded, as does the ‘Ford passed a polygraph’ statement.
Alternate theory, like Lena Dunham, Ford deliberately inserted Kavanaugh and Judge into a life story to attack them. Dunham’s was publicly in a book, but not explicitly so, using just first name Barry and description that would make him identifiable to people who were there as a campus conservative leader, while Ford’s was in private therapy.
When Kavanaugh’s name came up Ford’s husband pushed her to go public to stop the nomination, and Ford doesn’t want to own up to the lie.
It had been suggested that this is what happened with Anita Hill, first blaming her job loss on sexual harassment, and then they pushed her to go forward.
ESPN has pretty much cleaned up their act. No doubt real financial pressure from cord cutters and an increasingly fragmented market for entertainment means they can’t afford to carelessly annoy their customers. NFL anthem hysterics is pretty much over as well.
JD Ohio (Comment #170746): “The only solution is for people who disagree with their actions to stop using the service.”
.
Exactly.
.
JD Ohio: “I stopped using the Google search engine about 6 years ago. (Bing works fine).”
I use DuckDuckGo. Works fine. And I block all scripts from Google.
She is reportedly refusing to be cross examined by a lawyer and won’t testify with Kavanaugh in the same room. She says Kavanaugh must go first.
.
Hmmmm … no. The defense goes last for obvious reasons, people get to confront their accusers, and she has to defend herself against hard questions if she wants to derail a person’s life with almost no evidence. Show up Monday or this circus is over.
Kavanaugh has already been interviewed about this via phone call. Democrats did not participate.
If Kavanaugh is not to be in the same room, then where would she like the interview to take place? No one has suggested except maybe for Collins’s lawyer cross examinations that they be testifying at the same time.
ESPN fired their head, with the excuse that he was resigning over substance abuse/alcoholism issues. Reality is a combination of poor performance and blackmail over sexual harassment.
MikeN (Comment #170747)
September 20th, 2018 at 8:43 pm
Ed Whelan said yesterday that he believes within a week Kavanaugh will be exonerated.
Today he follows up with an argument for mistaken identity:
Whelan suspects Ford may have been sexually assaulted by Chris Garrett, who was a friend of both Kavanaugh and Judge. He thinks Ford could have mistook Garret for Kavanaugh , and has posted high school photos of both as evidence of how much they look alike. He also presented a floor plan of Garrett’s house, a center-hall colonial with a layout he finds consistent with Ford’s description.
I find two problem’s with Whelan’s argument. Garrett and Kavanaugh
in the supplied photos don’t look much alike too me. Center-hall colonials are very common and have similar floor plans.
Unless I missed something, Whelan has no opinion on whether Judge was present during the assault. He did say Judge and Garrett remained friends long after high school. Judge’s thoughts on Whelan’s argument might be interesting.
ucia (Comment #170734)
September 20th, 2018 at 3:55 pm
OK_Max
Yes, but not under oath. He doesn’t want to testify. Maybe because he would be under oath.
Ford and her lawyer are being rather coy. But they sure are doing their best to say they are willing to testify to the Senate (under oath) and simultaneously giving reasons not to accept the invitation.
_____
Yes, they have been coy. At this point, who knows what’s going to happen with the Senate investigation?
I believe Ford is willing to be interviewed by the FBI. I don’t know about the others.
OK Max,
Feinstein long ago sent a copy of the letter to the FBI. There is no possible Federal crime; so I think it unlikely they will interview anyone, and as the committee head notes, the Senate has no authority to instruct the FBI to open an investigation into anything.
.
WRT to testimony: If I were a betting man, I would bet that Ford never testifies publicly under oath, and probably not in closed session either. The decision on Kavanaugh is very likely to be in the hands of Collins and Flake. Flake is looking for vengeance, Collins for re-election in 2 years.
OK_Max
I believe Ford is willing to be interviewed by the FBI. I don’t know about the others.
She should be willing to testify to the Senate. And she should be willing to do it with Kavanaugh in the room. In normal legal matters, the acussed (Kavanaugh) has a right to confront his accuser (Ford).
Rape is a normal legal matter; there’s no shielding of the victim unless the DA doesn’t bring the victim in. But in those cases, unless the victim is dead, the defendent is highly likely to be found not-guilty.
Even in Ford’s story, this isn’t rape. It’s groping. Groping 30 years ago. The notion that anyone needs to be overly concerned about her trauma is as silly as if someone decided they’d need to be concerned about SteveF’s trauma because a boy shoved him against the lockers and threatened to punch his lights out back in highschool.
Sure she may have been traumatized. If she was she’s exceptionally emotionally delicate
This looks like a situation where they may keep demanding things until the Senate moves on and then they declare her story was never heard (and they never wanted it heard). Meanwhile the Senate is treating her respectfully on the face, but I suspect they are seething underneath. They are just running the clock because they know every day that passes support is lost, not gained, for Kavanaugh.
OK_Max,
What do you think would happen if Judge testified under oath in this high profile “character assassination at any cost” investigation and told a verifiable material lie? A lie that he believed to be true because 36 year old memories aren’t so great, or maybe because he was protecting his friend.
.
Do you think he should be prosecuted? US Senators will likely call for that to happen. If you even have a pause deciding that question then it should be clear that there is no upside for this testimony, and plenty of possible downside.
Happy night Collingwood won a prelim final with a seven foot american playing. Australian Rules.tough for Mr Kavanaugh.
And all men in politics really. Hope he has a tough hide. Seems to be the new Democrat modus operandi. Well. all parties really.
Tom Scharf,
Of course some Senators are seething. Acting respectfully is all people can really expect of others. She may be seething she can’t get what she wants either. She ought to act respectfully to, and to some extent is, even though her “suggestions” about what she wants are in a sense ridiculous. She should just accept the invitation an appear.
That said: it’s political theater on both sides. But make no mistake, Ford and her lawyer who is very well trained in both the theater and the law are well aware of the theater and politics aspect and are playing their role well.
Tom Scharf –
The NYTimes op-ed which you cited contains this:
An important caveat: Congress must take care to maintain the constitutional convention that has existed since the failed impeachment of Justice Chase. Federal judges, including members of the Supreme Court, should not be impeached based on their judicial rulings or philosophy.
My free translation: One should find some trivial pretext for removing judges with whose rulings or philosophy one disagrees. Something which can be claimed to constitute a deviation from the Constitutional standard of “good [b]ehavior”.
If Kavanaugh is confirmed and then removed under these circumstances, I think it would signal the end of the independence of the judicial branch.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170760)
September 21st, 2018 at 9:16 am
OK_Max,
What do you think would happen if Judge testified under oath in this high profile “character assassination at any cost†investigation and told a verifiable material lie? A lie that he believed to be true because 36 year old memories aren’t so great, or maybe because he was protecting his friend.
______
I can understand why Judge wouldn’t want to testify. Congress can compel him to testify. Do you think Congress will?
Ed Whelan suspects Judge’s friend Garrett. If Garrett was the groper he could save everyone a lot of trouble by admitting it. Rather than looking like a sex criminal, he could be seen as a hero, sacrificing himself in the interest of justice and for the benefit of his country.
To ice the cake wealthy supporters of Cavanaugh could reward him financially for coming forward.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170760)
September 21st, 2018 at 9:16 am
OK_Max,
What do you think would happen if Judge testified under oath in this high profile “character assassination at any cost†investigation and told a verifiable material lie? A lie that he believed to be true because 36 year old memories aren’t so great, or maybe because he was protecting his friend.
______
I can understand why Judge wouldn’t want to testify. Congress can compel him to testify. Do you think Congress will?
Ed Whelan suspects Judge’s friend Garrett. If Garrett was the groper he could save everyone a lot of trouble by admitting it. Rather than looking like a sex criminal, he could be seen as a hero, sacrificing himself in the interest of justice and for the benefit of his country.
To ice the cake wealthy supporters of Cavanaugh could reward him financially for coming forward.
They can subpoena him to tell them “I can’t remember that ever happening and I would have”. It’s a bit pointless. People routinely take the 5th even when they are innocent in these cases. The more you say during a witch hunt the more dangerous it is. Make no mistake that this is the very definition of a witch hunt. The Whelan thing is pure speculation.
.
Ex-IRS Official Invokes 5th Amendment Again, Then Things Get Hot https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/03/05/286231779/ex-irs-official-invokes-5th-amendment-again-then-things-get-hot
lucia (Comment #170709)
“If her story is true and she’s willing to tell the truth, the “OK_Max†standard says she should testify. 😉”
“Of course, everyone else’s standard is she should bring a lawyer with her. Or decline to avoid perjury charges. 🙂”
____________
By testifying without a lawyer Ford would appear sure of herself. A brave woman alone and struggling to stand her ground against a group of mean old men would impress the public. Congress might be impressed too. I know I would be. But it’s probably too risky.
OK_Max
Congress can compel him to testify. Do you think Congress will?
Only if they Ford first testifies to Congress. Otherwise, there is no conceivable need for Judge’s testimony. Also, since Ford has been given the option of private testimony, Judge should also.
To ice the cake wealthy supporters of Cavanaugh
They could have a gofund me campaign. Sort of like those who oppose Kavanaugh and have a gofund me campaing to donate to the campaign of whoever is running against Collins.
Tom Scharf
The Whelan thing is pure speculation.
Absolutely. I do think the two boys looked enough alike that a girl who didn’t know both well could have mistaken one for the other especially if she’s recollecting things. Heck, they could look less alike and the girl could be mistaken.
It’s still rampant speculation.
The fact is: even assuming Ford is telling a story she believes is true, we don’t need to identify who might have assaulted her to suggest she might be mistaken as to who assaulted her. It’s simply a fact that she could be mistaken and that’s true even if she was sober at the time. If she was drunk, that goes double.
Heck, she could be mistaken as to Judge. We don’t know how well she knew anyone at the party.
HaroldW (Comment #170766): “My free translation: One should find some trivial pretext for removing judges with whose rulings or philosophy one disagrees. Something which can be claimed to constitute a deviation from the Constitutional standard of “good [b]ehaviorâ€.
If Kavanaugh is confirmed and then removed under these circumstances, I think it would signal the end of the independence of the judicial branch.”
.
First part, exactly. Second part, no, it has already happened. On one side, we have those who believe the constitution is the foundation. On the other side, we have those who want to have the SC act as the supreme level of law and government, as do the clerics in Iran.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170769)
September 21st, 2018 at 11:17 am
They can subpoena him to tell them “I can’t remember that ever happening and I would haveâ€. It’s a bit pointless. People routinely take the 5th even when they are innocent in these cases.
_______
Congress would not be accusing Judge. They would only be trying to find out what he knows. If he took the 5th it would look like he either fears incriminating himself or knows something he fears will
incriminate someone else. Judge taking the 5th would not be good for Cavanaugh.
OK_Max,
Legally, you can only take the 5th to avoid incriminating yourself, not someone else. I think more likely he will just say he doesn’t remember anything like that. As he was famously alcoholic in his youth, no one will get him for perjury. He’s already written a book about his alcoholism. At worst, he might have to admit he made up some stuff or embellished when writing his book. That would not be a crime.
Testifying would (a) be a pain in the ass (b) cost him $$ he may not have to hire a lawyer (c) might force him to answer questions he’s rather not answer– which is not the same as giving us real information on what occurred and (d) has no real upside for him.
Of course he doesn’t want to testify. He might be compelled to do so. But it would be idiotic to force him to testify if Ford doesn’t. It’s idiotic to force him to testify before Ford. She should get her account out in a forum she does not control first.
She controlled what went in her letter. She almost certainly granted an interview with WAPO and likely could stipulate questions that were off limits. They probably went along with that. In anycase, they make no mention of things like was she drinking and so on. Those sorts of questions would be relevant to whether or not she might be mistaken. That they did not ask these sorts of questoins (or if asked did not report answers) suggests very gentle treatment by WAPO.
That doesn’t mean the story is wrong. But it means we, the public, shouldn’t think that WAPO was through in covering this story. (It’s fine if they weren’t. Journalists know stories evolve. It is evolving. But right now, the main story is the one that has the flavor she and her lawyer choose.)
lucia (Comment #170774)
September 21st, 2018 at 12:37 pm
OK_Max,
Legally, you can only take the 5th to avoid incriminating yourself, not someone else. I think more likely he will just say he doesn’t remember anything like that.
_____
If a person took the 5th, how would you know or find out if he’s doing it to avoid incriminating himself, himself and someone else, or someone else alone?
Yes, a “I don’t remember” answer certainly would look better than taking the 5th if it seems like a reasonable answer and doesn’t conflict with previous or future statements.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170769)
The Whelan thing is pure speculation.
_________
Whelan has now apologized.
“I made an appalling and inexcusable mistake of judgment in posting the tweet thread in a way that identified Kavanaugh’s Georgetown Prep classmate,†wrote Whelan. “I take full responsibility for that mistake, and I deeply apologize for it. I realize that does not undo the mistake.â€
Something about this just doesn’t seem right. If Whelan now thinks
his Tweet thread was appalling, I don’t understand why he thought it was a good idea a few days ago. He seems intelligent enough to be
cautious and think about the possible consequences of his actions.
OK_Max,
I’m not sure why you think there is anything “not right” about the Whelan story. At the time he did it, he thought it was a good idea. He probably didn’t consult anyone.
Afterwards people told him he was an idiot. Some have been telling him he could be sued for defamation and possibly lose. Now he knows he was an idiot.
Intelligent or not, from what I understand about his history, he has a history of not being cautious. So I don’t know why anyone would think he’d cautious, particularly as intelligence and caution have little to do with each other.
Ford says she visited Garrett in the possibility and no chance of mistaken identity.
MIkeN,
I’m not sure what you mean about “visited Garrett om the possibility”.
That she feels there is no chance for mistaken identity doesn’t mean there is no chance. She would have to provide details to explain why she is convinced there is no possibility of mistaken identity. She didn’t volunteer any in her interview with WAPO and those reporters don’t seem to have asked her about that possibility.
MIkeN
I found this:
Ford’s lawyers quickly debunked Whelan’s crackpot claim. “I knew them both, and socialized with [the other student]†she wrote in a statement released Thursday night. “There is zero chance that I would confuse them.â€
Ok. She didn’t say there is no chance of mistaken identity. She said there is no chance she would mistake Garrett for Kavanaugh, which is an entirely different thing.
She socialized with Garrett, so that would explain why she wouldn’t mistake Garrett for anyone else. It still leaves open her mistaking Kavanaugh for someone else. That’s the only important question. Note she does not say she socialized with Kavanaugh.
We don’t need to identify the someone else to know that she could mistake someone she did not socialize with for someone else she did also did not socialize with.
If she is so sure, they can test that with photo lineups and make her pick out a 17 year old Kavanaugh.
Tom Scharf,
By now I’m sure she can. Even I can pick out a 17 year old Kavanaugh. You probably can too.
Papadopoulos must be out and talking. The Brennan CIA, MI5 and Alexander Downer now centre stage .
I may have underestimated Downer as just being a silly fop.
However his track record of stuffing up everything he touches is nonpareil.
Sad days ahead for Brennan and Rosenstein if actually working with him.
And Rosenstein’s latest revelation.
He must be close to the boot.
lucia (Comment #170777)
September 21st, 2018 at 3:15 pm
OK_Max,
I’m not sure why you think there is anything “not right†about the Whelan story. At the time he did it, he thought it was a good idea. He probably didn’t consult anyone.
Afterwards people told him he was an idiot. Some have been telling him he could be sued for defamation and possibly lose. Now he knows he was an idiot.
____________________
lucia, I guess I’m just surprised a lawyer of Ed Whelan’s stature could be an idiot. A Harvard Law School graduate, he has held high level positions in government, and has helped advise his friend Brett Cavanaugh in the SC nomination effort. Whelan also has contacts
in the White House and Congress.
Whelan has said Cavanaugh and the White House had nothing to do
with developing his “appalling” theory that Garrett could have been Ford’s groper. I don’t know whether he has also denied anyone in Congress was involved. If Garrett sues for defamation we might find who helped Whelan come up with the theory.
@Popehat @RadioFreeTom comments are showing Whelan no mercy. i thought the most humorous was from Jake_Sperling.
@Jake_Sperling
19 hours ago
Replying to @Popehat @RadioFreeTom
“imagine watching the entire RW unite behind “if this accusation can bring down THIS man, it can bring down ANY MAN!?!?!” for 4 days straight and the Whelan’s big play is . . . to accuse a random man!”
OK_Max,
I know highly trained educated people who do idiotic things. So it doesn’t surprise me at all Whelan would.
It seems to me that twitter is an excellent way to make a permanent, publicly accessible record of things one wishes one never said.
Mike M.,
Across the pond, a silly or foolish person is called a twit. Seems fitting.
Mike M. (Comment #170786)
September 22nd, 2018 at 7:41 am
It seems to me that twitter is an excellent way to make a permanent, publicly accessible record of things one wishes one never said.
_________
Good one!
Lucia, yes I meant no chance of mistaken identity with Garrett, and Ford said she visited him in the hospital.
Two weeks to midterm elections. Looks like the polling suggests the dems will win the House and the repubs will hold the Senate, although the Senate outcome seems more in doubt than the House. Looks to me like the Dems have about a 1/4 chance of winning both, which I guess means President Trump has about a 3/4 chance of surviving impeachment, barring some scandal or truly shocking & well substantiated damage from Mueller.
mark bofill,
8 weeks no 2 weeks.
6 weeks until the election, not 2 weeks, and not 8 weeks. The edit function never works now.
Thanks Steve. Lost a month there!
Sack Rosenstein or wait for dobbers to come forward.
Expect a big rise in poll numbers after this revaluation,
Counterbalanced by Kavanaugh, of course.
Sack Rosenstein or wait for dobbers to come forward?
Expect a big rise in poll numbers after this revaluation,
Counterbalanced by Kavanaugh, of course.
On Ford-Kavanaugh: So now, the now adult, former teens identified by Ford as having been at the party say they don’t remember being at any such party. The woman (then girl) not only doesn’t remember being at any such party, but doesn’t remember every being at a party with Kavanaugh, who she doesn’t know. That seems to be in a letter penned by her lawyer to the Senate.
The girl was a good friend of Ford’s says (to the press and not under oath) she believes Ford. But of course, that’s doesn’t count for much given that she can’t remember any such party.
The girl/woman sent a letter written by her attorney, so I assume she limited it to the fewest possible details that answered the question asked.
If the girl doesn’t even remember the party, presumably she doesn’t remember Blaisey-Ford being upset, disheveled and etc. Presumably, if Blaisey-Ford was traumatized (and continues to be sufficiently traumatized to not want to be in the same room as Kavanaugh) Ford ought to have been a somewhat visibly upset at the time of the incident. Upset enough to have told her then good friend who was right there.
While it’s true that people would not have remembered a party where nothing important happened to them, and where they witnessed nothing important, it does seem this is purely Ford’s work (and memory) vs. Kavanaugh’s.
We add to that Ford clearly trying to find people who she’d told– e.g. she is said contacted a her form roommate if she ever mentioned it. Answer: nope.
The conclusion of inaccurate memory looms large here.
Bret Stephens at the NYT probably won’t be comfortable at the next staff meeting, ha ha. This is by the far the most sane take on this circus I have seen.
This I Believe About Blasey v. Kavanaugh https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/opinion/blasey-kavanaugh-assault-allegations-truth.html
.
“I have absolutely no idea what, if anything, happened between Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford at a party in Maryland in the early 1980s.
Unless you were at the party, I believe that you don’t, either.”
.
“I believe women lie just as often as men do. I believe the standard “presumed innocent†must always trump the slogan “Believe Women†if we intend to live in a free and fair society.”
.
“I believe Blasey’s credibility will be tarnished if she can vividly recall the unverifiable parts of her story, but not the ones that can be verified. I believe Kavanaugh deserves to be accused of actions he can potentially disprove, not merely deny.”
.
It’s pretty balanced overall, I just excerpted the pieces that polite society will not say out loud. I disagree with parts of it, but it is better than 99% of everything out there.
A third person identified to have been at the party, one of the accuser’s friends, denies any knowledge of it. https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/22/politics/kavanaugh-ford-accuser-nomination/index.html
.
“Simply put,” Walsh said, “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.”
The lawyer acknowledged to CNN that Keyser is a lifelong friend of Ford’s.
.
She also believes Ford’s story curiously enough. The WP was aware of this named friend being at the party, it nevers mentions this. Ford tells the WP: “Before her name became public, Ford told The Post she did not think Keyser would remember the party because nothing remarkable had happened there, as far as Keyser was aware.”. The WP never mentions this in any story, nor does it appear they contact her friend, or at least didn’t report on it if they did. This seems like an important detail to leave out.
Ms. Keyser is identified in Christine’s senior yearbook as throwing a wild party.
“We’ll definitely miss the college bound seniors especially the antics of Leland Ingham’s, Lulu Ward’s, and Evie’s (Andrea Evers’) parties. ”
He says there will be a part three depicting the women as sexual predators going after younger boys.
The four witnesses all made statements that if false can be punished as a felony.
Ford’s letter is not punishable because she sent it via Congressman Eshoo who has no jurisdiction over the matter.
“Ford told The Post she did not think Keyser would remember the party…”
.
This is a very strange thing to say. If you are going to accuse a SC nominee of sexual assault and your lifelong friend was one of the few people at the party, you don’t even ask her is she remembers, nor do you tell her she is going to be named in a very high profile accusation, which would then obviously lead to that question? I find the odds of it happening this way to be approx. zero.
.
My reasoned speculation is that she talked to her friend, was aware of no recollection, but she then used the phrase “do not think” in the hope her friend would corroborate her. I would be interested to get to the bottom of that statement.
Sorry for the repeat, I didn’t know lucia had already broke the news on the friend. I guess I could read posts before posting myself.
MikeN (Comment #170803): “Ms. Keyser is identified in Christine’s senior yearbook as throwing a wild party.”
.
It sounds like wild parties were common in that crowd. Someone threw one wild party, maybe more, and probably also attended many others. Evidently with booze. How could anyone remember one particular party out of many? Someone who was groped might remember that but be confused on which party it was.
.
The other thing about having a reputation as a wild partier or a slut (reputation deserved or not) is that others might believe what they hear and take certain things for granted, if you know what I mean.
MikeN (Comment #170803)
September 23rd, 2018 at 10:49 am
Good Lord, I shudder to think what “the guy” would make of my HS yearbook or even my family photo album.
I’m puzzled by the HA yearbook photo of the Black girl identified as “Nat.” She has a prominent mustache.
Ledite (Comment #170816)
September 23rd, 2018 at 3:08 pm
“The other thing about having a reputation as a wild partier or a slut (reputation deserved or not) is that others might believe what they hear and take certain things for granted, if you know what I mean.”
____
I think I know what you mean. Kav thought Chrissie was a slut and would welcome his groping. If a guy thinks a girl is a slut, even if she isn’t, groping her is just an innocent mistake.
lucia (Comment #170799)
September 23rd, 2018 at 7:16 am
“The girl was a good friend of Ford’s says (to the press and not under oath) she believes Ford. But of course, that’s doesn’t count for much given that she can’t remember any such party.”
“Ford ought to have been a somewhat visibly upset at the time of the incident. Upset enough to have told her then good friend who was right there.”
_______
My wife recalls things I don’t recall. I believe her because I know her.
The friend may believe Ford because the friend knows her.
Ford could have left without talking to her friend or Ford could have
been too embarrassed to talk about the incident.
OK_Max,
Sure. But with respect to your wife: even if you believe her, she could be mistaken. And with respect to Ford and her friend: Her friend my see Ford as truthful, and she may generally be so. But Ford could also be mistaken.
That none of the people Ford named remember the party, and Ford’s friend thinks she never even knew Kavanaugh suggest Ford is mistaken in at least some particulars. One of the ways in which she could be mistaken is she may have misidentified Kavanaugh, who, after all she hardly knew.
If a similar incident occurred, but she is mistaken about the identity of boy that could very well explain why none of the other people she says were there remember a party that fits her description. Yet, in Ford’s mind, she could be entirely truthful– just mistaken.
..or Ford could be making this whole thing up for political purposes, or she has embellished it for the same reason, or she has faulty memory of a 36 year old event. I think the 56th Amendment is speculation equal opportunity. They both have motivation to lie about it. So many people have made up their minds at this point that almost everyone is afraid of the evidence. Perhaps on Thursday a psychologist could be asked about the fallibility of long term memory, but that probably only happens to other people.
.
So we have a rather convenient construction where there isn’t a single thing that Kavanaugh can disprove, not a place, not a time, not an identification of his ummm nether regions, etc. Everyone named has declined all knowledge, does this count for anything? This is exceedingly flimsy. It’s not so much that this couldn’t be true, it is that the power to bring people down on accusation alone is a power that will be abused for people with an agenda.
As another example of how far the insanity has gone, a New York Review of Books editor was forced to step down last week. He allowed an essay to be published by a Canadian who was acquitted of sexual assault charges. the editor says in an interview:
.
“I’m no judge of the rights and wrongs of every allegation. How can I be? All I know is that in a court of law he was acquitted, and there is no proof he committed a crime. The exact nature of his behaviour — how much consent was involved — I have no idea, nor is it really my concern. My concern is what happens to somebody who has not been found guilty in any criminal sense but who perhaps deserves social opprobrium, but how long should that last, what form it should take, etc.”
.
Note that he didn’t write the article in question, but he allowed it to be published. He was forced to resign. No groveling apology was forthcoming, good for him. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/20/metoo-new-york-review-books-editor-ian-buruma-twitter-conviction-claim
.
He ponders the irony: “As editor of the New York Review of Books I published a theme issue about #MeToo-offenders who had not been convicted in a court of law but by social media. And now I myself am publicly pilloried.”
.
This interview is entertaining because it is the woke left against the liberal (in the classic sense of the word) left: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/jian-ghomeshi-new-york-review-of-books-essay.html
lucia (Comment #170820)
September 23rd, 2018 at 4:07 pm
OK_Max,
“Sure. But with respect to your wife: even if you believe her, she could be mistaken.”
“That none of the people Ford named remember the party, and Ford’s friend thinks she never even knew Kavanaugh suggest Ford is mistaken in at least some particulars.”
___________
Just for the record, my wife does not make mistakes. I have lost every argument we have had on that subject.
Ford has more reason to remember the party than the two guests who weren’t involved in the incident as well as the two she accuses of being involved. Of the later, Kav would be more credible if he said he doesn’t remember the incident rather than denying it happened, given his reputation for excessive drinking.
I don’t recall all social events I attended, nor all the details of those I do recall attending. I would, however, remember having a traumatic experience.
Kavanaugh is accused by a second women. Strikingly similar. Accusation made, other people were there, they all deny any knowledge of it.
.
“Two of the men who Ramirez said were involved in the incident said they had no recollection of Kavanaugh exposing himself. Several college friends of Kavanaugh and Ramirez also said they never heard of the incident happening at the time. However, another classmate told the New Yorker he was “100 percent sure†someone told him about the incident at the time, and he corroborated some details of Ramirez’s story.”
.
“Ramirez, according to the New Yorker, was reluctant to come forward with allegations because she had been drinking at the time and knows there are holes in her memory. She has called for the FBI to launch an independent investigation into her allegations.”
I wondered why there weren’t more accusers. It’s the obvious thing to do to stop [K]avanaugh[‘]s confirmation. Most will consider the subsequent accusations as collaboration of the original and of each other. The accusations don[`]t have to be borne out in the long run.
Mark Bofill (Comment #170826)
Re Kavanaugh and the plastic penis prank, Ford has to be cautious about that one. Republicans could be behind it. Remember when someone attempted a phony story about Moore.
That said, the mag isn’t the National Enquirer.
Ok_Max
Just for the record, my wife does not make mistakes. I have lost every argument we have had on that subject.
If I were Grassley I might be inclined to simply cancel the Thursday hearing and hold the vote on Monday.
Or else a new allegation will come out each week to further delay the vote.
But they got Kavanaugh on this one. I know, I was drunk at a party where Kavanaugh was drugging women who were subsequently getting gang raped. This was followed by acts of cannibalism and satan worship. I don’t remember exactly which parties this happened on, on which dates, but I definitely remember the gang rape, cannibalism, and satan worship. I distinctly remember Kavanaugh eating one of the victims.
Share your drunken recollections of the horrors perpetrated upon womankind by the teenage monster Kavanaugh. Join the #MeThree movement today.
Night all.
[https://twitter.com/hashtag/methree?lang=en]
I think the accusations of politically orchestrated and timed smear job are going to get a little more credibility now.
There are reports of a check written by Brett Kavanaugh a decade ago saying, “PAYOFF FORD”.
Letter has been released by Grassley. It says there were five total at the party.
Washington Post published a story that said therapist notes identify an attack by four boys, Ford explains this as an error because there were four boys at the party. However, Post did not report that her letter said just three boys. Nor did they ask Ford about it.
Kavanaugh has calendars from 1982 of where he was every day.
MikeN,
Calendars from every day back in 1982? Really?!?! Wow. Just wow.
MikeN,
The Post probably wouldn’t have asked because they didn’t have the psychologists notes. (I’m assuming WAPO didn’t have that and that they just talked to Ford.)
MikeN (Comment #170840)
September 24th, 2018 at 12:24 pm
“Kavanaugh has calendars from 1982 of where he was every day.”
___________
Yes, but according to the quote below from an article in today’s NYTimes, Kavanaugh’s team say the calendars neither corroborate or disprove Blasey’s (Ford’s) allegations.
“The calendars do not disprove Dr. Blasey’s allegations, Judge Kavanaugh’s team acknowledged. He could have attended a party that he did not list. But his team will argue to the senators that the calendars provide no corroboration for her account of a small gathering at a house where he allegedly pinned her to a bed and tried to remove her clothing.”
Thirty-six years seems like a long time to keep calendars, but I have no reason to believe they are not authentic. Kavanaugh may be a hoarder.
“The calendars do not disprove Dr. Blasey’s allegations, Judge Kavanaugh’s team acknowledged….”
This is not, or at least is not supposed to be, an Obama era Title IX kangaroo court at a university with no due process or legal representation and a preponderance of the evidence standard. Kavanaugh does not have to disprove Dr. Blasey’s allegations. She has to prove hers beyond a reasonable doubt.
If there is a check, it might just be a Ford car, ha ha.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170844)
“Kavanaugh does not have to disprove Dr. Blasey’s allegations. She has to prove hers beyond a reasonable doubt.”
______
True, if this were a criminal trial, but it’s not. It’s Senators voting.
The Senators get to make up whatever standard they like since it is an up / down vote based on lots of things. I’m sure the Democrats will give all the due process Republicans want, as long as it lasts a minimum of 4 months. The unverifiable claims and late notice give anybody who wants it cover to vote for him.
.
I think that most people have a great distaste for the MeToo witch hunt where it has gone off the rails with things like “Believe Women”. It’s another thing where it’s hard to gauge, even in a poll, because people feel politically constrained by the behavior police. I doubt people are going to lose many votes by confirming him, but they may see it differently. It’s entirely possible the voters will punish someone voting against him even more.
OK_Max,
I agree they neither disprove nor prove Blaisley-Ford contention. I’m just amazed he has them. I don’t have a complete daily calendar and if I had one, I wouldn’t keep it for decades.
Too bad Blaisley-Ford didn’t keep a calendar. If she had, she might know whose how she went to and when the party took place!
Lucia, Post article says they saw the therapist’s notes that Ford gave them. Same article says Ford gave names of two other teens at the party, and that Ford read her letter to them.
Three reporters, and apparently none bothered to ask or report this, even after covering four boys discrepancy.
I keep thinking about Kavanaugh having boxes filled with calendars going back to 1982 and maybe even earlier. Hoarding can be a sign of an obsessive-compulsive disorder(OCD).
One of my aunts had tall stacks of newspapers in every room in her house because just couldn’t throw newspapers away. She also had other OCD symptoms, and the disorder interfered with her life. If
Kavanaugh has an OCD problem, his would be very mild compared to
my aunt’s or he wouldn’t be where he is today.
The opposite of hoarding is obsessive decluttering, another OCD. My wife has a mild case. She throws stuff away that I later need. Then I have to go out and buy the items again. Of course, eventually she throws them away again.
OK_Max
Hoarding can be a sign of an obsessive-compulsive disorder(OCD).
Sure. But there are people who keep diaries. Most people don’t consider that hoarding. I know people who used to keep letters. It used to be “a thing”.
lucia, keeping a diary doesn’t seem like hoarding or any other OCD
behavior. I don’t keep a diary. I wish I had.
I keep some old personal letters and have letter collections from deceased grandparents. Old letters are part of family history.
Keeping all letters, including junk mail, would be hoarding.
Max, the calendars would not fill boxes. It is one ream of paper.
MikeN, yes, lots of calendars would fit in one storage box. I haven’t seen info on the type of Cavanaugh’s calendar(desk, pocket, wall ?).
OK_Max,
“obsessive decluttering”, ha ha. Can you send your wife over to my garage?
This second accusation is backfiring I think. This is the WSJ today:
.
“Say this for Deborah Ramirez. The second woman to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of committing sexual assault more than 30 years ago may not clearly recall what happened, but her story does clarify the ugly politics at play. Democrats are using the #MeToo movement as a weapon of political destruction to defeat a Supreme Court nominee and retake Congress.”
…
“Even the sympathetic New Yorker writers concede that Ms. Ramirez was at first reluctant to talk about the incident. But after six days of “assessing her memories,†and after consulting with a Democratic lawyer, she felt confident enough to speak up. Even so, Ms. Ramirez concedes that she was drunk at the time to the point of being “on the floor, foggy and slurring her words.—
…
“Meanwhile, the New York Times reported Monday that it “had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate†Ms. Ramirez’s story, “and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.â€
Tom
may not clearly recall
In fact, her story is that only several weeks ago she did not recall the details, (because she was stupendously drunk) but they came back to her. This is typical of false memories that have been created by suggestion.
That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. But, unfortunately, it’s precisely what you expect from false memories.
It is telling that after the NYT did a full court press with their own reporters they decided to not run the story (until it was outed by others). Crazily enough this accusation serves to discredit the first accusation, not enhance it, although there should be no logical connection. It exposes a corrupt political process and tabloid media mentality for what they are. Imagine all the media outlets running the Clinton Pizza Parlor insanity like it was real, but not verifiable. Believe Pizza People.
.
So everyone investigated this, but nobody can corroborate it at all, and the accuser isn’t even really sure? Print it! What is this, the Trump / Russia investigation, ha ha. There was a time when no media outlet would touch a story like this, it would be on an Alex Jones conspiracy type outlet and that is it. Politics was always war, now it is scorched earth.
lucia (Comment #170863)
That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. But, unfortunately, it’s precisely what you expect from false memories.
_______
Yes, it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Kavanaugh’s freshman roommate James Roche believes Ramirez, even though he didn’t witness the alleged offensive sexual behavior.
In a statement released to a handful of reporters Monday night, Roche writes that “although Brett was normally reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time, and that he became belligerent and aggressive when he was very drunk.â€
In his statement, Roche said that “based on my time with Debbie, I believe her to be unusually honest and straightforward and I cannot imagine her making this up. Based on my time with Brett, I believe that he and his social circle were capable of the actions Debbie described.â€
OK_Max
Kavanaugh’s freshman roommate James Roche believes Ramirez,
Since he didn’t witness anything, this means precisely nothing.
Notice, he didn’t say she told him at the time. Notice he doesn’t say he ever saw them do what he claims they were “capable” of doing. He also doesn’t describe horrible things they did do– other than getting drunk. He doesn’t describe aggressive behaviors he witnessed.
Her believing what she says is not necessarily being dishonest. She could have false memories.
Anyone who thinks honest people can’t have false memories is mistaken. And in this, Ramirez was very drunk.
I can also tell you the specific thing in her “recollection” that makes me seriously believe “false memories”. She claims she remembers someone saying “Bret Kavanaugh” (full name) ” just did X”.
It is extremely unnatural for American’s to use “first name, last name” constructions at parties. Extremely. I could possibly believe the rest of the story but not that trivial sounding bit.
Given she says that not long ago, she didn’t remember the story herself, I think the likelihood of at least partially false memory is very, very, very high.
Compared to her (a) not having remembered not less than a week ago which suggest this is a (b) false memory that may be a partially true one filled in by recent news stories and (c) the entirely unlikely claim of the “full first name last name” statement by one of the other drunks at the party, what Brett’s roommate thinks of her honesty is such a drop in a bucket, it really counts for nothing.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170859)
September 25th, 2018 at 7:53 am
OK_Max,
“obsessive declutteringâ€, ha ha. Can you send your wife over to my garage?
_______
She actually does volunteer to help our friends declutter. Loves doing it.
We are opposites. She’s neat, I’m messy. But surprisingly, this is rarely a source of conflict.
lucia (Comment #170869)
lucia, I tend to agree with you, except for two things:
(1) “It is extremely unnatural for American’s to use “first name, last name†constructions at parties. Extremely. I could possibly believe the rest of the story but not that trivial sounding bit.
lucia, when I lived in a dorm, I sometimes heard people called by their first and last names. Usually, it was one or the other, but not always.
(2) “Anyone who thinks honest people can’t have false memories is mistaken.”
lucia, I doubt the significant elements of any of my memories are false. My life has not been part fiction.
OK_Max,
I didn’t hear people get called by both names. People get called by first name, last name or nick name.
I think almost all people, including both you and me, have some mistaken memories. I also think almost all people, including you and me, think most their memories are correct. So the fact that you doubt significant elements of your memory are false doesn’t mean that’s so. Some could be.
I also think the fact that in the particular case of Ramirez, not too long ago she did not remember this incident and only came to remember it as the story came into the news means this memory is of the sort that has a very high likelyhood of being ‘filled in’ and so partially false. I think the “first name” last thing is almost certainly false.
Evidently, the judiciary committee is open to Ramirez appearing on Thursday, but Ramirez is not. Her lawyer hasn’t supplied Ramirez’s statements under oath.
So far the correlation between which side of the aisle you are on and which side of the Kavanaugh debate you are on is 0.999999. This is easily explainable by the lack of evidence so everyone just defaults to their preferred answer. The liberal media has taken the week off for lecturing everyone on facts, or lack thereof. There are uncountable numbers of media articles based on the theme of Trump says “without evidence” … This coverage of the Kavanaugh accuser is the logic fallacy of isolated demand of non-rigor.
>She claims she remembers someone saying “Bret Kavanaugh†(full name) †just did Xâ€.
Not just Brett Kavanaugh, the actual ‘X’ also doesn’t sound like something someone would say. But then I’ve never heard anyone say anything similar to that to begin with.
A former Congressional staffer has pointed out that Ford’s letter is written very poorly for someone of her education level.
Tom,
.
I’ll say this. I’ve little doubt that when Kavanaugh was a child, he made a set of mistakes that are not uncommon for children to make. I expect he did the same as a teen and as an adult. If he didn’t do the things he’s accused of, well fine. Doubtless he did other things. Maybe he told a dirty joke once that was demeaning towards women. Whatever.
.
I don’t think that only those who have been immaculate since birth are qualified to sit the Supreme Court. I think the accusations against Kavanaugh should not disqualify him even if they were true. If anybody disagrees, I invite them to make their case.
Tom Scharf
Yep. Not surprising, this is going along partisan lines.
lucia (Comment #170872)
September 25th, 2018 at 5:14 pm
OK_Max,
” I also think almost all people, including you and me, think most their memories are correct. So the fact that you doubt significant elements of your memory are false doesn’t mean that’s so.”
lucia, I easily remember significant things that have happened to me, just not all the little details. I would be astounded to find my memory of any big thing in my life was mostly wrong or, even worse, just a product of my imagination.
mark bofill (Comment #170878)
“Maybe he told a dirty joke once that was demeaning towards women.”
______
Kavanaugh and some of his friends were demeaning to a high school girl named Renate Schroeder (now Renate Dolphin).
“The word “Renate†appears at least 14 times in Georgetown Preparatory School’s 1983 yearbook, on individuals’ pages and in a group photo of nine football players, including Judge Kavanaugh, who were described as the “Renate Alumni.†It is a reference to Renate Schroeder, then a student at a nearby Catholic girls’ school.â€
“Two of Judge Kavanaugh’s classmates say the mentions of Renate were part of the football players’ unsubstantiated boasting about their conquests.â€
“I learned about these yearbook pages only a few days ago,†Ms. Dolphin said in a statement to The New York Times. “I don’t know what ‘Renate Alumnus’ actually means. I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way. I will have no further comment.â€
mark, also said “I don’t think that only those who have been immaculate since birth are qualified to sit the Supreme Court.”
Well, not that long, but Kavanuaugh did say he was a virgin until several years after high school. If that’s true, he can’t be accused of successfully raping anyone while in high school.
“Two of Judge Kavanaugh’s classmates say the mentions of Renate were part of the football players’ unsubstantiated boasting about their conquests.â€
A site that tracks changes to New York Times articles figured out that one of these two sources was an anti-Trump Democratic candidate for governor of Maryland, Maldonado.
If this had the meaning people are attributing to it, I think there would have been many more boys saying it.
Re Renate, sure. I bet if we dig we will discover Kavanaugh also had pimples at some point. Perhaps he failed some test in junior high. It’s conceivable at some point he didn’t do or turn in his homework. Going back further, it may be that he threw his pacifier at his mother in a violent and aggressive way as a toddler. I suspect he may have belched loudly at table a time or two. Anonymous sources may report that when he exhibits flatulence or voids his bowel in a restroom, it doesn’t smell fantastic.
I think he could have excessive back hair. That should be enough for any reasonable progressive to condemn him, I’d think.
OK_Max:
Sure. But Ramirez previously forgot massive number of details surrounding incident (and possibly the whole thing). Then she re-remembers these. Are there big significant things you totally forgot, but now re-remember? If yes, have you checked to find out of these re-remembered things are true memories? Because what you seem to say is you never forgot those and think the significant things you never forgot are mostly true.
If that’s what you are saying about your memories, that has nothing to do with evaluating Ramirez’s story which is an entirely different situation.
OK_Max
If that’s true, he can’t be accused of successfully raping anyone while in high school.
He hasn’t been accused of raping anyone in high school.
Like Mark, I’m not convinced the Renate story suggests much of anything. And no, not even if two kids from Kavanaugh’s high school think many on the football team claimed to have lots of conquests.
“I don’t know what ‘Renate Alumnus’ actually means. I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue.
Uhmmm…. She (a) doesn’t know what it means and (b) has no idea what the kids meant when the say it. So far: this is not a bad thing by Kavanaugh.
As far as I can see, the insinuations are being made now by people who are not Kavanaugh. I wouldn’t be at all surprised that the people who want Kavanaugh out are creating nasty, cruel hurtful insinuations out of whatever they can, and they don’t give a darn if it is hurtful to Renate. But that’s not on Kavanaugh as far as I can see. It’s on the people who are trying to turn anything stated into something that destroys Kavanaugh if they can, and they don’t care if it hurts some random woman.
If the “Renate” references has really meant something bad about her behavior back when the book was published, she almost certainly would have known about them and figured it out. Lots of people had that yearbook, lots of them are in the same circle. Bad stuff about reputations gets around and she almost certainly would have heard about it.
” I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things”
.
Really? Can’t begin to understand? This faux Puritanism is getting hilarious. These boys … voice quivers … they want …. gulp … SEX! … tears falling. In my high school you would rather have an arm lopped off then be a known virgin. If you hadn’t engaged in such “things” then you lied about it.
“I don’t think that only those who have been immaculate since birth are qualified to sit the Supreme Court.”
.
This is basically the way I feel, and I would venture to guess another 64M people who voted for Trump who rumor has it wasn’t immaculate. However it is only the opposing side that needs to be immaculate, fellow tribe members are to be forgiven if they show proper penance. Life experience is a good quality for fellow tribe members.
.
I can understand that people want a moral threshold for one of the highest offices and people set lines differently. One way to look at it is letting someone who has been accused of molesting children without evidence teach your kids. You probably aren’t going to want to risk that if there is any reasonable chance it is true. Now in this case what is the actual threat to the SC if these allegations are true? He will be anti-women in cases? He will grope Ginsberg, ha ha? That’s pretty thin. If it is OK to be overtly pro-women, pro-Hispnaic, etc. then there is nothing wrong with being overtly pro-men. I don’t want any activists or purity tests of any kind on the court, especially those that are fleeting moral panics of the current time for a lifetime appointment.
.
I guess there is one absolute certainty now, if Title IX comes before the SC on the basis of no due process for the accused in academia, we know how Kavanaugh is going to rule.
If Renate “got around” then she likely did it voluntarily and likely enjoyed it just as much as the alumni did. I’m sorry to bring up an impossibility to the Puritans that women have sex drives too and willfully engage in mutually beneficial contact, sometimes with multiple partners. One girl in my high school who was like this had a horrible home life and no father (a rarity back then). Looking back there is probably psychological reasons why this happened, reaching out for affection that was missing elsewhere, etc. 17 year old boys aren’t wondering about the psychological implications of others in high school when they can barely maintain a veneer of sanity themselves.
lucia (Comment #170884)
September 26th, 2018 at 6:05 am
OK_Max:
Sure. But Ramirez previously forgot massive number of details surrounding incident (and possibly the whole thing). Then she re-remembers these. Are there big significant things you totally forgot, but now re-remember?
______
No, but I’m not Ramirez. I am skeptical about recovered memories, but not so skeptical I would dismiss Ramirez. She wants to be interviewed by the FBI as a part of an investigation. Why not ?
lucia (Comment #170885)
“If the “Renate†references has really meant something bad about her behavior back when the book was published, she almost certainly would have known about them and figured it out. Lots of people had that yearbook, lots of them are in the same circle. Bad stuff about reputations gets around and she almost certainly would have heard about it.”
_______
lucia, if Renate knew about the references to her in GP yearbook back in the 1980’s, and recently signed a letter in support of Kavanaugh, it seems odd she then a few weeks later would say regarding the references ” the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way. I will have no further comment.†?
My guess is she didn’t know Kavanaugh had included himself in the “Renate Alums” when she signed the letter supporting him.
I wouldn’t blame her for thinking he betrayed her.
OK_Max,
I’m fine with the FBI investigating in parallel to the confirmation process.
I just don’t think there is enough there for the Senate to need to wait until they finish. They can continue after the vote. Then report if they find anything. If they do, Congress can decide whether they need to impeach.
So yeah, if she wants to be interviewed, fine. Send an agent. Meantime, if she wants to provide information in a timely manner, she should request to appear before the Senate Judiciary committe, which evidently has invited her. (But evidently she’s declined.)
This doesn’t need to be either or. But timelyness matters in this process and there just isn’t enough there to post-pone and change things that can be decided.
OK_Max
My guess is she didn’t know Kavanaugh had included himself in the “Renate Alums†when she signed the letter supporting him.
I wouldn’t blame her for thinking he betrayed her.
No. She didn’t know because it wasn’t meaningful to her or anyone. Had it been, the thing would have been circulated and she would have. Only now that people are trying to whip it into some sort of insinuation did she learn about it and it’s only hurtful because of that.
Of course she can feel however she can feel. But her feelings bout this now has no objective relevance to evaluating Kavanaugh’s character now, and very little even back then.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170888)
September 26th, 2018 at 8:11 am
If Renate “got around†then she likely did it voluntarily and likely enjoyed it just as much as the alumni did.
______
Kavanaugh’s lawyers said he once kissed Renate, nothing more. Renate denies he kissed her.
Tom, you know what this means. Kav lied to gain admission to the Renate Alumnus, and betrayed Renate.
OK_Max,
If Kav lied about a kiss at the age of 17, that’s hardly a reason to not be appointed to SCOTUS. And speaking as a 59 year old former teenage girl: if Renate is upset about this, she’s a pretty delicate snowflake. I mean… come on.
But beyond that: the evidence doesn’t mean Kav must be lying. Perhaps this will be indicated on his calendar. . .
(Or it could have been a New Years thing under the mistletoe which was so trivial Renate doesn’t remember and neither is intentionally lying.)
Tom Scharf (Comment #170874)
September 25th, 2018 at 6:32 pm
“So far the correlation between which side of the aisle you are on and which side of the Kavanaugh debate you are on is 0.999999.”
_____
Tom, I wouldn’t be sure of three GOP Senators (Alaska, Maine, and Arizona).
lucia (Comment #170894)
September 26th, 2018 at 1:18 pm
OK_Max,
If Kav lied about a kiss at the age of 17, that’s hardly a reason to not be appointed to SCOTUS. And speaking as a 59 year old former teenage girl: if Renate is upset about this, she’s a pretty delicate snowflake. I mean… come on.
_____
lucia, I don’t think Renate was upset about the kiss claim. She was asked about it after Kav’s lawyers said he once kissed her goodnight. She just said no he didn’t. What upset Renate was the derogatory reference to her in the GP yearbook.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170888)
If Renate “got around†then she likely did it voluntarily and likely enjoyed it just as much as the alumni did. I’m sorry to bring up an impossibility to the Puritans that women have sex drives too and willfully engage in mutually beneficial contact, sometimes with multiple partners. One girl in my high school who was like this had a horrible home life and no father (a rarity back then).
_________
Tom, that happened in my HS too, which is why I can believe Swetnick’s statement which was released today.
“In an explosive statement released by Avenatti, Swetnick claimed that in the 1980s, she witnessed efforts by Kavanaugh and his classmate, Mark Judge, to get teenage girls “inebriated and disoriented so they could then be ‘gang raped’ in a side room or bedroom by a ‘train’ of numerous boys.”
“I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their ‘turn’ with a girl inside the room. These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh,” she alleged in the statement, naming Kavanaugh’s high school classmate.†https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/26/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-michael-avenatti-julie-swetnick/1431133002/
“She wants to be interviewed by the FBI as a part of an investigation. Why not ?”
.
Because they waited too long and have forfeited that. The price for political motivated and timed accusations is politically motivated responses. It is likely they want the Republicans to not do an investigation just to tar them with it. I have zero sympathy for demands for full investigations on new accusations a week after the hearings finished. This is transparently political. I don’t give either of them the benefit of the doubt here.
The third accusation gives even less credibility to the first two. This is why people hate DC. Politics of personal destruction at any cost. It’s not even worth reading about any further.
Tom:
The first (Ford) accusation struck me as the sort of thing that *could* conceivably happen in high school, college or even later in life. However, Ford remembers so little, and everyone placed at the party says they were never at any such party. Given the drunkenness, the likelihood of Ford having no idea who did whatever is extremely high. I’d guess something once happened to Ford, it just wasn’t done by Kavanaugh, and in fact, she doesn’t remember when or where the party was, who was there nor who did it. I’m betting she had drunk enough of the fluid my bothers-in-law call “memory wipe”, that her memory was practically wiped.
The second accusation struck me as also the sort of thing that *could* conceivably happen (though it’s weirder.) But Ramirez somehow didn’t remember it until recently. Once again: huge amounts of “memory wipe” are involved. Ramirez admits her own memory was wiped. Something odd happened while she was woozy and nearly passed out– who was involved… Dunno.
No matter how innocent, naive and so on people say she was as a Freshman, it’s clear from her own story that she decided to drink lots of alcohol herself, went to alcohol parties and underwent memory wipe.
On the Michael Avanatti stuff: Sounds totally made up. Doesn’t mean it was.
She claims she has witnesses to corroborate. Ideally, she should have included their names in her affidavit. So I guess we’ll see who the witnesses are and what they have to say.
It would be interesting to hear more details on the what happened when she got home from the party where she was so shitfaced drunk or drugged by Qualudes that she couldn’t fight off guys from a gang rape. I totally believe someone might not want to report this. But this is supposed to be a gang rape by a train of guys.
We are talking about a minor here. She can’t just go back to her apartment and hole up. Who drove her home after the party? Other girls who, for some reason, said nothing to anyone? How did she sneak by her parents so they couldn’t learn of the incident? Or did they learn but say, “Serves you right!”
At least she seems willing to talk to the judiciary committee. They ought to invite her. Then invite the witnesses.
I find it interesting she kept attending multiple gang rape parties, ha ha. It’s so ridiculous it’s not even worth debating. The DC clown show has hit a new low, the media breathlessly headlines outrageous and unsubstantiated claims from a porn star lawyer who wants to run for President. What a disgrace, I think I’ll vote for a dog next election.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170888)
September 26th, 2018 at 8:11 am
“I’m sorry to bring up an impossibility to the Puritans that women have sex drives too and willfully engage in mutually beneficial contact, sometimes with multiple partners. One girl in my high school who was like this…”
Tom Scharf (Comment #170901)
September 26th, 2018 at 3:15 pm
“I find it interesting she kept attending multiple gang rape parties, ha ha. It’s so ridiculous it’s not even worth debating.”
_____
Memory, Tom, memory.
lucia (Comment #170900)
“We are talking about a minor here. She can’t just go back to her apartment and hole up. Who drove her home after the party?”
_______
Julie Sweatnick may have been age 18 or older at the time.
Breitbart questions Sweatnick’s accusation, claiming she graduated from high school three years before Kavanaugh graduated.
Apparently, Breitbart believes young people only socialize within a 2-year age range.
Renate was aware at the time about a poem of need a date call Renate(From the yearbook I thought it might be Re Nah Tay), but she was still hanging out with these guys.
NYT then told her it meant sexual conquest, so now she is upset about it. Others are denying this meaning, and are angry with NYT for breaking friendships.
After seeing Holton Arms yearbook I’m not sure, but I’m surprised they would advertise this in a yearbook.
OK Max.
You’re right. She is reporting stuff from 1981-82
During the years of 1981 and 1982, she said,
Swetnick is 55. Kavanaugh is 53. So in 1982, she could have been as old as 19. So, in this story, she was going to parties attended by high school students who were getting drunk. And it means she an adult was witnessing this stuff being done, and did nothing to help these younger girls. That’s an even weirder story, and I’d have to ask her
(a) why she was frequently partying with underage kids who were getting drunk as skunks and
(b) why she, an adult, did nothing to protect the other girls (like, for example, call their parents.)
This isn’t to pick on her, but to understand just what was going on if she — an adult– saw all this and did nothing. After all, she supposedly saw multiple instances of this before anything happened to her. And she was an adult!!!!
Wow.
OK_Max
Apparently, Breitbart believes young people only socialize within a 2-year age range.
Or perhaps they know that adults being present at parties where minors are illegally consuming alcohol are subject to serious criminal penalties for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Being present where the inebriated kids are raping others would ramp this up seriously.
I mean: if her story is true, I’m pretty sure she is technically a felon!!!
Gaithersburg High School is over ten miles away, outside the beltway, and I suspect it’s very unlikely they would be socializing with Holton Arms and Georgetown Prep(which is not in Georgetown). University of Maryland is even farther.
lucia (Comment #170906)
September 26th, 2018 at 4:12 pm
OK_Max
Apparently, Breitbart believes young people only socialize within a 2-year age range.
Or perhaps they know that adults being present at parties where minors are illegally consuming alcohol are subject to serious criminal penalties for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Being present where the inebriated kids are raping others would ramp this up seriously.
I mean: if her story is true, I’m pretty sure she is technically a felon!!!
________
lucia, I thought you might be on to something, but after checking Maryland law, I’m not sure.
Age of majority is 18 in Maryland, but legal drinking age is 21. So legally, Sweatnick wasn’t old enough to drink. If she can’t legally drink, would she be responsible for others who can’t. And what if ages were the same (e.g. age 19)? I
imagine her lawyer looked into the possibility of an age issue, and found none. If it’s relevant, age of consent starts at 14, with qualifications.
While we are on the subject, remember Ramirez said Kav waved his willy in her face and she pushed him away touching it in the process. Technically, you could say she sexually assaulted him. He didn’t touch her privates, she touched his without his permission.
OK Max
If she can’t legally drink, would she be responsible for others who can’t. And what if
In Iowa a person 18 yo and 1 day would be leggaly responsible as an adult for someone 18 yo-1 day for alcohol related issues. A student of mine got in a jam over this. (A bad thing happened. The story was in the paper.)
And what if ages were the same (e.g. age 19)?
The weren’t.
If it’s relevant, age of consent starts at 14, with qualifications.
Not for gang rape under the influence of alcohol and quaaludes. Which is what she seems to claim she was aware was happening to others.
MikeN (Comment #170907)
September 26th, 2018 at 4:47 pm
Gaithersburg High School is over ten miles away, outside the beltway, and I suspect it’s very unlikely they would be socializing with Holton Arms and Georgetown Prep(which is not in Georgetown). University of Maryland is even farther.
______
Mike, check a map. Georgetown Prep is not in Georgetown.
Mike, saw my mistake, but delete didn’t work. At first glance, I thought you said Georgetown Prep is in Georgetown, which is a part of D.C. But you said it isn’t, which is correct. Prep is in Maryland.
OK_Max
Technically, you could say she sexually assaulted him. He didn’t touch her privates, she touched his without his permission.
Well…. Ramirez is not likely to be charged with touching Kavanaugh’s willie because
(a) He says it didn’t happen and
(b) there are no witnesses to this incident which only Ramirez seems to remember.
So I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
Maryland changed it’s drinking laws in 1982, presumably to avoid losing federal highway funds. Swetnick would have been grandfathered in, and legally allowed to drink at age 20 in 1983, while some 19 year old college classmates could not.
OK_Max,
The lawyer could have looked into the risk of her describing what happened and found (a) there was a statute of limitations or (b) have her be just vague enough to not be charged with any specific crime.
People can only be charged with specific crimes — meaning who got raped, when and where. That doesn’t mean they aren’t guilty of a crime just because no one can pin anything specific on them.
If she was at a party where she knew or believed women were being gang raped under the influence of mickey and did nothing, she was an appalling woman at the very least. Perhaps she’s redeemed herself, but I for one want to know more about what she claimed was going on. Given her public accusation, I think I — a member of the public– has a right to hear more. I’d like to have her answer other questions about precisely what was going on, but to assess whether I believe her and to figure out just how appalling her own behavior was.
lucia (Comment #170909)
Sweatnick didn’t say she furnished alcohol to anyone. She wasn’t responsible for checking the ID’s of all the guest who were drinking at the party, nor was she responsible for asking other girls whether they gave consent. She didn’t have a legal responsibility to do any of that, and if she had tried, would have been asked to leave or thrown out.
Text of statement to retired FBI agent running lie detector says four boys and two girls at the party. Letter to Feinstein says 3 boys.
I’ve only seen a lie detector test on TV, but I hope a real test would run different from what Ford had to answer. Here is the list of questions she was asked:
1) Is any part of your statement false?
2) Did you make up any part of your statement?
3) In the year 1982 or around that year, were you assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge in an upstairs bedroom of a house in suburban Montgomery County Maryland, during a party attended by four boys and two girls?
4) Just kidding. The only questions asked were 1 & 2.
>nor was she responsible for asking other girls whether they gave consent.
Then why is she describing it as a gang rape?
Correction, letter to Feinstein says party was her and four others. Statement to committee says four boys and two girls, leaving open possibility of more.
She told Washington Post three boys and one girl, and her.
About ten years ago, Swetnick sued over sexual harassment, represented by the firm of Ford’s lawyer.
Mercifully, this crazy nightmare of PC idiocy will very soon come to an end. The Senate vote on Kavanaugh will likely happen mid next week. Not nearly soon enough.
What constitutes ‘late teens’?
OK_Max,
I didn’t say she said she was responsible for handing out liquor, nor that she needed to check IDS.
However, she supposedly knew at least Kavanaugh and Judge who she knew were under age. She didn’t need to check their IDs. Presumably, if there were “many” of these parties, and these were attended by her “crowd”, she already knew the ages of everyone. So she didn’t need to check IDs to know they were minors: she already knew.
Her report of what was going on at those parties– at which, evidently, she believed young, vulnerable women were being plied with liquor and being gang raped by guys — including guys who were drunk minors– waiting in the hall is enough for use to know that if she’s telling the truth, she behaved appallingly. She reports she went to at least 10 of these. She didn’t get dragged to these there unwillingly, not knowing what was happening. So presumably, she sought these parties out.
She was an adult. Based on her belief gang rapes were going on, she ought to have been watching out for these young girls — and she uses the word girls not women, she ought to have been intervening.
So: Swetnick is at the very minimum appalling.
FWIW: At Iowa State a student in my fluids class was charged with alcoholic related offenses, and no one said he’d given alcohol out, no one said he’d brought it, and it was agreed he didn’t know the ages of the girls who’d been brought to a dorm floor party by other guys on the floor. He was merely at the party, and oddly, happened to be they only guy who stayed when one of the girls passed out from excess alcohol. He called 411– and stayed. And he was charged.
The illegal thing was basically being at the party with underage kids drinking. (At least as far as I recall. I don’t know what ultimately happened with the charges. I allowed him to make up a lab he had to miss for his court date. He was very embarrassed. I told him I’d read the paper, and as far as I was concerned, despite the legal issues, his family should be proud he stayed and prevented the girl from dying.)
So the facts that you are stating don’t necessarily matter.
MikeN
Then why is she describing it as a gang rape?
She not only uses the term “gang rape”, but also that she witnessed efforts to get the girls inebriated, and then saw boys lined up in the hall to take their turn raping the girl.
So, her belief was that the girls were being gang raped. And, moreover, she describes herself as being aware that was the boys plan and specifically took measures to avoid getting inebriated– by not drinking the punch. And bear in mind at the time of these parties she was an adult but the at least some others — who she calls boys and girls — appear to have been just that. Boys and girls– not adults.
So, according to her affidavit, she had a strong belief girls were being gang raped, and she not only did nothing to report or stop this, she continued to attend these parties. Fun gal!
This behavior would be horrible in juveniles, but worse in adults. But according to her story she did nothing to (a) help any of the people she calls girls— that is not adults (b) stop or report any of this behavior the the parents of these minors. And she knewsome were minors!
Will wait to see if any other witnesses appear to support her story.
Obviously, if it turns out to be true, Kavanaugh is not fit to be on SCOTUS. He can be impeached if we find out after confirmation. I should think it would be difficult to do if he is proven to have set girls up for gang rape.
But I, for one, want to first hear who her witnesses are and hear them support her story. I want to hear her report her story in the judiciary committee where people can ask her questions in public.
Lucia: “At Iowa State a student in my fluids class was charged with alcoholic related offenses, and no one said he’d given alcohol out, no one said he’d brought it, and it was agreed he didn’t know the ages of the girls”
…..
What you are probably describing is the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
……
“Contributing to the delinquency of a minor is a crime governed by state laws, which vary by state. Generally, the crime consists of someone knowingly persuading, inducing, enticing or encouraging such a child or youth to engage in actions that would constitute a violation of federal or state law or a municipal or local ordinance. Local laws should be consulted for applicability in your area.” https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/contributing-to-the-delinquency-of-a-minor/
Very good chance that Swetnick (1980 High School graduate — Kavanaugh 1983 graduate) was guilty of this although I don’t know Maryland law.
JD
The Senate Judiciary Committee just sent out a timeline describing how they responded to the allegations against #SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh. It appears to indicate they've been in touch with two men who believe they had the "encounter" with Christine Blasey Ford pic.twitter.com/4cHn4j1DXw
Tweet above: Sounds like “mistaken identity” theory may have legs. Two guys believe they may be “the” guys involved in “the groping”.
Whoa. Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans say they have spoken to two men who think they, not Kavanaugh, had the 1982 encounter that formed the basis for her sexual abuse claim. (These tables are from a timeline the committee majority published 15 minutes ago.) pic.twitter.com/tjz3CSQUUL
lucia (Comment #170926): “Tweet above: Sounds like “mistaken identity†theory may have legs. Two guys believe they may be “the†guys involved in “the gropingâ€.”
.
Amazing. So it looks like it might be possible to prove Kavanaugh innocent. I am not sure that is a good thing. It is surely good for Kavanaugh, but it might set a bad precedent for the process.
Mike M: “So it looks like it might be possible to prove Kavanaugh innocent.”
…..
Unless they have a tape or pictures, she will stand by her story. Otherwise, she would be letting the Left down.
Mike M. (Comment #170928)
September 26th, 2018 at 9:38 pm
lucia (Comment #170926): “Tweet above: Sounds like “mistaken identity†theory may have legs. Two guys believe they may be “the†guys involved in “the gropingâ€.â€
.
Amazing. So it looks like it might be possible to prove Kavanaugh innocent.
_______________
Amazing would be doppelgangers for both Kavanaugh and Judge. Ed would be vindicated.
Info on this is sketchy, but it may be only a Kavanaugh doppelganger. Or it may be someone who feels a need to confess to something he didn’t do.
lucia (Comment #170909)
In Iowa a person 18 yo and 1 day would be leggaly responsible as an adult for someone 18 yo-1 day for alcohol related issues. A student of mine got in a jam over this. (A bad thing happened. The story was in the paper.)
_________
lucia, this looks interesting. Do you have a link or words I could use to Google it?
_____________________________________________________
lucia (Comment #170912)
OK_Max
Technically, you could say she sexually assaulted him. He didn’t touch her privates, she touched his without his permission.
“So I have no idea what point you are trying to make.”
_____
lucia, I wasn’t being serious. I should have used a mojie. Sorry.
______________________________________________________
lucia (Comment #170914)
The lawyer could have looked into the risk of her describing what happened and found (a) there was a statute of limitations or (b) have her be just vague enough to not be charged with any specific crime.
__________
If he didn’t, he’s a very bad lawyer. Sweatnick had the sense to get a lawyer before going public with statements. I don’t know if that means she was concerned about a legal liability, but it may. She sure
has had a lot of government jobs. I wonder what that’s about.
Correction to my Comment #170931
The Staff may have interviewed two men, each claiming it was he, not Kavanaugh, who sexually assaulted Ford. Obviously, at least one would be mistaken.
Both could be wrong, though not necessarily lying. They could have assaulted a girl or girls they incorrectly believed to be Ford.
I’m puzzled why a man not under suspicion for sexual assault would come forward and confess unless there is something to be gained.
Plus I’ve read that there is no statute of limitations in Maryland for this.
It wouldn’t surprise me if lots of guys groped party girl Christine. They may be describing something completely different.
OK_Max
Or it may be someone who feels a need to confess to something he didn’t do.
Sure. And it could be that Ford wanted to claim something that didn’t happen. Or Ford who didn’t name who the guys were until very recently misremembers. Or….
We’ll wait to hear more about this guy or guys.
OK_Max
I’m puzzled why a man not under suspicion for sexual assault would come forward and confess unless there is something to be gained.
He’s not under any legal jeopardy. After all: He didn’t rape her. He didn’t tear her clothes, bruise her and etc. His description may match Ford’s somewhat and differ somewhat. His description of motive may differ from hers. This isn’t such a mystery.
It’s less mysterious than Swetlick coming forward and basically describing herself as likely repeatedly contributing to the delinquency of minors by participating in drunken parties where gang rapes were accurring and doing nothing. And she was an adult. With supposedly “nothing to gain” from stepping forward.
I don’t know why anyone (like you) who isn’t surprised by Ramirez covering her own reputation in crap would be surprised that someone else might step forward to correct a story where an innocent person is accused of assault.
OK_Max,
Now all of sudden you start suspecting people might be lying, ha ha? Your partisanship is showing.
.
They guys might be lying, although this lie would be a bit risky without much upside, and I find it hard to believe this didn’t leak earlier. It might even be a false flag operation to test and confuse Ford.
Tom Scharf,
The two men certainly might be lying. They could have all sorts of reasons to lie– just as Ford may. Like Ford, they may be telling the truth as they know it– but be mistaken. The groped some you pretty blonde high school who they didn’t know well back in the day, at a party similar to the one Ford described. Maybe one will be named Brett. Or Rhett. Or Bart. Or Bert Kavendish. Heh.
The record available doesn’t tell us, but presumably the men contacted the judiciary committee but, (mysteriously!!) didn’t contact the press. It hasn’t been in the interest of Democrats to leak a story were guys are coming forward to suggest they were Ford’s groper because even a story that lacks credibility has legs and will affect public opinion. (The Dem’s have definitely been playing the public opinion game.)
It also has not been in the interest of Republicans to leak it early since they really need to know if the story is holier than a Swiss cheese or it can bite them in the end. They also wouldn’t want to give too much time for the press to get ahead of them on things. Also, the GOP would have wanted Ford on record as agreeing to appear to speak to the committe and perhaps already have landed in DC to make her appointment. Then if she withdraws it will look like the motivation would have potentially been the counter evidence. So for them, revealing this late is a better move. Last night may have been late enough, though this morning might not have been bad.
Of course the GOP is also playing a public opinion game. In fact: lots of people are playing that. Some had more prep time. (Ford, her lawyer, Feinstein and so on has loads of prep time to decide on the basics of their strategy.)
I’m not going to watch the livestream. I was at my dance class and I’m going to tutor magnetism soon….
Early reports have Ford being sympathetic in court room. Not surprising. She’s a polished woman telling a sympathetic story being handled with kid gloves. Always a potential problem.
Obviously, this is political theater. We’ll see how the vote goes in the end. Or if there is a vote.
One of the guys was described as “crazy as a loon” by a Republican Senator so we can pretty much write that one off. It is unknown whether the other is credible, but I think the Republicans would have leaked it if it was. It would be best strategically to blindside everyone with this at the last moment, but I’m not giving anyone credit for being this smart at the moment. As far as I know this is another evidence free assertion from someone motivated to make it. This process has zero integrity at this point, but at least there is a process.
.
If the Democrats had this info, then Ford already does as well. There is zero chance they wouldn’t be warned about this.
.
I never watch political dramas or debates. I find them to be a distortion of reality by people who are really good at distorting reality. We will see if any new evidence shows up, I give zero credence to a judgement on who “seems more credible” in testimony. There is way too much emotional investment by almost everyone for that to be a fair judgment. The stories by the left and right media about the testimony will be very predictable. Evidence free assertion against respectable man vs. brave compelling testimony by an attempted rape survivor.
Tom:
I’m interested in what questions get asked, what answers are supplied. But yeah… this is political theater.
Ford may be a brave attempted rape survivor. (In which case, I too am a rape survivor. See story above!) But unless I hear more about that party, I don’t believe anyone can be confident she can identify her assailant with certainty. That’s true even if she thinks she can.
If people fail to ask relevant questions, I will continue to think we can’t be sure there is no mistaken identity. That doesn’t mean she is mistaken, it just means we can’t be sure she is not.
I still sort of feel for her– this can’t be fun. But that pain caused by the hearing is not something to lay at Kavanaugh’s feet.
Given the way things were sprung by Feinstein, there was never any chance the process would have integrity.
>I find it hard to believe this didn’t leak earlier.
What is the timeline of receiving this info? Could this be why Ed Whelan was so confident Kavanaugh would be cleared(by yesterday)?
Plausible motive for a person to confess when there is no suspicion on them is to prevent a guilty party from being convicted.
A plausible reason for Whelan to be confident is Whelan was talking out of his uhmm… not mouth. Partisan people often claim victory before votes, battles and so on and so on. That’s practically the full time job of a pundit.
Partisans often can’t see things from the other side. So, for example, instead of merely seeing flaws in Ford’s story, they decree no one could believe it at all.
But of course lots of people could believe it both for partisan reasons and because it contains elements that have the ring of truth. For example: I can certainly believe something similar to what Ford claimed to happen to her did happen to her. I can believe Ford believes it entirely. I can believe Ford is confident she is not misidentifying.
The problem is confidence is a mix feeling and thinking. Feelings tell us nothing about accuracy and even the thought that one must be correct doesn’t mean one is. For a 3rd party to decide whether they think her recollection is accurate, the 3rd party needs to know more. I haven’t watched the testimony (or read transcripts) so I don’t know if info in testimony would convince me her feeling of confidence is warranted. Maybe it is. Maybe not.
At this point, I’m also interested in learning if these other men show up at the hearing….
Kavanaugh claimed he didn’t socialize with Ford’s school much at all. Was not expecting that. I noticed yesterday while talking about Swetnick at Gaithersburg High that the schools were about 5 miles apart, but didn’t think that was much for private schools near DC.
He said.
She said.
My takes on the hearing
Grassley and Feinstein are over the hill and should retire.
Ford was pretty composed. Only choked up once. I thought she was going to cry, but she recovered. She didn’t dodge questions.
Kavanaugh’s speech was tiring and over emotional. He choked up several times. He was combative and dodged lots of questions.
Entertaining, but I didn’t learn anything I didn’t already know.
OK Max,
“Entertaining, but I didn’t learn anything I didn’t already know.”
.
Wow. Perhaps you would find public whipping or stoning in Saudi Arabia also entertaining. Entertaining is not the adjective that comes to my mind. Revolting. Demeaning. Grotesque. Absurd. Those all seem accurate descriptions to me.
If Kavanaugh gets the 50 votes he needs (betting markets say this is currently >50% chance), and goes to the SC, he is not going to forget how the Senate Democrats held back the Ford accusations for 7 weeks, until after the formal hearings were over (while at the same time Sen. Feinstein’s office was helping her line up lawyers). Clarence Thomas was treated well by comparison, and he was obviously angry for a long time. I have to believe Kavanaugh is not going to be able to let this one go for a very long time.
Steve,
Interesting about the betting markets. I’ve been trying to estimate the odds but I haven’t gotten a handle on it. He [Kavanaugh] can withstand one Republican defection, assuming no Democrats vote for him. I can think of three or four Republicans who might vote against him, but I can’t figure out the approximate odds of any of them doing it. [Any of the individual odds, so I can’t estimate the overall odds]
.
[Edit: I’m behind on the news. I read remarks from Flake and Corker that seem [to me] to lean towards supporting Kavanaugh this evening. Collins and Murkowksi would both have to oppose. … I still don’t feel comfortable estimating the probability]
I should have clarified, I’m talking about the full Senate vote, not the committee vote.
marck bofill,
If you assume the rest of the caucus will support Kavanaugh, and the odds are 50:50 on both Collins and Murkowski, then his chance of getting to 50 or 51 (with Pence breaking the tie with 50) is:
So, in that case, a 75% chance of confirmation. If Flake supports Kavanaugh (as some news reports now suggest), that will be something I would not have guessed.
Steve, true, but that assumes Collins and Murkowski each have a 50% chance of yea or nay. … Of course, lacking a better estimate of the individual probabilities, I guess that’s as good as anyone can do.
But there are several Democrats whose reelection bids might be harmed by a no vote. Manchin and Hietkamp are the most often mentioned, but there are others facing tough challenges in Trump states.
SteveF (Comment #170954)
September 27th, 2018 at 6:10 pm
OK Max,
“Entertaining, but I didn’t learn anything I didn’t already know.â€
Wow. Perhaps you would find public whipping or stoning in Saudi Arabia also entertaining. Entertaining is not the adjective that comes to my mind. Revolting. Demeaning. Grotesque. Absurd. Those all seem accurate descriptions to me.
___________
Then, why did you watch it ?
You are assuming the votes are independent. Murkowski voting opposite to Collins here is unlikely, despite the different voter profiles of their states.
I’m reading reports that Manchin, Donnelly will likely vote with those two as well.
Corker is a yes, along with Sasse.
Flake may vote no if he is not the 51st no to get some liberal bonafides and help with his job prospects with CNN or MSNBC.
24 hours and we will know.
Gut feeling a bit like Obama care likely to get shafted by one or 2 republicans.
Meanwhile release those files.
“Finally, there are those two nervous allies, Australia and Great Britain. Their continued collaboration undoubtedly remains important to the United States. But, in this case, the American public deserves to know why two foreign countries — no matter how friendly or well intentioned — were involved in an American domestic matter such as a democratic election.”
OK Max,
I watched the live feed only briefly (too revolting to tolerate). I read their statements, and I saw several ‘highlight’ video clips of 5-10 minutes each. It was not at all entertaining… it was an obscene abomination… and a waste of time.
angech,
“But, in this case, the American public deserves to know why two foreign countries — no matter how friendly or well intentioned — were involved in an American domestic matter such as a democratic election.â€
.
They were trying to make sure Trump was not elected. I can see no other explanation. Sort of like Obama going to the UK to campaign against Brexit. The second backfired. The first likely will as well. Here is a good rule of thumb: don’t ever get involved in legitimate elections outside your own country.
And now for something completely different:
Arctic Sea ice has passed the minimum and is increasing again. The seven day moving average was almost identical to 2017, ~4.6Mm², which puts it close to the middle of the last ten years.
The only important thing that happened is no new evidence. I find it unfair that a person’s decades long career can be ruined with accusations with no corroborating evidence, on a single person’s word. He is forever tarnished, regardless of how the vote goes. The character smear was successful, that is undeniable. National politicians have to power to ruin any individual’s life and they need to use that power sparingly.
.
As politicians wantonly ruin people’s lives to further their own desperate agendas the only feeling I have is disgust, disgust for what the national media and national politics have become. There is zero to be proud about here. The elevation of an in-tribe accusation as fact, the assumption of guilt for the out of tribe regardless of a lifetime history. The only thing the media cares about is “historic” drama, they don’t care if they fairly represent the accused, and constantly run around telling us how every identity group feels as if these are monolithic. The politicians are only deciding based on which way will hurt them more politically, not surprising.
.
The only thing I believe is there is no way to know the truth, the same thing we knew two weeks ago.
If Kavanaugh fails to be confirmed, I would nominate a new justice the next day and schedule a full senate vote 7 days later, ha ha. The long interview and hearing process has become meaningless.
Tom Scharf,
It’s not just national politicians. This sort of thing has been going on at universities since the Obama administration sent out the Title IX “Dear Colleague” memo. Being expelled from a University for an alleged sexual offense with little to no due process can be just as damaging to one’s life.
Al Franken also gets some of the blame for resigning from the Senate rather than trying to defend himself from what he claimed was a false allegation.
I have heard that where I used to work it is now possible to submit an anonymous accusation to HR that can get someone fired without their being able to defend themselves.
The country was founded on equal rights and due process for individuals, and one of the reasons I want a more conservative SC is as a firewall against the excesses of social mobs and moral panics. Academia and over zealous HR departments will eventually be successfully sued for their excesses. The MeToo movement can be a force of good and bad simultaneously. Never grant an activist group immunity from criticism, or the results are predictably that partisans will exploit them.
Looks like they are planning to vote at 1:30 pm est. If they do, the Kavanaugh thing will at least be over. (Which, even though this has been a circus, is better than if there had been a long potentially unending FBI investigation. )
Ok… I’m seeing a variety of different times given for the scheduled time.
The judiciary committee voted to hold full vote? (I think?)
Lucia,
Flake voted Kavanaugh out of committee, but will not vote for him on the floor unless the vote is delayed a week to “give the FBI additional time”. Flake probably realized only after saying he would vote for Kavanaugh that his future as a well compensated RINO on CNN or MSNBC depends on him not voting for Kavanaugh. The guy is a quintessential worm.
BTW, the requested “week” is only the starting point. The FBI can’t wipe their… err….. noses… in a week. If the floor vote is delayed a week, it won’t happen until after the Nov. election, which was always the goal. If vulnerable Senate Democrats don’t have to register a vote before the election, then they can vote against Kavanaugh with no political blowback after they get re-elected.
SteveF,
‘Additional’ time? For what? The FBI isn’t doing anything, or planning to do anything, now, as far as I can tell. That’s because there isn’t anything to do without access to a time machine. Everybody that knows, or thinks they know, anything has already spoken so there are no new leads to investigate and there isn’t any physical evidence. Assuming that there is something new to be found, if only the FBI would investigate, is a classic example of magical thinking. I blame television, particularly the various iterations of CSI.
I thought I saw “up to a week” with a very specific but undisclosed request of what to investigate. If there is a well defined question or three that ought to be readily answerable by a certain deadline, it makes sense to delay by a few says so as to get the answers before the final vote. Otherwise, a delay would be just pernicious mischief.
Flake may have just said this to spare himself a weekend of harassment. He knew Grassley’s commitment was meaningless. End result is he has voted yes on Kavanaugh to get it out of committee. He could have insisted on investigation at this stage if he wanted to.
Mike N,
“. He could have insisted on investigation at this stage if he wanted to.”
.
Sure, but he had already said he would vote Kavanaugh out of committee. He doesn’t want an investigation, he wants a juicy gig with CNN. He is a worm
SteveF (Comment #170965)
September 28th, 2018 at 5:16 am
OK Max,
I watched the live feed only briefly (too revolting to tolerate). I read their statements, and I saw several ‘highlight’ video clips of 5-10 minutes each. It was not at all entertaining… it was an obscene abomination… and a waste of time.
______
Then you may have missed the Louisiana Senator’s lie detector test.
DeWitt,
“I blame television, particularly the various iterations of CSI.”
.
I blame those who watch such rubbish…. I never watch TV save for news and sports… amd not much of those.
.
The FBI has nothing to investigate They will dutifully delay the Senate vote on Kavanaugh until after the election, as is their want. The swamp never quits, never stops, never cares.
Mike M,
“Otherwise, a delay would be just pernicious mischief.”
.
Bingo! The whole objective is a delay until after the election, then it’s an easy no vote for all the nervous senators who want to be re-elected. That IS pernicious mischief.
OK Max,
“Then you may have missed the Louisiana Senator’s lie detector test.”
.
You already told me there was nothing new, and that is clearly the case. You finding the spectacle “entertaining” is something I still find very sad.
I presume Trump will order the FBI to investigate, but I don’t know the scope of the investigation.
OK Max,
If Trump asks for an investigation, he will ask for a week…. they will take 6. This is transparent nonsense designed to prolong the process.
President Donald Trump directed the FBI to launch a supplemental investigation. In a statement, Trump said the updated investigation “must be limited in scope” and “completed in less than one week.
Don’t know what anybody believes the FBI is going to accomplish in this regard in less than a week, but if that’s what it takes to make the peace and put this farce to an end, alright.
So how does this play out?
.
I think: the FBI protests that that’s not enough time to do much of anything. Trump says tough noogies, go investigate. The FBI is swamped by lefty kooks and some dirty tricks operatives who supply them ‘promising leads’. The nightly news makes sure everyone is aware that the FBI would get Kavanaugh if only they had enough time and independence from Trump. The stink is enough to scare two or more of the RINO’s into voting against.
I’m just thinking out loud, but at a glance I think the Dems just won this one.
Mueller’s investigation was “limited in scope”, ha ha. I predict Kavanaugh will be on death row by the time this thing finishes. Realistically it is some Senators calling for cover to vote for Kavanaugh, not against. They would vote against him now if they were inclined. Probably good news. I really don’t see how anything material is going to come up. It’s not like the media didn’t put a 100 reporters on it already.
… time to beat a dead dog … if I was Mike Judge, I would not talk to the FBI, they will have the knives out.
Go ice (thanks DeWill)
Go ICE (Trump)
On ice (Kavanaugh) thin ice too.
Iced over FBI DOJ files.
On the rocks Rosenstein next Thursday.
Feels like I’m watching someone play a high speed pinball game.
Is Trump Tommy in disguise?
Real Clear Investigations cites Ford’s heavy drinking and active sexual life when she was young that has been revealed by her yearbook. https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/09/27/blasey_ford_yearbooks.html Wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if she has memory problems from blackouts and if there weren’t additional claimed sexual assaults. She dodged the issue of what other issues contributed to her anxiety and PTSD at the hearing (Giving an answer as to what generally caused anxiety or PTSD and not what other additional contributors, she in fact had), and her medical records should be quite interesting.
Of course, there is a 50-50 chance at least that she and her lawyers will have them destroyed or altered.
JD
JD Ohio (Comment #170993)
September 28th, 2018 at 7:37 pm
“Real Clear Investigations cites Ford’s heavy drinking and active sexual life when she was young that has been revealed by her yearbook.”
_____________
I would have to see pages from Ford’s HA yearbook before believing RCI. None were presented. I haven’t seen any online. Yearbooks to photograph should be available at the HA library.
Why is this relevant anyway?
Max “Why is this relevant anyway?” Heavy drinking could cause memory loss. Many sexual encounters could cause confusion.
JD
Tom Scharf (Comment #170991)
September 28th, 2018 at 5:38 pm
… time to beat a dead dog … if I was Mike Judge, I would not talk to the FBI, they will have the knives out.
__________
I doubt Judge would be charged with a crime for changing what he said about Kav in his letter.
Although Judge concluded his letter by saying “I am knowingly submitting this letter under penalty of felony,†I don’t know whether that really means anything.
JD Ohio (Comment #170995)
September 28th, 2018 at 10:09 pm
Max “Why is this relevant anyway?†Heavy drinking could cause memory loss. Many sexual encounters could cause confusion.
_______
Rachel Mitchell didn’t question Ford about her drinking and sex life in high school. I believe Mitchell would have addressed these subjects had there been a basis from HA Yearbooks or other sources for doing so. If you believe there was a basis, why do you think Mitchell avoided the subjects?
Max: “If you believe there was a basis, why do you think Mitchell avoided the subjects?”
My understanding is that with all of the focus on K’s yearbook, someone decided to look at Ford’s. I also understand they were just retrieved before someone took them offline. During the hearing Mitchell was trying to appear conciliatory and kind, and was not looking for this kind of info. Everyone realizes that all sorts of nasty stuff is going to come up now, and someone took the initiative to get these in order to distract some of the attention from K’s yearbook.
JD
JD Ohio (Comment #170998)
“My understanding is that with all of the focus on K’s yearbook, someone decided to look at Ford’s. I also understand they were just retrieved before someone took them offline.”
_________
I have seen pages from Kav’s yearbooks posted online, but none from Ford’s. Do you have a link to pages from Ford’s so I can decide whether I agree with RCI’s take?
The guy who posted the pictures had his site removed by blogspot.
The text, both the yearbooks and his first column at least, has been reprinted elsewhere.
Christine Blasley’s high school yearbook does not describe her as a promiscuous girl who drank until she passed out.
Even if it did, sexually assaulting her still would be a crime.
OK_Max,
Of course. But you are rebutting a strawman. No one claimed her drinking and being promiscuous would mean sexually assaulting her was not a crime.
You asked JD why it would matter and he already told you why
Max “Why is this relevant anyway?†Heavy drinking could cause memory loss. Many sexual encounters could cause confusion.
JD
To repeat: Heavy drinking can cause memory loss. Sexual encounters– especially while drinking– could result in confusion over who, what, where, when.
Both of these are relevant to the question of whether Christine Blasely is correct that Kavanaugh assaulted her.
Honestly, I suspect she drank a lot in high school. My suspicion is based on the generalization that kids who seek out parties in empty houses (especially those of people they don’t even know) generally drink. Evidently– and according to her– she was hanging out a community center because that’s where you find the parties. This suggest she probably drank, and quite possibly a lot.
I also think she was afraid her parents would discover she was at a party where alcohol was served because she liked to go to lots of these, sought them out, and didn’t want to be prevented from doing so. She likely went frequently and did not want her social life ended.
Mitchell didn’t ask about alcohol. I don’t know why. I would have wanted to know.
Mitchell was not acting as a courtroom attorney. Her job was to ask certain questions so Senators could evaluate the accusations. A fierce attack might have cost them the votes of Collins and Murkowski and others(as Arlen Specter’s questioning of Anita Hill is credited with helping female Senators get elected in 1992). She was recommended by Flake, perhaps by name.
So she gently asked questions and found holes in her responses. Not only could Ford not remember details from 36 years ago, she was having trouble remembering details from the last few months. Mitchell told the Republicans in conference that she couldn’t even get a search warrant on the details provided.
Lucia,
Republicans were terrified of appearing “mean” to Ford, so no tough questions were raised:
“How often did you go to parties?”
“When you did not have a driver’s license, how did you normally go to and return from the parties?”
“How many times did you meet Kavanaugh at parties or other social events?”
“Did you ever drink more than 3 or 4 drinks at these parties?”
Etc.
These questions will never be asked publicly. I saw the yearbook pages before they were “disappeared”; based on the yearbook, Ford went to a school where parties with heavy drinking were apparently quite common.
It seems there is almost a religious disavowal of attacking an alleged sexual assault victim during a trial, which is the exact opposite of what people seem to think. Perhaps this only applies to high profile cases. It creates more sympathy by attacking an alleged victim, especially if it is not just alleged, but real. People are inclined to be sympathetic to victims, especially women, and especially sexual assault. If you are in an evidence sparse trial, then winning the sympathy war is a primary goal.
.
This is why the left media has dropped fact finding and has been trafficking in non-stop appeals to emotion. If Kavanaugh was accused of strangling kittens, we would be seeing stories on the plights of abused kittens by those willing his guilt in the absence of evidence.
.
Other people’s stories have no bearing on whether the individual Kavanaugh committed this unique crime. If Ford was a level 10 drunken sl** it has no bearing on whether Kavanaugh committed this crime. Nobody deserves to be assaulted, and level 10 sl**s are more likely to be attacked.
.
So … for the debate on whether it is more likely Kavanaugh is guilty or Ford is misremembering it or lying herself these background items tilt the field a little one way or the other. Interesting debate, but irrelevant on whether one is charged with a crime or gets their life ruined. I don’t like “who is the most sympathetic” being a factor in life altering decisions.
.
Imagine you are an unsympathetic man, have anger control issues, don’t deal with people well, and are driving barely over the alcohol limit on a deserted road, you pass under a green light at an intersection and t-bone a stone sober church going mother of cheerleaders who ran the red light. She dies. No witnesses. Want to wager how that one is going to turn out?
.
If I was betting I would bet Kavanaugh didn’t do this, but that is more based on my own biases than evidence, because I don’t have evidence. No corroboration, waiting 36 years, and political timing and motivation tilt it toward Kavanaugh, but plenty of crimes occur without corroboration. This seems like a drunken groping as opposed to a sexual assault as it was defined ten years ago.
.
I find who was a bigger drinker in HS to be meaningless. I drank plenty in high school, but the chances of me sexually assaulting someone were zero. Alcohol lowers inhibitions, it doesn’t turn people into raging violent lunatics unless that tendency was already there.
Tom, nah. It’s like a bottomless pit. It can always get worse.
Tom,
I don’t disagree with your larger point.
I find who was a bigger drinker in HS to be meaningless. I drank plenty in high school, but the chances of me sexually assaulting someone were zero. Alcohol lowers inhibitions, it doesn’t turn people into raging violent lunatics unless that tendency was already there.
I don’t even disagree with this actually. However – as you say, alcohol lowers inhibitions. It also (IMO) increases the probabilities of misjudgment. It is not at all incredible to me to suppose a perfectly decent guy who would never sexually assault anybody might be more likely to misjudge the interest or lack thereof of a potential partner if sufficiently drunk. Could misjudge actions as an invitation. Sexual encounters are like that – (IMO) few young people at a party before hooking up are going to take the time to explicitly discuss and negotiate the details of an encounter. I think it kills the mood or something.
So – mistakes can happen. I don’t know where that leaves us, but I hope it doesn’t leave us in a situation where anytime a guy misjudges a situation and doesn’t explicitly negotiate the prospective encounter verbally that he is guilty of sexual assault. I think that’s a dark place for men and women to be – both.
Mark Bofill (Comment #171008) “It’s like a bottomless pit. It can always get worse.”
Sad. But true.
Mark wrote: “I don’t know where that leaves us, but I hope it doesn’t leave us in a situation where anytime a guy misjudges a situation and doesn’t explicitly negotiate the prospective encounter verbally that he is guilty of sexual assault. I think that’s a dark place for men and women to be – both.”
.
That ship sailed back in 2011.
Some branches of the BDSM community solve [attempt to mitigate] this problem with the use of safewords.
But I think it’s the youth and the alcohol that’s the root of the problem, and that there’s no good way around that. It’s like stupidity; nothing fixes stupidity, there’s no systematic way to get around that. Inexperienced people deliberately impairing their judgement. What can anyone expect other than mistakes will happen. We have laws against minors drinking and having sex already.
I think this is part of why we as a society have a notion of minors and that minors should not be judged or punished as harshly as adults.
Dave,
Why do you say 2011 specifically?
mark bofill
a perfectly decent guy who would never sexually assault anybody might be more likely to misjudge the interest or lack thereof of a potential partner if sufficiently drunk. Could misjudge actions as an invitation.
Misjudgement is also possible when you are sober. You don’t even have to be entirely clueless.
I mean, consider my story above, with the guy X who from my point of view, I may have only escaped because his roommate came back to get a tool he forgot.
From my point of view, I came to his floor intending to socialize with a long time friend, Mario. (Have pictures of Mario at my 5 year birthay party.) Was wearing cute tank top and shorts because it was hot and hell out (July or August), the dorms were not air conditioned. I like shorts and tank top. Mario not there. See guys I knew. Conversation starts in hall where there is no where to sit. We go into room– with roommate and guy X both present. Talk.
From my POV, I hadn’t gone out on anything I considered a date with guy X, I had gone to a large party with a car full of people — and gone because guy X invited me (and another girl.) I’d also gone to a baseball game with four guys and me — included guy X (bought my own ticket and beers.) Other similar things.
So, maybe from his point of view some of these were “dates” or … something.
So, now perhaps from his point of view, I’d come to the floor specifically to see him. (I didn’t know his roommate at all until that day.) I’m wearing cute clothes that are sort of attractive and he might think I specifically picked “bare” clothes not because it was something like 90+F out, but to be “super-mega-hot” looking. Then, I am in his room.
I don’t get up an leave the second his roommate leaves, so he things this is his chance. Then he thinks (for some mysterious reason) that getting up and freaking locking the door is a reasonable thing to do. ( LESSON FOR GUYS, getting up and suddenly locking door is SUPER SCARY!!!!! )
Episode ensues– I’m scared as shit as he’s grabbing me, pawing aggressively… I’m looking at window…
This does not last long because roommate comes back because he forgot his wrench. (Seriously, it was about the time necessary for roommate to walk down hall, go down 3 flights of stairs, open tool back, realize mistake, climb back up and arrive. )
So from my view: I decided the guy was a rapey creep. Too scary to hang out with. Never was going to be in his presence alone again. I wasn’t even going to be in groups where the number present might whittle down to 2.
From his…. well… actually, I know he was puzzled because a while later his guy X’s brother told me guy X wondered why I never had anything to do with him anymore. So I’m pretty sure guy X did not see this the same way as I did. If someone told him my story, he’d say he never assaulted me, and from his POV, that would be totally true.
Now if things had gone on longer, either things would have gone very badly for me, or he would have given up. But the fact is I have no idea. (But guys who get up and lock a door for no reason at all are scary…. scary… not going to give benefit of doubt going forward.)
Thanks Lucia. Your story illustrates what I’m saying well.
.
Regarding locking the door – I’ve locked the door before. At risk of TMI – my wife and I still do lock the door occasionally. The purpose in my view is to keep people from walking in. (Kids sometimes wake up and wander in at the darndest times…) Never occurred to me that it might be construed ominously by my partner.
Mark–
Context for locking door is different. In the case of my story, this is a guy I’d never so much as held hands with. His roommate gets up with toolbox go leave, 6′ something guys jumps up follows him and locks the door. From the POV of 5’4″ 120 lbs woman in room, he’s just locked her in and potential rescuers out.
Had the guy made a move, and I’d responded positively, locking the door afterwards would not be scary. (I wasn’t going to respond positively… but whatever. If I had then locking door would be normal.)
Lucia,
.
There’s no question that the guy (at best) made a mistake in your case, since you definitely were not up for that. That he wondered why you were never around him after that does seem to support the idea that he was just badly mistaken.
.
Some guys are creepy rapey, no doubt. Some are out and out rapists. I don’t mean to imply that guys should get a free pass. I do mean to say that there can be circumstances where there is an ambiguous region where parties without evil intentions can make mistakes. And I do also stand by the idea that kids make mistakes just by virtue of inexperience, and some mistakes are just part of the learning process.
.
We draw practical lines in a somewhat arbitrary way. I think a boy ‘putting the moves’ on a girl and getting shut down by the girl is routine enough in teenage encounters that it shouldn’t be construed the same way that rape is. I think that rape – sexual intercourse against one of the party’s will, crosses the line regardless of age. Why do I draw the lines this way? No fantastic principled reason. It seems to me to be a practical way of deciding. Maybe I am horribly wrong in this.
I think we need a new Emmy award category: Best Performance Before a Senate Committee. Anyone who thinks that either Kavanaugh’s or Ford’s testimony wasn’t scripted and rehearsed probably believes that professional wrestling, much less the rest of ‘reality’ TV, isn’t scripted either.
Maybe this isn’t the same thing, what do you guys think:
.
Nobody finds it astonishing that boys get into fist fights when they are children. Its generally not lauded as good behavior, quite the contrary- boys usually get disciplined for getting into physical fights. However, it happens. That it happens (I THINK) isn’t considered evidence that the boy is some sort of monster. It’s just part of growing up.
.
Adults – different matter. Some other adult begins punching me, that’s assault. Different standard.
.
Same thing, not the same thing? Similar in any way? Totally different? (Same as what? Oh. As a boy embracing, kissing or attempting to kiss, fondling or attempting to fondle a girl who doesn’t actually want to do that — and where the boy voluntarily stops when the girl makes her refusal unmistakable. Is this different from adult sexual assault?)
lucia (Comment #171003)
“To repeat: Heavy drinking can cause memory loss. Sexual encounters– especially while drinking– could result in confusion over who, what, where, when..”
______
lucia, if there is evidence high school teen Christine Blasely did what you are suggesting, I haven’t seen it.
“Mitchell didn’t ask about alcohol. I don’t know why. I would have wanted to know.”
lucia, maybe one reason Mithcell didn’t ask Blasley about drinking is she had no evidence teen Blasley drank much. Another reason is it’s a crime to sexually assault even drunk girls.
I think these are the same reasons Mitchell didn’t ask Beasley about her teen sex life. She had no evidence Blasley was promiscuous, and even if she did, it’s a crime to sexually assault promiscuous girls.
MikeN (Comment #171004)
So she gently asked questions and found holes in her responses. Not only could Ford not remember details from 36 years ago, she was having trouble remembering details from the last few months.
_________
Obama told ESPN: ‘With the girls, they just think of it as dad, that is what dads are supposed to do. They take it for granted.’
Just what dads are supposed to do.
]
mark bofill (Comment #171019)
As a boy embracing, kissing or attempting to kiss, fondling or attempting to fondle a girl who doesn’t actually want to do that — and where the boy voluntarily stops when the girl makes her refusal unmistakable. Is this different from adult sexual assault?)
________
Depends on the law, school rules, setting, etc. I don’t know how laws and rules for the incident you describe differ by age of defendant. Seems like the offense would be less serious for a 8-year old boy than a 16-year old. The 8-year old’s behavior , however, may be a bad sign. I would be very concerned if I had a kid like that, and would not accept as an excuse “well the President did it.”
Max,
Thanks. I should have clarified, (as usual) I wasn’t talking so much about what is currently legal as much as what we think is right, or proper, or should be.
After thinking about it, I think I was wrong in my example. One reason sexual shenanigans should (quite properly) be taken more seriously in children than fist fights is that the consequences are much more far reaching. Sex can produce children. Having children has lifetime range reach in effects. Fist fights don’t. So – yes. Maybe should be viewed categorically differently.
[Edit: Now, I know in my example the boy backed off. But still – the category seems to be different to me because of the long reaching implications. If two boys almost got into a fight that would have left one of them affected for life, maybe that would have been a more similar example.]
Max, I gotta run but I’ll get back to you on this. I’m curious about your position on some related items.
Max
lucia, if there is evidence high school teen Christine Blasely did what you are suggesting, I haven’t seen it.
I didn’t say there was. You previously seem to be trying to avoid admitting that if one drinks heavily, that can lead to memory loss. You asked why such evidence would matter if it existed, and JD Ohio told you why it would matter if it existed.
Whether or not it existed is a separate question. The answer to that other question doesn’t change the answer to the previous one.
lucia, maybe one reason Mithcell didn’t ask Blasley about drinking is she had no evidence teen Blasley drank much. Another reason is it’s a crime to sexually assault even drunk girls.
The former might be a good reason not to ask, but it would not be in context. Mitchell was supposed to be asking questions whose answers give listeners insight. Had the answer been no, we would have learned something we do not know.
The latter would absolutely not be a good reason not to ask. If the purpose was a rape trial, asking her if she was drinking would be important both
(a) to find out whether she could even give consent. (She can’t if she was drinking.) and
(b) to find out whether we believe her memory might be impaired as to who.
If there is any good reason not to ask, you have not supplied it.
mark bofill (Comment #171009)
So – mistakes can happen. I don’t know where that leaves us, but I hope it doesn’t leave us in a situation where anytime a guy misjudges a situation and doesn’t explicitly negotiate the prospective encounter verbally that he is guilty of sexual assault. I think that’s a dark place for men and women to be – both.
________
Intoxication does not make it ok to misjudge a situation. People who can’t handle their liquor shouldn’t drink. There are plenty of women who would like to have sex, but not with uncouth drunks slobbering all over them.
Mark, 2011 is when Obama wrote his mail to colleges “reminding“ them to use the lowest standards of guilt in sexual cases and discouraging cross-examination of the “victimâ€. I believe he launched the ship that day.
OK_Max
Intoxication does not make it ok to misjudge a situation. People who can’t handle their liquor shouldn’t drink. There are plenty of women who would like to have sex, but not with uncouth drunks slobbering all over them.
No. But there are a range of issues relative to drunkenness. Remember: Women get drunk too. When drunk,
(a) They may misread signals.
(b) They may send out misleading signals. Heck, they might even say something they don’t mean!!!
(c) They may misinterpret things that happen. (This is related to misreading signals. But in any case, some actions are ambiguous if looked at objectively. Each person brings their own knowledge — and lack of knowledge– to the situation when interpreting what happens or what is said.)
(d) They may not remember what happened.
None of a-d are suggesting the woman “deserves” to be raped or somehow “owes” the guy sex. Nevertheless, if we are trying to interpret stories, all can sort of matter.
Dave,
Thanks! Fun fact. I didn’t know it.
Max,
Intoxication does not make it ok to misjudge a situation. People who can’t handle their liquor shouldn’t drink. There are plenty of women who would like to have sex, but not with uncouth drunks slobbering all over them.
.
Be careful in thinking you know what women want sexually. A substantial percentage of the population fantasizes about rape or of being subject to sex against their will. This is borne out by the popularity of romance novels and books and movies like ‘Fifty Shades of Grey”.
.
This gets closer to the heart of the matter I raised earlier. I’m virtually certain that very few women, if any, want to be genuinely raped. However, I’m equally certain that what turns people on (male, female, makes no matter) has very little to do with what they rationally decide.
I should have added: I doubt any significant number of women genuinely want to be raped. But I expect a reasonable number of women don’t want to have all of the fantasy taken out of the situation by an overly cautious partner who needs to get explicit and unambiguous permission ahead of time for each detail. YET – it would seem that this is the only safe course MeToo leaves us all. And it hurts women as well as men.
.
Personally, I think the answer is to know and understand one’s partner well, but that’s really neither here nor there.
Public-School Girls
A Kavanaugh’s classmate, referring to Julie Sweatnick, implied Georgetown Prep boys had more class than to associate with a common public=school girls.
“At least one of Kavanaugh’s classmates scoffed at the notion that Swetnick would have been a regular at parties with Georgetown Prep students.â€
“Never heard of her,†said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because members of the class have agreed not to speak on the record to reporters. “I don’t remember anyone from Prep hanging out with public school girls, especially from Gaithersburg.â€
A Kavanaugh classmate, referring to Julie Sweatnick, implied Georgetown Prep boys had more class than to associate with a common public school girl.
“At least one of Kavanaugh’s classmates scoffed at the notion that Sweatnick would have been a regular at parties with Georgetown Prep students.â€
“Never heard of her,†said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because members of the class have agreed not to speak on the record to reporters. “I don’t remember anyone from Prep hanging out with public school girls, especially from Gaithersburg.â€
Max,
Be careful in thinking you know what women want sexually. A substantial percentage of the population fantasizes about rape or of being subject to sex against their will. This is borne out by the popularity of romance novels and books and movies like ‘Fifty Shades of Greyâ€.
.
This gets closer to the heart of the matter I raised earlier. I’m virtually certain that very few women, if any, want to be genuinely raped. However, I’m equally certain that what turns people on (male, female, makes no matter) has very little to do with what they rationally decide.
______
mark, you can find out what women want simply by “touch and go” or “trial and error.” If in doubt, you can always suggest or ask.
Webster’s defintion of “touch and go” explains what I mean:
“an airplane landing followed immediately by application of power and a takeoff and usually executed as one of a series for practice …”
Max,
.
Sure. But in the ‘touch and go’ scenario its not inconceivable that you’ll … land … briefly, someplace she doesn’t want you to. Mistakes can happen, pilots and lovers alike sometimes misjudge situations. Doesn’t make them evil scum rapists, that’s all I’m saying. Well, some of what I’m saying I guess.
[Edit: I think radical misunderstandings are still possible too even using this approach.]
“But guys who get up and lock a door for no reason at all are scary”
.
Why would a guy lock a door for no reason? It could be a habit, perhaps founded on a previous incident or some obnoxious crazy’s habit of barging in.
.
Nobody except real pervs have doors that prevent leaving when locked, so whatever the reason is, it is to keep others out.
Assuming of course he just closed the door; how would you know he actually locked it?
.
In ye olde days, just having a women in a guy’s room was indecent.
In the old days, having a women in the room was okay during certain hours, but not with the door closed.
In modern days, everything goes.
In the post-modern days, or is that post-metoo, if locking the doors means you are a rapist, I am afraid we will have to go back to In Loco Parentis. Or blame it on the loco parents.
.
I see Ford wanted two front doors in order to run a business from her house. Building permits, 2008.
.
I also see Ford had CIA involvement. So many things to believe! But we no longer need to establish truth, only plausibility and someone will run with it from there.
OK_Max (Comment #171035): “you can find out what women want simply by “touch and go—
.
Playing with fire there. The airplane landing metaphor is not the one you want. A touch and go is a true landing, full contact is made, not just a “touch”. But instead of then standing on the brakes, power is applied and a takeoff is done. It saves a lot of time taxiing and waiting to take off again.
lucia (Comment #171030)
“But there are a range of issues relative to drunkenness. Remember: Women get drunk too. When drunk,
(a) They may misread signals.
(b) They may send out misleading signals. Heck, they might even say something they don’t mean!!!”
______
lucia, men and women who lose control of their behavior when drinking make me uncomfortable. I feel embarrassed for them.
At parties I am particularly wary of drunk women who make suggestive remarks and/or are physically aggressive. I don’t think they know what they are doing. I politely avoid them. What I am describing rarely happens.
I’m not referring to slight intoxication that just makes people a little less inhibited and more talkative. I mean embarrassing behavior.
Assuming of course he just closed the door; how would you know he actually locked it?
Uhmmm… I’m not deaf and I can hear the sound when a lock is closed.
Maybe some people are deaf and don’t realize that a lock clicking into place makes a noise. But I’m not deaf. Not even now. Not then.
In ye olde days, just having a women in a guy’s room was indecent.
I don’t know what era you think the “olde days” were. This was the very late 70s. Summer of 1978.
OK_Max
That people getting drunk makes you uncomfortable doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. When evaluating testimony or just evauluating peoples’ stories, I like to consider what could actually happen, not just those thing that might happen that also fail to make me uncomfortable. Excluding things that happen that make me uncomfortable makes it impossible to actually evaluate what might have happened in an balanced way.
In the present case, Blaisley may have been under the influence of alcohol when whatever assault (or just aggressive pass) took place. Or maybe she wasn’t and the assault (or pass) was as she recounts.
No one has established the issues surrounding alcohol. So I still can’t say. However. Blaisley-Ford’s story is consistent with a teen who went to parties and drank. That doesn’t mean she was plastered, but she may have been. No one asked. She didn’t volunteer either way.
I see that what I wrote was confusing. Since I used Lucia’s text, Lucia assumed it was about her. Not really, it was a more general question, applying to Ford especially. I should have used the pedantic ‘one’ instead of ‘you’. Or at least ‘you-all’. I wasn’t there, so I don’t know what kind of door lock it was or whether it makes a distinctive click not to be confused with other clicks a door latch makes. But if I was doing the FBI investigation, I would want to know. Little push button, little twist thing, push and turn, deadbolt, chain, …?
.
“having a women in a guy’s room was indecent” and not only that, it reflected badly on the woman. When that was depends on where that was. It sounds like Dickens era stuff, but it lingered into modern times, even post WW2. Maybe it’s still there somewhere. It’s hard to search for that history without getting unwanted hits.
.
Similarly, there were schools and colleges which were all boys. There were golf courses which were all male. There were things ladies didn’t do; there were thing ladies weren’t allowed to do. Ladies being respectable women, and gentlemen being respectable men.
.
mark bofill (Comment #171036)
Sure. But in the ‘touch and go’ scenario its not inconceivable that you’ll … land … briefly, someplace she doesn’t want you to
________
I said touch, not grab. Touch and wait for feedback.
Ledite,
I have good hearing. I think it’s not so much that i can hear more than other people, but I recognize patterns. (BTW: I find 4 leaf clovers. I wear bifocals. But they stand out from the other leaves….)
I often hear things and tell my husband, “X happened”. He knows I’ll be right and I am– he won’t have heard it. It’s not the actual volume, it’s the “type” of sound I recognize.
(I can also recognize people in dim hallways by the “way they walk”. Not making this up. I am better at this than most people. It is a nearly useless “super power” of mine.)
Anyway, things make sounds. Most deadbolts make sounds. Push in locks make sounds. It’s not loud, but in a dorm room, if there isn’t a huge party going on and music playing I can definitely hear a lock. I know when a door was locked. Not if Deaf Leopard is played loudly, but if there isn’t a huge amount of noise, yeah, I can hear a lock turn.
it reflected badly on the woman.
Perhaps.
But I wasn’t going to let “guy X” have his way with me. I was contemplating jumping out the window even though given the height, I might have hurt myself. Had I broken a leg or more, that certainly would have been a news story. I could have lived with the horror or that ‘reflecting badly” on me! (I really didn’t think of how things might reflect on me.)
Even in the era where being in the guys room was supposed to reflect badly on the woman, the guys weren’t actually expected to just rape woman. (Mind you, it might be difficult for a woman to press charges. But guys were supposed to not take advantage of these things. Which is not to say some didn’t.)
Ledite (Comment #171038)
September 29th, 2018 at 6:25 pm
OK_Max (Comment #171035): “you can find out what women want simply by “touch and goâ€â€
.
“Playing with fire there.”
____________
Never got me into trouble. Easy to discourage.
Max,
.
Touch & go, don’t grab … that’s all very well and good. If you think that somehow that’s a formula that covers all the cases and prevents [all] mistakes, well, good for you I guess.
lucia (Comment #171041)
September 29th, 2018 at 8:18 pm
OK_Max
“No one has established the issues surrounding alcohol. So I still can’t say. However. Blaisley-Ford’s story is consistent with a teen who went to parties and drank. That doesn’t mean she was plastered, but she may have been. No one asked. She didn’t volunteer either way.”
______
Hasn’t Blaisley said she drank one beer at the party?
Is it possible she could have drank more, enough to alter her behavior in a way that encouraged sexual advances? Yes, but
her resistance in the bedroom should have put a stop to advances.
Is it possible she could have drank enough to impair her ability to recognize faces? Maybe, but based on my personal experience, I doubt it.
Is it possible she could have drank enough to make her believe she was sexually assaulted when she wasn’t? Anything is possible, but that seems highly unlikely.
mark bofill (Comment #171046)
September 29th, 2018 at 10:17 pm
Max,
.
Touch & go, don’t grab … that’s all very well and good. If you think that somehow that’s a formula that covers all the cases and prevents [all] mistakes, well, good for you I guess.
______
mark, I don’t know what you mean by “[all] mistakes.” Will you give me examples?
I believe a sane and sober boy should be able to tell when his advances are not welcomed. Even a drunk boy should eventually get the message. The problem is boys who get the message but don’t care, because they are psychopaths.
Max,
.
Look, be clear on this if nothing else: I don’t disagree that boys ought to eventually get the message. I’m not a rape apologist. My problem is that I think the notion of sexual assault has been generalized out to cover cases where people make honest mistakes before things reach that point. I don’t see how saying ‘well, I didn’t grab, I touched’ or ‘I was just trying to figure out if she was OK with that’ is a defense against an accusation of sexual assault. I’d be pleased to be mistaken on this point though, so if you think I am, do explain.
.
I don’t think your idea of ‘touch and go’ is unreasonable at all, but I don’t think it’s a silver bullet either though. So sure, to elaborate:
1. Let’s start by noting that intelligence is distributed along a curve. I get different numbers depending on the search I do and the site I end up with, but for the sake of argument how about we use this. So something like 22% of the population is ‘low intelligence’, and something like a quarter of those are ‘cognitively impaired’. Still people in the game though, with all the same drives and lusts, just dumber than most.
2. Let’s look at the teen population. There’s about 40 million of those I read. Inexperienced participants. Everybody who participates is a first time participant at some point, with zero prior experience. Maybe 8-9 million of these teens are going to be low intelligence, maybe 2-3 million of those are going to be cognitively impaired.
3. Add into the mix that lust doesn’t necessarily line up with reason. Boys and girls both — and in the subset we’re looking at, inexperienced, low intelligence boys and girls are trying to reconcile their physical urges with higher order constraints; the rules, the consequences, what their parents have told them not to do, what society says, what their peer groups tell them, so on. I think that’s a lot to handle. It’s a pretty full plate for anyone, but it’s a particularly difficult burden for somebody who doesn’t have the mental equipment required for heavy lifting to begin with.
4. Now, add into the mix that it’s not unlikely that at least the girl doesn’t really know what she’s decided. Perhaps she has not decided how far she wants things to go. She may feel some degree of lust. In some cases she won’t have figured out how far she wants things to go. In some cases she may change her mind as things progress. She may change her mind either way. She may change her mind multiple times.
5. Finally – the way people feel about sex during is not always consistent with the way people feel about sex after. It’s very easy to convince oneself that, even though one was not ‘forced’, one was ‘pressured’. It’s going to happen that some people are going to regret their decisions and seek to transfer the responsibility to their partner.
.
This was all staying in the shallow end of the pool. Heterosexual plain vanilla encounters between inexperienced dumb people. Things can get a lot more complicated than this. Add in different orientations. Add in different fantasies / fetishes: Add in multiple [simultaneous] partners (because I read that’s the most widely held fantasy), and add in BDSM, because I read that’s the second most widely held fantasy), and add in same sex encounters, because I read that’s the third most widely held fantasy). Add in people with emotional problems. Add in alcohol.
.
Touch and go isn’t a bad idea. Mistakes are still going to happen. People will misunderstand the feedback their partner is giving. People will give inconsistent feedback because they haven’t made up their minds. People will change their minds. People will retroactively change their minds.
.
Mistakes will happen. Mistake does not equal sexual predator.
OK_Max,
We don’t know what she actually did.
The advances did stop and she got out of the room. She supplies a reason for them stopping as Judge jumping on the bed and jouncing things around. But two big football players could have easily grabbed a teenage girl again if they were really intent of rape. So, in fact, the let her leave.
She wouldn’t need to “mistake” a face if she hardly knew someone. All she needed was to barely know the person in the first place. They both agree they weren’t well acquainted.
If you don’t think lots of people, male and female, don’t like to be “safely” tied up occasionally then I suggest you haven’t tried it or talked to people who have. I think I will now drop this subject forever, ha ha. The US culture has a lot of hangups about sex that don’t exist in places like say, France.
.
Teenage boys aren’t well versed in how to properly initiate sexual contact to a girl. They literally have never seen how to do it in most cases. Their friends don’t do in front of them, their parents don’t do it in front of them (thankfully), their parents don’t teach them how to do (just don’t do it!), and their only guidance would be movies, TV, and porn magazines which tend to be very unrealistic. I don’t know about other people, buy my bro’s never talked about this. It’s extremely awkward and confusing the first few times, and boys in the 1980’s are pretty much expected to be the initiators. Sex education, if it existed at all back then, was limited to biology.
.
If you want people to learn how to do this to avoid bad encounters then they need to be taught how to do it. This comes into direct conflict with dysfunctional US culture.
I just want to point out that while unwanted sexual contact and alcohol are often seen together, the ratio of (# of sexaual assaults) / (# of alcohol use) is small.
.
DOJ says the rate of sexual assault is 2.1 per 1,000 in 2010. It’s about 5:1 female to male.
.
The average US citizen has 556 drinks / year (no doubt not an even distribution).
.
Not a perfect statistic, but 2.1 sexaul assaults / 556,000 drinks.
mark bofill (Comment #171049). That’s a very good analysis. Add in thirty year memories and the fact that the girl (or guy) might sing a very different tune if it ever became public. consent? rape? Even the facts may change.
.
The problem with teens is that they haven’t yet learned how to make the approach so attempts may be clumsy and awkward. The worst thing is surprise. Don’t do anything that is not expected. Learn to flirt, use eye contact, assume nothing. Be friends first.
.
Here’s a story (I don’t remember who wrote it) about American soldiers in England during the war. I don’t know how accurate it is, even as a stereotype, and I’m sure I tell it poorly.
.
American guys had a bold try and see approach; American girls were used to that and learned how to say no. English guys were too polite to ask, so English girls did not know how to say no. The problem came when the American guys met the English girls. (The guys didn’t see it as a problem). The story could be bogus.
.
For some reason, talking is not the preferred communication method. Sending signals, unintentional and misinterpreted as they can be, is dangerous. They should teach this in sex-ed. There’s more to sex than sex.
Tom, Ledite, thanks.
I’d agree that there are things our society could do to help lessen the problems / reduce the probability and so the frequency of mistakes and misunderstandings.
But more simply, just because somebody made a mistake and someone got terrified shouldn’t mean there was a sexual assault and moral turpitude involved automatically.
Most sexual encounters in teenage years progress to unwanted contact (the … ummmm …. bases). The way you get past these bases is to keep going to the plate and taking your swings and determining if the rules of engagement have changed. Maybe it works differently for the rest of the world, but that is how it seems to work in my perception of reality. The great reality distortion and confounder is not alcohol but the compassion and animal drive that is built into our DNA to go forth and procreate. We are rewarded by biology to engage in this behavior, and it is a powerful force. People want to continue because it feels good. There, I said it. Burn me at the stake.
.
It’s a lot different on a first encounter than on a repeated encounter where signaling is much clearer. Boys need to be taught to be conservative on first encounters. Even with a repeated encounter it is common for there to be scouting missions to explore new territory. People go further based on pretty complicated mutual signaling without signed contracts and words exchanged, however going “all the way” the first time does tend to be a verbal contract in my experience.
.
If society wants to change the rules of sexual engagement that is the right of society to do so. I only ask that they not do so retroactively and that they do so in a manner that is testable and falsifiable to avoid the mass confusion that currently exists.
Tom wrote: “People want to continue because it feels good. There, I said it. Burn me at the stake.”
.
It’s like the 60s and 70s never happened, and it’s not the religious right pushing puritanism mainstream. Peace and love have gone militant!
mark bofill (Comment #171049)
September 30th, 2018 at 7:06 am
Touch and go isn’t a bad idea. Mistakes are still going to happen. People will misunderstand the feedback their partner is giving. People will give inconsistent feedback because they haven’t made up their minds. People will change their minds. People will retroactively change their minds.
________
Yes, buyer’s remorse happens, but in this case I doubt most buyer want their remorse known. If a girl is remorseful because she is ashamed and/or feels diminished, she likely would keep that to herself. If she does takes the gamble of filing charges and loses, she will be even more damaged. A reputation for making questionable rape charges will discourage future suitors and employers.
btw, by “touch and go” I mean only in romantic situations (e.g. on a couch and kissing). I do not mean just touching any appealing girl to see what happens. That could get a boy slapped and or charged with assault.
lucia (Comment #171050)
September 30th, 2018 at 7:07 am
OK_Max,
We don’t know what she actually did.
The advances did stop and she got out of the room. She supplies a reason for them stopping as Judge jumping on the bed and jouncing things around. But two big football players could have easily grabbed a teenage girl again if they were really intent of rape. So, in fact, the let her leave.
She wouldn’t need to “mistake†a face if she hardly knew someone. All she needed was to barely know the person in the first place. They both agree they weren’t well acquainted.
_____
Boys intent on rape can change their minds. I imagine many attempted rapes have been aborted because of resistance or
interference.
She seems sure it was Kav and Judge. Remembering two is more convincing to me than remembering one. As mentioned previously, adding a second person is not a good idea when making a false allegation.
Max,
Yes, buyer’s remorse happens, but in this case I doubt most buyer want their remorse known. If a girl is remorseful because she is ashamed and/or feels diminished, she likely would keep that to herself. If she does takes the gamble of filing charges and loses, she will be even more damaged. A reputation for making questionable rape charges will discourage future suitors and employers.
I don’t see what that has to do with anything we were talking about.
btw, by “touch and go†I mean only in romantic situations (e.g. on a couch and kissing). I do not mean just touching any appealing girl to see what happens. That could get a boy slapped and or charged with assault.
Ok. Still don’t see how that addresses anything I said.
Oh – I see. You are suggesting that a boy in that situation won’t be accused of sexual assault because the girl will keep it to herself.
.
Maybe. Maybe not. Which means it will happen sometimes, in my view. [Which means it will happen…]
OK_Max
She seems sure it was Kav and Judge.
Which means very little since we’ve learned nothing to let us judge whether her certainty is warranted or not.
Remembering two is more convincing to me than remembering one.
Not to me. It would be more convincing if Judge remembered this happening. But he remembers nothing of the sort.
Nor do any of the other people who she “remembers” being at the party.
As mentioned previously, adding a second person is not a good idea when making a false allegation.
Even if this claim were true, it wouldn’t mean the story naming 2 people is less likely to be made up.
Beyond that, it’s not clear it’s a bad idea to add a person. If someone knows that X and Y were nearly always together– and everyone reports Judge and Kavanaugh were– a person naming both is likely to have created a story that matched the detail that both were at the party.
Also: Judge wrote a story. Lots of people know the two were nearly always together. So this isn’t uncommon knowledge.
lucia (Comment #171061)
Even if this claim were true, it wouldn’t mean the story naming 2 people is less likely to be made up.
______
lucia, I disagree. Adding a witness to a lie can increases the risk the lie will be exposed. I will give you an example.
If Ford were lying or just mistaken, claiming Judge witnessed Kavanaugh attacking her in the Summer of !982 increases the risk of the lie or mistake being uncovered. That’s because she has to know that both Judge and Kavanuagh were in the area at the same times and which times those were. If she doesn’t she’s taking a gamble. If unbeknown to her, Judge was away from the area for the entire summer vacation, or he was in the area only at times Kav was at the beach, her credibility is destroyed.
mark bofill (Comment #171060)
September 30th, 2018 at 4:32 pm
“Oh – I see. You are suggesting that a boy in that situation won’t be accused of sexual assault because the girl will keep it to herself.”
______
Actually, I was referring to a girl charging rape because of her remorse after consensual sex, a girl unwilling to accept responsibility for her decision. She would be putting herself at risk because the accusation might be difficult to prove, and if she lost, prospective suitors and employers might not trust her.
In the case of an actual rape, there would be less risk to the accuser because she probably would have bruises, torn clothing, and other evidence the consensual girl would not have. Still, if the accused were not found guilty, suitors and employers might be wary of her.
Aside from the risk of losing at a trial, both the remorseful consensual girl and the girl who actually was raped may be feel diminished by what happened and too embarrassed to tell about it.
All that may be so. I don’t understand why you are telling me this. Have we moved on to discussion of some other point?
OK_Max
lucia, I disagree. Adding a witness to a lie can increases the risk the lie will be exposed. I will give you an example.
Yes. For example, Judge might say he was never at a party like that described by Ford. That happened.
But your rule seems to be that since she risked her claim being shown false, it must be true. If that’s the rule, then the reality would be naming a 2nd party is not remotely risky because
(a) the 2nd party might have been there: looks like story sort of supported.
(b) the 2nd party was not there: OK_Max decides that the story is credible because of the risk that the party would discomfirm the story.
So: zero risk to the claim, and so it would not be a bad idea to make the claim. It would be a perfect thing to do. Since merely making the claim makes OK_Max decide the story is true no matter what.
But lets continue, assuming you don’t basically decide the mere claim that two people were present means the story is true and look at the rest:
That’s because she has to know that both Judge and Kavanuagh were in the area at the same times and which times those were.
No. She doesn’t need to know this.
In fact, it’s not even close to true. I could make up a story that says my brother Robert and David were both at a party in high school. The two are twins. They went nearly everywhere together. I don’t need to know they were in any particular area at the same time. I can guess that at nearly all parties that Robert attended, David was also there.
If Kavananaugh and Judge were best friends, one can guess that if one was there, so was the other. If you were to concoct a story in which K was present at a party, it would be stupendously odd not to put Judge in it because the event was rare.
If unbeknown to her, Judge was away from the area for the entire summer vacation, or he was in the area only at times Kav was at the beach, her credibility is destroyed.
Uhmmm… She never named the time of the party. all she needs to remember is Judge was in the area at least sometime in ‘the summer’. She might have know this based on other parties from that summer. She might have know this because she read his book.
Your theory that it was risky to name Judge being there is full of holes.
Mark Bofill (Comment #171064)
September 30th, 2018 at 6:07 pm
“All that may be so. I don’t understand why you are telling me this. Have we moved on to discussion of some other point?”
_______
Mark, I’m sorry if I misunderstood you in your Comment #171049 when you said “People will retroactively change their minds.”
I thought you were referring to a girl being so remorseful
after having consensual sex that she was in denial about it being consensual. If she convinced herself it was not consensual she might
report it to authorities (her school or the police) or she might choose to keep it to herself.
The “this” I was telling you about is why the girl might keep it to herself rather than file a report even though in her mind she was raped.
lucia (Comment #171065)
September 30th, 2018 at 6:51 pm
OK_Max
Adding a witness to a lie can increases the risk the lie will be exposed.
“Yes. For example, Judge might say he was never at a party like that described by Ford. That happened.
But your rule seems to be that since she risked her claim being shown false, it must be true.”
_______
lucia, I didn’t say because Ford risked her claim being shown false, it must be true. My point was adding witnesses to a lie can increase the risk of the lie being exposed.
As you said, adding Judge as a witness to the alleged assault is a risk because he can deny knowledge of the incident. Of course that risk is mitigated by Judge having more motivation to deny than admit he knows anything.
If Ford was lying, there also is risk in her not knowing when it was impossible for these boys and others she identified at the party to be in the same place at the same times during the summer of 1982.
I suspect a drunken Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Ford in the presence of Judge because she has been talking about it for years, they weren’t strangers to her, they were buddies, and they were heavy drinkers.
I doubt anything will come out of a one week FBI investigation that will make me suspect Kavanaugh more or suspect him less than I do now. But I could be surprised. I wouldn’t bet on the confirmation vote either way at this point.
If he is confirmed, and it hurts the GOP in the mid-term elections, well that’s the price the Party will pay for picking a Supreme Court Justice who will always be suspected of sexual assault. There must have been better choices.
Long time lurker, first time poster.
I have a hard time understanding why Judge would be “having more motivation to deny than admit he knows anything.” If Ford’s account were correct and Judge remembered the incident, he would know there were two witnesses that could put him upstairs with Ford at the party, one of which is her friend, not his. Why commit a felony?
It’s been noted before that Judge’s initial letter does not actually deny being a witness to a Ford groping. Instead he does not recall “this alleged incident” or “the party described in Dr. Ford’s letter”. The only positive claim he actually makes is that he never saw Kavanaugh act in such a fashion. The post-hearing letter says “I do not recall the events described by Dr. Ford in her testimony before the US Senate Judiciary Committee today”, but again reiterates that he never saw Kavanaugh in such a fashion.
Speaking of Judge, I know someone who is a survivor, and she was flabbergasted by Ford’s account of running into Judge at the supermarket. According to the Washington Post transcription:
‘So I chose the wrong door, because the door I chose was the one where Mark Judge was — looked like he was working there and arranging the shopping carts. And I said “Hello†to him. And his face was white and very uncomfortable saying “Hello†back.
And we had previously been friendly at the times that we saw each other over the previous two years. Albeit not very many times, we had always been friendly with one another.
I wouldn’t characterize him as not friendly. He was just nervous and not really wanting to speak with me.’
This was, by Ford’s account, six to eight weeks after the alleged assault. She said Hello? He didn’t want to speak to her? Ford lost all credibility to the woman I know when she said that.
OK Max,
“I suspect a drunken Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Ford in the presence of Judge because she has been talking about it for years, they weren’t strangers to her, they were buddies, and they were heavy drinkers.”
.
Of course you do. Not a shred of evidence nor corroboration needed. With equal confidence anyone can claim Dr. Ford was a hussy who was so blind drunk so often at parties that she can’t possibly remember the identity of her assailant nor of her many consensual partners, never mind the dates and places. It seems evidence-free speculation is the standard by which you judge people.
OK Max,
“There must have been better choices.”
.
Nonsense. Kavanaugh had been through multiple background checks, previously confirmed by the Senate for the Appeals Court, and spent 30+ years in multiple positions without a single accusation made against him. How exactly would one have known there was a better choice? (Not rhetorical.)
OK_Max
lucia, I didn’t say because Ford risked her claim being shown false, it must be true. My point was adding witnesses to a lie can increase the risk of the lie being exposed.
And I’m not saying you are claiming it must be true. What you are advocating is that we treat it as evidence it is true. And, moreover, you seem to be advocating that we continue to treat it as evidence the story is true even when the person named was not actually there. That is: the story has been exposed as having a substantive error.
If anyone adopts that (and you seem to have) then adding the name reduces the risk that the story will be seen as false. So it would be good strategy for the liars. Which, then, ironically mean the exact opposite of what you propose.
I in contrast advocate treating her naming someone as neutral. But if it is confirmed the person was there it makes her more believable. If that person was not there, less so. In this case the person named denies being at any such event. So I’m not going to treat her naming judge as a factor in favor of her being correct. I take it as a factor strongly against it.
it was impossible for these boys and others she identified at the party to be in the same place at the same times during the summer of 1982.
This is total nonesense. In the following since your argument is an “If she lied” then she “would or wouldn’t do X”, let’s stipulate that we are talking in context of assuming she made it up.
(A) In her lie, she doesn’t know the time or location of the party. So she’s not guessing they were not together at one time on a particular day. She’s got an entire summer. The likelihood that boys who went to the same school were all away from home every single day of the summer is so low as to be nearly impossible.
(B) She knows the boys were good friends. She could guess with high probability they were at at least one party together during the entire summer.
(C)All lies are risky. So the question: how to create that is less risky. If she lied, she has to make up something, she can’t make up nothing. So, it would be wise to pick something plausible and high probability.
(D) She gave her self a huge window of time and location.
(E) She also is vague about who exactly she named in some regard
(F) She’s perfectly willing to change the story in minor regards. She changed the number of people and “admits” she’s not sure about the identity of the people other than Judge and Kavanaugh. So there is little risk if it turns out that, say “PJ” was not there. If absence from the party is low risk to the story, being in Istanbul all summer also low risk. The only thing that matters is whether he was at the party.
So if she made it up, she (a) made a high probability guess of attendees which sounds plausible, then she gave herself a huge time window which makes it nearly impossible for all four boys to not have been to at least one party at the same time during the entire freakin summer. Then, she puts few other witnesses there. In fact: her story has just about the lowest conceivable risk for a lie.
Given she cant make up nothing she concocted one that has a low probability of being shown false. Even doing so, the named parties say there were not at a party with the party list named.
So, whatever “risk” there was in the story being shown false, that happened. But despite that you are trying to use the evidence she named people as evidence in favor of being true. Because it’s a “risky” story that could be exposed.
But, I think as I’ve described it’s a less risky story than most lies and there is evidence those details are false.
On the lighter side, “old coots” dispensing advice under the banner: “It’s probably bad advice, but it’s free.”
.
And on a more serious note — but not the topic du jour — a few months ago there was discussion at this site about the Janus decision, allowing public employees not to pay dues to unions. “It will destroy unions!” was the cri de coeur.* Here’s an update from Reason magazine.
.
*I seem to be in a French mood today.
It’s worth noting that even the large frame of “Summer 1982” is a considerable narrowing from her initial claims. Drawing from Mitchell’s memo:
July 6 text to Post — “Mid 1980s”
July 30 letter to Feinstein — “early 1980s”
Aug 7 statement to polygrapher — “high school summer in early 80s” with the word “early” subsequently crossed out.
Sep 16 article in Post — “summer of 1982”, but therapist notes from 2013 revealed in article have her saying it was in her “late teens”.
Mitchell writes: “While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and a particular year.”
Max, re 171068,
“People will retroactively change their minds.â€
I thought you were referring to a girl being so remorseful
after having consensual sex that she was in denial about it being consensual. …The “this†I was telling you about is why the girl might keep it to herself rather than file a report even though in her mind she was raped.
Thanks. Yes. She might keep it to herself.
OK_Max,
You are kind of twisting yourself into a logic pretzel here to get where you want to go.
If somebody names witnesses that deny the event, it hurts their credibility. Full stop. There is no path to increasing credibility here. An argument can be made that it is not fatal to the accusation but it in no way enhances it.
It would be “risky” to do so if one was lying, and that risk may have been taken and it did not pay off. That is a valid scenario. Judge might have a motivation to protect his friend, but Ford’s friend does not and who knows what they talked about in private. The friends both say the same thing. That does not help her credibility.
She told nobody for decades. That reduces her credibility, or raises the bar for evidence, basically the same thing.
She decided to bring this up during a SC nomination, this reduces her credibility due to suspected political motivations.
She told a Democratic Senator about it, further evidence of political motivation.
She waited until after the hearings to “bravely” come forward and gave an interview to a left leaning newspaper (which never reported her friend’s denials), further evidence of political motivation and an iron clad case of cynical political timing.
She used well known Democratic lawyers recommended by a Democratic Senator. These lawyers were scheduled to appear at a Democratic fundraiser in CA before they wisely cancelled, further evidence of political motivation.
She has donated (small amounts) to Democratic politicians, further evidence of political motivation.
She works in academia social sciences, which is virulently anti-conservative. Further evidence of political motivation.
There is nothing beyond her words to backup her assertions. Nothing. She is politically motivated to make them, or to overstate what actually happened.
It’s not impossible that it happened, but it’s not impossible this was politically motivated from the start. It has all the hallmarks of a politically motivated smear job. We would all like to know what did or did not happen, but I’m guessing if we did you probably would be disappointed.
As far as the midterms go it would be more than worth it to get a lifetime appointment to the SC that will fight against free speech and equal protection abuses. Setting a precedent where anyone from a neighboring high school can tank somebody’s career decades later with allegations based on their word alone is not a system of justice I want to live under.
The usual suspects are already saying the FBI investigation of undefined scope is not a large enough scope and … blah … blah … blahblahblah. Snore.
Tom,
I’m watching with great interest. Of course I don’t really know, but I suspect we are going to hear some sensational new claims this week. But – the clock is ticking pretty quickly, a week isn’t much time.
.
To be clear, I don’t think we may hear sensational new claims because Kavanaugh has done anything to justify them. I think we may hear new claims because this is an opportunity (maybe one of the last) for whatever minority percentage of people who are strongly enough motivated by their political convictions to try to help derail Kavanaugh by making stuff up that can never been proven or disproven. It takes balls to lie to the FBI and it’s a tight window of time, so maybe it won’t happen. But my money is on the idea that somebody comes to the FBI with new allegations.
… ahem …
Revised NAFTA deal reached.
.
This deal includes several changes that are beneficial to the US. Increased dairy exports to Canada, higher % of car manufactured in North America for zero tariffs, at a minimum wage of $16/hr.
.
What is this? Using tariff leverage can result in better trade deals? I thought this was impossible, at least that is what I read. I’m no fan of trade wars, but the propaganda that they can never have good results is just another brick in the wall of distrusting elite expertise.
.
NYT:
“The deal represents a win for President Trump, who has derided Nafta for years and threatened to pull the United States from the pact if it was not rewritten in America’s favor. Overhauling trade deals has been one of Mr. Trump’s top priorities as president and he has used tariffs and other threats to try and force trading partners to rewrite agreements in America’s favor.”
mark bofill,
The good news (depending on which side you are on) is that the FBI investigation is apparently legally directed from the WH, and they cannot expand it beyond what the WH told them to do and cannot reach conclusions. I would also say the FBI is under immense pressure to not make this look like a partisan hit job. If I was the FBI it would be a transcript of the interviews and barely anything more, and make the interview with Ford not so merciful.
.
Thank God Comey and McCabe are no longer there. This is the guy that used to run the FBI. * Note the disgusting attack on the electorate. * https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/opinion/james-comey-fbi-kavanaugh-investigation.html
.
“We live in a world where the president routinely attacks the F.B.I. because he fears its work. He calls for his enemies to be prosecuted and his friends freed. We also live in a world where a sitting federal judge channels the president by shouting attacks at the Senate committee considering his nomination and demanding to know if a respected senator has ever passed out from drinking. We live in a world where the president is an accused serial abuser of women, who was caught on tape bragging about his ability to assault women and now likens the accusations against his nominee to the many “false†accusations against him.
Most disturbingly, we live in a world where millions of Republicans and their representatives think nearly everything in the previous paragraph is O.K.”
Dale S (Comment #171071)
Sep 16 article in Post — “summer of 1982â€, but therapist notes from 2013 revealed in article have her saying it was in her “late teensâ€.
Mitchell writes: “While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and a particular year.â€
She was evidently 15 in 1982. The teens run from 13-19; 15 is “early” or “mid” teens.
As an adult, it can be hard to remember specific years of far off unimportant events. But nearly always I know what year things happened up to when I graduated from college. There are so many events that define times. For example: first year in high school. Last year in high school (about to escape, Yay!!) The summer I too driver’s ed and before I got my driver’s license vs. after. After I got my first job, vs before. Years my older sister went to high school with me (fresh/soph), year my younger sister did (junior).
There are just too many events to place time to not be able to place a time. College has a bunch too.
It’s rather hard to believe a 15 year old girl would have any trouble at all remember the exact year something important happened. That it’s moved around a bit makes the story odd.
Half of the people in prison are innocent of the crimes they were convicted for. I don’t have a reference for that, but it’s plausible. One reason it’s plausible is the jury system. Imagine if OK_Max were on the jury. Nothing personal Max, most people are like you and are quite willing to jump to conclusions not based on evidence. All they need is a plausible story.
.
In this case the story of the attempted sexual assault is plausible. The percentage of women who have had a similar or related experience is something approaching 100%. So it is easy to believe that something happened to Ford. Yet it is a leap too far to believe that this proves that K did it.
.
It’s plausible that young boys drink. That doesn’t mean that all young boys drink.
.
It’s plausible to believe that the Ford accusations (and others) are smears from people who intensely dislike K and Trump and anybody to the right of Obama. It’s plausible to believe in the deep state. Is this paranoia or what the left would called a right-wing conspiracy theory?
.
Lacking facts, we used to have presumption of innocence. We used to act in good faith.
Reports are circulating on the Internet about Kavanaugh accuser Ford’s high school yearbook having been ‘disappeared’ off the net recently. Now there is a report that Google has taken down the website of the individual who reported on this mysterious disappearance. Indeed, the site has vanished.
The yearbook (if real) specifically claims that Ford engaged in binge drinking to the point of blacking out and that her schoolmates were sexually promiscuous.
This story is either an ‘evil right wing conspiracy’ or a ‘massive left wing coverup.’ I have no idea which!
One theory is that the FBI is investigating her background and will report this to the Senate. If true, it’ll be interesting. The Republicans couldn’t address her credibility directly without appearing sexist, but the FBI theoretically is not constrained by politics.
Five page memo from prosecutor who questioned Ford. http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/rachel-mitchells-analysis/3221/
.
“In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A “he said, she said†case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”
Political Junkie,
I saw the yearbook when it was up but only skimmed. The site I saw only posted excerpts and commented on them.
I don’t think it said Ford specifically binge drank. But I only skimmed …. and obviously I can’t check. It did suggest lots of drinking and sex was going on at her all girl Catholic school
It’s a bit of a mystery why it’s down. Perhaps there was a DMAC takedown request and the poster didn’t want to go to the trouble to assert the posting was fair use (or doesn’t know enough about copyright to explain it’s fair use.)
Lucia,
The claim about binge drinking appears to be somewhat justified because it appears as a caption to a rather unflattering photo of Dr. Ford with two classmates.
“Lastly one cannot fail to mention the climax of the junior social scene, the party. Striving to extend our educational experience beyond the confines of the classroom, we played such intellectually stimulating games as Quarters, Mexican Dice and everyone’s favorite, Pass-Out, which usually resulted from the aforementioned two.â€
Fuzzy memories of time and place are consistent with heavy drinking to the ‘brownout’ stage of alcohol intoxication as opposed to blackout, where memories are not formed at all because the hippocampus essentially shuts down. Multiple blackouts are generally considered to be a symptom of an alcohol abuse syndrome of some sort.
Lucia,
“It’s a bit of a mystery why it’s down.”
.
No mystery to me. Ford took down all web-based information about herself (Facebook, etc) prior to the public release of accusations against Kavanaugh. The cynic in me says this was orchestrated by Democratic political operatives.
Ledite,
“We used to act in good faith.”
.
Is that the royal ‘we’? I have watched decades of people acting in perfectly bad faith in Congress, and especially in the US Senate, where 6 year terms and mostly very ‘safe’ state elections insulate Senators from any need to act in good faith. The Senate is a cesspit of dishonesty.
For a woman who wanted to handle this all privately, she was extremely well prepared for this all to be done publicly. Or her lawyers could have done that while ignoring her wishes completely, since they didn’t see fit to inform her that a private hearing was an option — in fact, all their well-publicized demands prior to her testifying were all geared towards having the most public testimony possible with the worst possible optics. I’ve not worked with lawyers myself, so I have no idea how typical this behavior was. Certainly she was a trusting soul, given that she hired a law firm recommended by Senator Feinstein without inquiring about how much it would cost or who would pay for it.
Dale S,
“Certainly she was a trusting soul, given that she hired a law firm recommended by Senator Feinstein without inquiring about how much it would cost or who would pay for it.”
.
Ummm… Ford will not be paying for the lawyers; it will be either pro-bono, or directly funded by Democrats. Heck, she won’t be paying for anything. ‘Take it to the bank’ as minority leader Pilosi is fond of saying.
:> Dale, if that be sarcasm it might be a shade dry. At least until we get a measure of your commenting style.
Surely a well educated woman would not engage multiple lawyers, undergo polygraph tests and fly around the country without knowing who would pick up the tab?
SteveF, I know the lawyers are working pro bono, because they said it during the hearing. My point was that Ford herself, during the hearing, testified that she was not sure if she was supposed to pay for the polygraph and was unsure if all the lawyer work would be pro bono. She was “aware” of GoFundMe accounts but had not accessed them and was unsure how to do so.
Later she said (on the subject of whether besides GoFundMe she had any expenses):
“It’s my understanding that some of my team is working on a pro bono basis, but I don’t know the exact details. And there are members of the community in Palo Alto that have the means to contribute to help me with the security detail, et cetera.”
Now like you I am sure that she won’t be paying anything out of pocket — the GoFundMe benefactors should put her safely in the black even if the lawyers weren’t working for free. But when she contracted with Katz (somewhere between July 30th and August 7th) and when she took the polygraph (August 7th according to Mitchell’s timeline) there *was* no GoFundMe account. If her stated desire to handle this all confidentially had been met, there would be no GoFundMe at all. Yet there would still be a polygraph to pay for and high powered lawyers collecting lots of billable hours. And as late as the actual hearing, *she* didn’t know if she was going to pay for them or not. I guess when she was “interviewing” lawyers, the question of price just never came up.
It’s almost like her lawyers aren’t actually working for her.
I am impressed that she was internet savvy enough to scrub her online presence entirely, yet so unschooled with google that she had to contact Eshoo because “I had a sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the president as soon as possible, before a nominee was selected. I did not know how, specifically, to do this.”
SteveF (Comment #171072)
October 1st, 2018 at 6:31 am
OK Max,
“I suspect a drunken Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Ford in the presence of Judge because she has been talking about it for years, they weren’t strangers to her, they were buddies, and they were heavy drinkers.â€
Of course you do. Not a shred of evidence nor corroboration needed.
_________
This isn’t a trial in a court of law. It’s the court of public opinion. You have your opinion (he didn’t do it), I have mine (he did do it).
Dale S (Comment #171071)
“The post-hearing letter says “I do not recall the events described by Dr. Ford in her testimony before the US Senate Judiciary Committee todayâ€, but again reiterates that he never saw Kavanaugh in such a fashion.”
___
Dale, if he doesn’t recall the event he wouldn’t recall how Kav may have acted during the event. Obviously, this rules out “never saw.”
To be consistent he should have said “can’t recall seeing, not “never saw.”
____________________________
I wouldn’t characterize him as not friendly. He was just nervous and not really wanting to speak with me.’
This was, by Ford’s account, six to eight weeks after the alleged assault. She said Hello? He didn’t want to speak to her? Ford lost all credibility to the woman I know when she said that.
_____
Given Ford didn’t say Judge attacked her, but interrupted Kav’s attack, why does your woman friend think Ford should not have
acknowledged knowing Judge when running into him weeks later
at a Safeway?
SteveF (Comment #171073)
How exactly would one have known there was a better choice? (Not rhetorical.)
_________
Maybe not then, but you know now.
Max,
.
1. What convinced you that Ford’s story is true?
2. Do you believe Kavanaugh and Judge are lying, or that they are mistaken, or something entirely different?
OK Max,
Any conservative who was not a woman would have been subjected to some similar slime job. It has nothing to do with Kavanaugh having suitable education, experience, or general qualification, and has nothing to do with his judicial record (which is substantial, with many of his cases reviewed by the Supreme Court). It is 100% about keeping him off the Supreme Court…. by any means available.
.
The whole “he is an attempted rapist” excuse is just dishonest. If Senate Democrats object to Kavanaugh because they disagree with his politics, that is fine. The issue is the blatant character assassination designed to keep him off the Court.
lucia (Comment #171075)
October 1st, 2018 at 7:09 am
OK_Max
“(C)All lies are risky. So the question: how to create that is less risky. If she lied, she has to make up something, she can’t make up nothing. So, it would be wise to pick something plausible and high probability.”
Well, at least we can agree that all lies are risky. I think It would be wise to pick something that’s impossible to refute, rather than just plausible or highly probable.
You said “But, I think as I’ve described it’s a less risky story than most lies and there is evidence those details are false.”
lucia, sorry if I’m not following you, but what is the evidence?
OK_Max,
.
Remember this from the hearing?
.
LEAHY: Well, then, let’s go back to the incident.
.
What is the strongest memory you have, the strongest memory of the incident, something that you cannot forget? Take whatever time you need.
.
FORD: Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the laugh — the uproarious laughter between the two, and their having fun at my expense.
.
LEAHY: You’ve never forgotten that laughter. You’ve never forgotten them laughing at you.
.
FORD: They were laughing with each other.
.
LEAHY: And you were the object of the laughter?
.
FORD: I was, you know, underneath one of them while the two laughed, two friend — two friends having a really good time with one another.
.
and elsewhere:
.
FORD: Both Brett and Mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. They seemed to be having a very good time.
.
Mark seemed ambivalent, at times urging Brett on and at times telling him to stop. A couple of times, I made eye contact with Mark and thought he might try to help me, but he did not.
.
In her testimony she assigns joint guilt to being pushed in the bedroom, the door being locked, and the music being turned up to drown out her screams. In her initial tip to the Washington Post (July 6th) she identifies “Brett Kavanaugh with Mark Judge” as attackers.
.
Her testimony was very emotional on this point. If it was sincere and not just acting, there is no possible way that she sees Judge as her savior for accidentally interrupting the attack, not a lowlife enabling his friend’s attempted assault while laughing at her during her deepest distress. And yet *she* said “Hello” while *he* acted abashed. Given your interpretation, why should he feel guilty?
.
Judge’s statement that he “never saw” Kavanaugh behave in such a manner requires only that he remember the time he spent *with* Kavanaugh. It does not require that he remember what happened at parties at which Kavanaugh was not present. (It also doesn’t exclude guilty knowledge of something happening to Ford at a party that was *not* as described by Ford, but I’m not going to follow Whelan’s detective work on this point.)
mark bofill (Comment #171110)
October 1st, 2018 at 5:02 pm
Max,
.
1. What convinced you that Ford’s story is true?
2. Do you believe Kavanaugh and Judge are lying, or that they are mistaken, or something entirely different?
______
1. Mostly because she started talking about it years ago.
2. I don’t know whether they are lying or were to drunk to remember.
Thanks Max.
I will go out on a limb and make a prediction: no Supreme Court nominee will be confirmed in the next 25 years if the Senate and White House are controlled by different parties. The Kavanaugh process has made that impossible. The Supreme Court may cease to be relevant if it is politically impossible to replace justices who die in office….. and I think this is a very real possibility. Come to think of it, having the Federal Courts become politically irrelevant would probably be a good thing for the country. They have been far too politically relevant for many more decades than they should have been.
SteveF (Comment #171111)
October 1st, 2018 at 5:05 pm
OK Max,
“Any conservative who was not a woman would have been subjected to some similar slime job.”
________
I don’t recall that happening to the one before Kav.
OK Max,
“I don’t recall that happening to the one before Kav.”
.
Either your memory is failing you or you are not old enough to have seen the Anita Hill accusations against Clarence Thomas, who was, like Kavanaugh, replacing a more liberal justice. Similar circus (somewhat lower key, for sure), but the objective was identical: keep ANY conservative off the Court, by any means available. Looking back on it, the shocking thing (really SHOCKING!) is that Clarence Thomas has not been regularly accused of harassing his female law clerks, nor been arrested for a sex crime. Really, it was so obvious to the left at his confirmation hearing what a scoundrel he was, it is hard to comprehend how he managed to reform himself once seated on the Court. If also seated, I suspect this shocking reformation will be repeated by Kavanaugh.
Personally I can’t ever remember blacking out, ha ha.
Tom Scharf,
“An obstinate Senate might result in a re-evaluation of the advice and consent clause. The President will simply appoint the nominee and it’s over.”
.
No, not possible. Advice and consent is part of the Constitution. Of course, if it were a leftist nominee, and a leftist Supreme Court , they would almost certainly find a new ‘interpretation’ of the constitution which would avoid the need for “advice and consent”.
OK_Max
Well, at least we can agree that all lies are risky. I think It would be wise to pick something that’s impossible to refute, rather than just plausible or highly probable
It’s generally impossible to pick something impossible to refute. Doing the impossible may be wiser than doing the possible. But generally the wisest (if you can call it that) possible option is creating a lie that is (a) plausible and (b) difficult to refute because the details are too vague to refute. Ford did that.
Her story may be true, or it may be a lie. But as lies it strikes me as the craftiest possible lie. Not the opposite which you suggest.
lucia, sorry if I’m not following you, but what is the evidence?
The people she named as being at the party say they were never at a party that matches the description she gaves. Surely you’ve heard this several times now. Perhaps you keep forgetting it.
It’s either that or you don’t know the definition of evidence. (Note that evidence can be conclusive or inconclusive. But even inconclusive evidence is still evidence. And this evidence points in a particular direction: that is that her story is inaccurate at best.)
In anycase, Ford contracticted her own story several times. Also, the people she says was there say they never attended that sort of party. So it’s come pretty close to refutatoin.
SteveF (Comment #171124)
October 1st, 2018 at 5:48 pm
And yet *she* said “Hello†while *he* acted abashed. Given your interpretation, why should he feel guilty?
____________
Perhaps because he knows something she doesn’t. He knows what he was thinking during the incident. She didn’t know what was in his mind at that time.
lucia (Comment #171128)
lucia, you said “there is evidence those details are false.â€
That evidence being people she said were at the party said they were not at the party. Didn’t any say they didn’t remember? Might any change to saying they didn’t remember if questioned by the FBI?
OK_Max,
Didn’t any say they didn’t remember? Might any change to saying they didn’t remember if questioned by the FBI?
I haven’t been enforcing my rhetorical question rule. But perhaps you can provide answer to your questions. That way I’ll have a clue what you think the answers to your questions might be or what point you think you are trying to make with those questions.
The people didn’t say they weren’t at the party. That would imply they said the party occurred. None said that. Depending on which they either (a) don’t remember being at any party that meets the description she gave or (b) were never at any such party.
The Keyser girl Ford placed at the party says she never went to any party where Kavanaugh was present.
But however the evidence the provided might change if questioned by the FBI, it still is the evidence we currently have. So: like it or not, the actual evidence we have disconfirms Ford’s story.
As we know, Ford’s version of the story has both (a) evolved and (b) changed. It’s quite likely it would change again when told to the FBI as it seems to change each time she is questioned or each time she writes up a letter describing it.
lucia, I wasn’t aware of your rhetorical question rule, but I think I can understand the reason behind it, and agree it’s a good rule.
My questions were rhetorical in that I knew the answers or thought I had run across them, but things changed so I checked the statements available online from the three. All were some form of “I don’t remember or I have no knowledge.â€
While Keyser said she doesn’t know Kavanaugh, her attorney also said “However, the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question,”
Keyser also believes Ford is telling the truth about Kavanaugh. Apparently, she believes she does not need to know him to believe her.
I disagree with you that the evidence we have disconfirms Ford’s story. I think it neither confirms or disconfirms it.
OK_Max (Comment #171311)
.
Assuming she was not committing perjury, we know what was going through her mind when Judge was allegedly laughing at her. Again, why would she say “Hello?” Why would she think it noteworthy that he appeared uncomfortable when she’s testified that he was a contributor to her Most Traumatic Experience Ever?
.
Of course, what Ford thinks about how others react is not always intuitive to me. Take the curious case of her friend. There are two girls at a party with (as of the last account) four guys. Leland doesn’t know Brett, and the other guys are his friends, not Chrissy’s friends. Two of the guys are “extremely inebriated” while the others are not, and it wasn’t really a “party”, the four sober kids and the two drunk kids just talking in the living room without any television, radio, or any external things going on besides some music coming from a bedroom upstairs. Chrissy leaves to go upstairs, both drunk boys immediately follow her (she testified she was pushed in the back at the top of the stars), and very shortly afterwards the music is turned *way* up. Shortly afterwards the two drunk guys turn down the music, go downstairs hitting the walls, and engage the three in the living room in conversation from the stairs. And Chrissy *never returns* to the living room. At some point she leaves the bathroom, runs out of the house, and goes home by means unknown. So Leland in the living room either sees her friend run out of the house or never return at all, leaving her the only girl in the presence of four boys, two of which are extremely drunk.
.
Leland doesn’t remember this gathering, but Dr. Ford isn’t surprised that she and PJ don’t remember the evening at all since “It was a very unremarkable party. It was not one of their more notorious parties, because nothing remarkable happened to them that evening. They were downstairs.” Having her friend go upstairs and disappear for the evening isn’t remarkable? What the heck happened at the more notorious parties that would make one of the only two girls there disappearing “very unremarkable”? *Half* the party leaves to go upstairs at the same time, the girl never comes back, and that’s very unremarkable?
.
I’m also confused by the discontinuity between her stated objectives and her actions in coming forward. She states of her July 30th letter:
—
The letter included my name, but also a request that it be kept confidential. My hope was that providing the information confidentially would be sufficient to allow the Senate to consider Mr. Kavanaugh’s serious misconduct without having to make myself, my family or anyone’s family vulnerable to the personal attacks and invasions of privacy that we have faced since my name became public.
.
In a letter dated August 31st, Senator Feinstein wrote that she would not share the letter without my explicit consent, and I appreciated this commitment. Sexual assault victims should be able to decide for themselves when and whether their private experience is made public.
—
In fact, since Senator Feinstein was the ranking minority member, it would have been *easy* for her to allow the Senate committee to “consider the serious misconduct” without making it public. And over a month elapsed between the delivery of the letter and Feinstein’s promise, a month in which Ford hired a firm recommended by Feinstein and had a polygraph test done and in which Feinstein both had personal interviews with Kavanaugh and had her staff in a confidential background information call. Why is she taking advice from Senator Feinstein to lawyer up if Feinstein has no plan to use the information she wants her to (confidentially) use? But to no avail:
—
As the hearing date got closer, I struggled with a terrible choice: Do I share the facts with the Senate and put myself and my family in the public spotlight, or do I preserve our privacy and allow the Senate to make its decision without knowing the full truth of his past behaviors?
—
She has *already* shared the “facts” with the ranking minority member in the Senate committee. There is no actual requirement to “put myself and my family in the public spotlight”, all she needs to do is authorize Feinstein to share the allegation *confidentially* with the committee. But according to her, she opts for preserving privacy:
—
During August 2018, the press reported that Mr. Kavanaugh’s confirmation was virtually certain. Persons painted him as a champion of women’s rights and empowerment. And I believed that if I came forward, my single voice would be drowned out by a chorus of powerful supporters.
.
By the time of the confirmation hearings, I had resigned myself to remaining quiet and letting the committee and the Senate make their decision without knowing what Mr. Kavanaugh had done to me.
—-
During August, Feinstein *hadn’t* promised yet to keep her letter confidential, and was a member of the committee. She was in a perfect position to let the Senate know “what Mr. Kavanaugh had done to [Ford]” without exposing her to the public — or giving a “chorus of powerful supporters” a chance to comment at all.
.
She seems concerned that “Persons painted him as a champion of women’s rights and empowerment.” This seems odd to me. Yes, Kavanaugh was very proud of his record in mentoring and promoting female law clerks, but large segments of the population were and still are painting him as the mortal *enemy* of “women’s rights”, a.k.a. abortion. Did she truly not realize her single voice, *if public*, would be lauded by a chorus of powerful supporters treating it as manna from heaven?
—
Once the press started reporting on the existence of the letter I had sent to Senator Feinstein, I faced mounting pressure. Reporters appeared at my home and at my workplace, demanding information about the letter in the presence of my graduate students. They called my bosses and co-workers, and left me many messages, making it clear that my name would inevitably be released to the media.
.
I decided to speak out publicly to a journalist who had originally responded to the tip I had sent to the Washington Post and who had gained my trust. It was important for me to describe the details of the assault in my own words.
—-
Timeline here — the first leak is September 12th in the intercept and does not name her. September 13th Feinstein sends the letter to the FBI — but does not share it with the committee. September 14th her account is in the New Yorker, but not her name. September 16th her account is in the Post, with her name. Remember, her motivation was to notify the *committee* of Kavanaugh’s youthful misdeeds but avoid publicity. Instead we find her besieged by reporters immediately after the leak, and her responding by *going public*. But what about letting the committee know what sort of man was being considered? She’s the only potential witness at the party who declined to “speak to the investigators under criminal penalty”. The actions seem to be exactly the opposite of the claimed motivation.
.
I can’t help be struck by the fact that this particular’s allegation holds such force only *because* Kavanaugh denies it so strongly and so publicly. In a hypothetical world where Kavanaugh admits groping but challenges some of the details, converting it into an actual he said/she said situation, it’s unlikely to have legs especially if it had been handled privately, as Dr. Ford claims to have desired. Given his exemplary record with regards to treatment of women during his professional career, I’m not sure drunken groping as a minor would flip votes, or even should. Instead Kavanaugh has resorted to much more easily falsifiable claims — there was no such party, he was never alone in a room with Judge and Ford, he never blacked out from drinking. This is beyond reckless as a defense if he knows the allegations to be true.
.
I can’t help but wonder if in the case of a weaponized sexual allegation at the last second if a false allegation might not be more useful to his enemies than a true one.
I take back my comment about how we used to be. It wasn’t that simple.
Candace Owens on Facebook:
ATTENTION BLACK AMERICA:
The last time a mob of white liberals demanded that we believe women without due process, our ancestors were hung from trees
And the literary reference to go along with it is
To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee
OK_Max,
So when you wrote this before your rhetorical question, you made an incorrect statement.
That evidence being people she said were at the party said they were not at the party.
People did not say they were not at the party. Had they said that, it would suggest the party happened. That’s not what they said.
“However, the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question,â€
Which is what you would expect if the incident did not happen.
The evidence from the four named people supports the theory that the party didn’t happen. That tends to disconfirm the story. It doesn’t prove it wrong. But I’m amazed you won’t admit it disconfirms it.
DaleS
Instead Kavanaugh has resorted to much more easily falsifiable claims — there was no such party, he was never alone in a room with Judge and Ford, he never blacked out from drinking. This is beyond reckless as a defense if he knows the allegations to be true.
In fact, if we use what appears to be OK_Max’s rule, we should credit it as probably true. After all: If he was at the party, any one of other four named participants could have said he was there and his statement would be proven a lie. This is a much bigger risk of exposure than Ford’s naming some kids who always hung around together as having been at a party during some huge span of time in the summer.
In fact: none of these people have placed Kavanaugh at “the party”. In fact, none are remember every being at any party that fit the description Ford gave.
Yet, despite Kavanaugh statement having a much greater risk of being proven false than Ford, somehow, OK_Max only applies his “rule” for thinking something is too risky a lie to tell to Ford’s much vaguer more difficult to prove false story.
I’m trying to decide what statement from a Democratic Senator in the hearing is most ironic:
.
BOOKER: “…There are dark elements that allow unconscionable levels of — unacceptable levels of sexual assault and harassment that are effecting girls and boys.”
.
BLUMENTHAL: “False in one thing, false in everything.”
.
FEINSTEIN: “Oh, I don’t believe my staff would leak it. I have not asked that question directly, but I do not believe they would.”
Here is an interesting tidbit: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/10/02/records_raise_questions_about_fords_double-door_story__138225.html
.
Seems Dr Ford’s desire for a second front door also may have generated rental income from a stand-alone appartment behind that second front door (along with two added rooms), in a place where zoning does not allow it. Funny how these things turn out. The FBI may want to ask about this, and about any undeclared rental income. The most interesting thing is that the person who sold the house to Dr Ford and her husband in 2007 was a “couples therapist” who apparently moved to Oregon in 2008. Was this the therapist who met with the Fords in 2012? The therapist refused to answer when asked. Was Dr Ford’s claim of claustrophobia (documented by a therapist?) used to secure a building permit for a second front door on a single family house? If so, that would have been in 2008, not 2012. An Oregon based therapist seems odd for a couple living in Palo Alto. Maybe it was a different couples therapist. Or maybe Ford has the year of the therapy sessions completely wrong. Impossible to say. Perhaps the FBI needs to verify the therapist and the dates. It might be wise for the FBI to talk to the Oregon therapist who sold the house.
.
My guess: all involved will refuse to talk with the FBI.
DaleS,
“False in one thing, false in everything.”
.
This only applies to conservatives.
Something may or may not have happened to Ford, and it may or may not have been Kavanaugh, but one thing I am not going to believe is this innocent BS of how the timeline came about. That is not credible. It is about 100% certain Feinstein shared this with her colleagues and they planned an ambush. It’s possible they used Ford and just gave her a full court press (including her “free” lawyers) when the time came for the ambush, or Ford was complicit all along. The timing of the ambush was neither innocent or random.
.
The existence of an ambush doesn’t preclude that the information is true, but I didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday and this was dirty slimy politics.
Tom Scharf,
The story sounds plausible– that is, like something that could happen. Of course this doesn’t mean it did. But I would suspect something similar to this happened to Ford. Something “similar” happens to all girls — especially as viewed from the POV of the young girl — see my story above. (This is not to say that’s ok– just to say the story sounds like something that would happen– and so plausible.)
That said, given her profession, Ford would have the skills (psychology prof.) to make up a plausible sounding story that matches the way people actually behave. Given Judge’s biography, she could potentially have materials to create elements supposedly based on memory that actually are supported by his book. (E.G. he and Kav are fast friends.) Given year books and acquaintances more plausible elements could be inserted.
That doesn’t mean she created the story either on purpose nor accidentally. She seems to believe her story– but that doesn’t exclude the possibility of building up false memories which she then believes.
Or, the story could be true. We can’t tell.
It’s totally uncorroborated. The people who are placed at the scene say they have no memory of any such party. That tends to suggest the tale is inaccurate. Whether that means it’s a lie, a false memory or the others somehow forgot it entirely we can’t know.
After approximately 36 years it’s no surprise if memory were to fail, fracture, or substitute. It’s less understandable how details of Ford’s story could change in between her July 31st letter and her August 7th polygraph statement. She testified that in regard to the number of witnesses and the identity of the pusher the polygraph, not the letter, was correct. But while the polygraph statement was handwritten and apparently produced on short notice, ten days elapsed between Eshoo recommending Ford write a letter and the date of the letter. Given the gravity of the charge, its inexcusable for her to inaccurately represent her memories in that letter, especially with so very few tangible details to go on. Or did her memories change in that seven day interval?
.
The polygraph statement is interesting in itself, and not just because the word “early” was crossed out before 80s. In the handwritten statement, she identifies “Brett” and “Mark” as the attackers. I would think if you were going to make a big deal out of passing a two question “lie detector” test that referred *only* to the statement, you’d want that statement to actually name the man you were accusing.
DaleS, I’d have to check the transcript, but I think Ford during her hearing identified a second ‘worst part of the incident that is seared in my mind’ not just the laughter. Another contradiction. I’ll see if I can find it.
I am amazed at how much energy is being devoted here to reading tea leaves. But maybe I am mischaracterizing the discussion since I have mostly just skimmed.
.
I have no interest in whether Ford is telling the truth. If she is, she barely knew her attacker and barely knew Kavanaugh, so I see no reason to believe that her decades-after-the-fact recollection is reliable. There is no corroboration, so we will never really know. And I am not sure it is even relevant if it is true. Maybe it is true, maybe Ford is honestly mistaken, maybe she knows it to be false. I don’t see a reason to care.
.
What I do know is that the Democrats are using this shamelessly in a manner that is antithetical to good government. And I know that a person’s good name is being trashed by unverifiable accusations. That is enough for me to feel invested in Kavanaugh getting confirmed and the Democrats getting punished at the polls in November.
Max, the yearbook has been disappeared from Blogspot. Text is still available I think. I remember there being a picture with Ford, and the caption spoke of Leland’s(her friend) wild parties. It also mentioned the best parties were when you can’t remember what happened.
As for Swetnick being too low class for the prep school, Kavanaugh said the opposite, that his group socialized with the area high schools and not Holton. I don’t really see how Gaithersburg students would be socializing with them though.
SteveF, it wasn’t Ford’s social media that got deleted. The school’s yearbooks that were published were taken offline. Someone who downloaded it beforehand blogged about it, and blogspot deleted his blog.
Ford testified that because of Brett Kavanaugh, she needed a second door for her house as an escape route, and dispute over this was the reason for the couples therapy.
Paul Sperry tracked it down. They had a permit for the door years earlier.
They bought the house from a marriage counselor who was working from her home, and installed the second door so they could rent to the marriage counselor to continue her business there.
I’m thinking this FBI investigation is not going to go well for Ford.
Ed Whelan’s post may have prevented Ford’s charges being disproven as he predicted. He went thru what she wrote in her letter, and came up with a theory about a lookalike. With this post, Ford realized problems with her story and ended up changing it when testifying to Congress. The prosecutor came with maps of the area to pinpoint that none of the people she named live near the country club, but now her story changed from the party being nearby. Also the house floorplan has changed slightly, when Whelan made her realize that none of them might have a matching house. Also the number of attendees has increased.
MikeN,
“They had a permit for the door years earlier.
They bought the house from a marriage counselor who was working from her home, and installed the second door so they could rent to the marriage counselor to continue her business there.”
.
The building permit was issued in 2008, and the construction began shortly after (building permits usually expire in a specified time). The counselor sold the house to them in mid 2007, and is claimed to have moved to Oregon by 2008. It is certainly possible that they intended (or did!) rent the stand-alone apartment in violation of local zoning ordinances, but rental to someone living in Oregon seems unlikely. Can you provide a link to information supporting what your wrote?
MikeN,
From the Washinton Post, September 18:
“Meanwhile, Ford has erased any social media presence from the Internet. A spokeswoman for Palo Alto University confirmed she is still employed there, though her name and contact information no longer appear on the school’s website.”
The doctor maintained the address for some time afterwards. It could just be a database not being updated, though the doctor did not volunteer that to Sperry.
It could also be trying to avoid Oregon’s higher state income tax.
Tom Scharf,
What is this? Using tariff leverage can result in better trade deals? I thought this was impossible, at least that is what I read. I’m no fan of trade wars, but the propaganda that they can never have good results is just another brick in the wall of distrusting elite expertise.
But the results aren’t particularly good or different from NAFTA. From a newsletter from a respected source (even copying this much probably technically violates the terms of use).
The good news is that after months of posturing, President Donald Trump’s administration has cut a deal for a new North American Free Trade Agreement, on terms not that different from the old Nafta. Along with July’s hasty agreement with the European Union to defer car tariffs in favor of vaguely defined negotiations, the new Nafta confirms Trump’s “speak loudly and carry a small stick†pattern: creating leverage and then using it to get not very much.
Now we’ll get a focus on China. Like Trump’s wall on the Mexican border, I don’t think we’ll get much if anything. By pulling out of the TPP, we lost a lot of potential allies and leverage.
> on terms not that different from the old Nafta.
If it’s not that different then how come Trudeau’s main highlight is that he got to maintain the dispute resolution process? If your goal was free trade, the new deal will not be that different from the old NAFTA because tariffs were low to begin with. Now the milk industry is opened up, and the rules on car parts being made in North America to count as no-tariff is beefed up a little. This closes a loophole of countries getting around US tariffs by using Canada or Mexico as an intermediary.
The FBI report won’t be public, but will be released to all the Senators. What an oxymoron.
.
The 3rd accuser went on MSNBC and … well … it didn’t go particularly well. Kavanaugh spiking girl’s drinks: I saw him handing red cups to girls. Lines of boys in the hall for a gang rape: Boys huddled around a door laughing, in hindsight it logically must have been a line for a gang rape. Zero corroboration.
.
There is no surprise here, but the point is how low the media will go. MSNBC said they couldn’t confirm any of her story, but what the he**, let’s run it on national TV anyway. The people need to know the facts!
The milk industry isn’t “opened up”. The changes are minor and will have little effect. The dispute resolution issue, which was a major goal of renegotiation, was a complete victory for Canada. The car export quotas for Canada and Mexico are much higher than current exports. Drug company patent expiration was little different from what Canada was willing to accept under the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The list goes on.
Tom Scharf,
“MSNBC said they couldn’t confirm any of her story, but what the he**, let’s run it on national TV anyway. ”
.
They neither want nor need confirmation….they are broadcasting to their very left viewership. Sort of like Hillary’s pizza shop child sex abuse claims, but now for the left. It doesn’t matter how credible (or incredible!) the claims are, some people will believe anything, no matter how implausible, so long as it reaffirms their political preconceptions.
DeWitt,
“The changes are minor and will have little effect.”
.
Well, good to know that border town cheese sales in the USA won’t suffer too much. 😉
.
I think it is a mixed bag. The USA got some of what Trump wanted, certainly not all. Canadian dairy protection remains obscene and contrary to the interests of Canadian consumers, but is some what reduced. But more important, the agreement has to be reviewed and, if needed, re-negotiated after 6 years. That is a significant change.
lucia (Comment #171138)
“The evidence from the four named people supports the theory that the party didn’t happen. That tends to disconfirm the story. It doesn’t prove it wrong. But I’m amazed you won’t admit it disconfirms it.”
________
I don’t believe “tends to disconfirm the story” does disconfirm the story. I’m not even convinced about the “tends.”
There isn’t a solid four, as two (Kavanaugh and Judge) have motivation to deny the story. Unlike Ford,the two who don’t recall have no reason to recall. Saying you don’t recall something isn’t the same as denying it occurred.
Websters online definition of disconfirm:Â “to deny or refute the validity of”
Some news sources used the wording “denied recalling the party,”
which could be misinterpreted to mean denied the party happened.
OK_Max
I’m not even convinced about the “tends.â€
Wow.
“to deny or refute the validity ofâ€
Yes. Which is what that evidence does.
Some news sources used the wording “denied recalling the party,â€
It could be misinterpreted that they have been accused of recalling a party that happened. No one has accused them of recalling it. They’ve been asked if about it and said they don’t remember any party like the one described. Since four out of four don’t, that tends to refute the claim it ever happened. So yes: it tends to disconfirm it. In fact, he word “tend” isn’t required.
These people made statements under possibility of perjury. And they take a greater risk than Ford, because all that would be required to show they perjured themselves is an instamatic photo by someone who attended. Cameras were already widespread back then– they filled things like yearbooks.
With the woman, a photo showing her with Kavanaugh would be enough.
One would think using your rule about risk in creating a lie that if they had wanted to lie, they would pick a less risky one.
OK_Max (Comment #171166)
.
Judge and Kavanaugh would have a motivation to deny the *assault*, though in both cases it would expose them to felony charges over an offense that holds no criminal liability. But they have a strong motivation NOT to deny the party *if they remember it*. Any one of the supposed other guests remembering the party would expose them to legal jeopardy — and one of the guests is *her* friend, not theirs.
.
As I wrote above, I have difficulty believing that the party was so unremarkable that the others have “no reason to recall”. If I went to a party with four guys and two girls, two of the guys were stinking drunk, the two drunk guys and one of the girls went upstairs at the same time, the music suddenly drastically increased in volume (loud enough apparently to drown out screams and a later slamming door), a short time later the music was turned down to normal levels and the two drunk guys returned laughing and hitting the walls while the girl did *not* return — so far this seems reasonable unusual to me, at least enough to trigger the “hey, something is going on” reaction. Then the kicker — either the girl *never* returns, or I observe her *running* out of the house. No reason to recall? Seriously?
.
Now take all the above and add one element — I am the *other girl*, and she is my best friend, perhaps my only friend, at the party. Is it seriously credible that this chain of events would make no impression on me, and in fact that it is so unremarkable that I have “no reason to recall” because from my point of view “nothing happened”? In fact, I can say under felony charges that I can’t remember *ever* being at *any* party with one of the drunk guys?
.
You may not see this as “disconfirming”, but it’s absolutely, positively evidence and it is evidence against Ford’s account. Like the dog that failed to bark in the night, there are things that should have happened that didn’t happen. And to create a perjury claim on Kavanaugh, it relies on him adopting the most reckless possible approach *before* knowing what evidence Ford holds. This isn’t he said/she said. Kavanaugh makes falsifiable claims. Ford does not.
.
There is, according to Ford (at least as of the hearing, since this individual failed to be referenced in the letter), one additional witness to the existence of the party, and presumably it is the one who lives at the house where the party occurred (since her description, vague as it is, does not fit the other alleged attendee’s homes). I don’t find it plausible that the host of the party would have hosted so many parties in Summer 1982 that he would have no reason to recall this particular one, yet no one has so far been able to identify the house in question (with the exception of the ill-fated Whelan).
OK_Max,
Is this what you want hear?
“I am 100% certain that the vaguely described party during a time period of several years at an unknown house in the local region with a group of people of varying descriptions NEVER OCCURRED, and I’m willing to bet being charged with perjury on it.”
.
Would that be close to what would be illuminating, or would people possibly then turn around and question how a person can be certain they can prove a negative. What (non) witness statement would be convincing?
MikeN (Comment #171147)
I can’t find another Worst Thing Ever from the actual assault, but Dr. Ford was quite emotional about the Worst Thing Now. I think it’s worth revisiting that part of the testimony.
—
At the same time, my greatest fears have been realized and the reality has been far worse than what I expected. My family and I have been the target of constant harassment and death threats, and I have been called the most vile and hateful names imaginable. These messages, while far fewer than the expressions of support, have been terrifying and have rocked me to my core.
People have posted my personal information and that of my parents online on the Internet. This has resulted in additional e-mails, calls and threats.
My family and I were forced to move out of our home. Since September 16th, my family and I have been visiting in various secure locales, at times separated and at times together, with the help of security guards.
This past Tuesday evening, my work e-mail was hacked and messages were sent out trying to recant my description of the sexual assault.
Apart from the assault itself, these past couple of weeks have been the hardest of my life. I’ve had to relive this trauma in front of the world. And I’ve seen my life picked apart by people on television, on Twitter, other social media, other media and in this body, who have never met me or spoken with me.
I have been accused of acting out of partisan political motives. Those who say that do not know me. I’m an independent person and I am no one’s pawn.
My motivation in coming forward was to be helpful and to provide facts about how Mr. Kavanaugh’s actions have damaged my life, so that you could take into a serious consideration as you make your decision about how to proceed.
—
This is sworn testimony under oath. She is very clear that she is not acting out of “partisan political motives”, and is “an independent person and I am no one’s pawn.”
.
It’s also clear that despite taking the precaution of shuttling between “various secure locales” since the 16th (the date she went public — too early for “constant threats” to force her from her home, the necessity to not only move out but keep on the move has to be harassment by media) she is still answering her phone and reading e-mail to receive the vile threats and the far more numerous messages of support. Not only that, she is watching television, twitter, other social media to see her story picked apart. These are all voluntary actions, freely taken, but she does them even though it’s making those two weeks the hardest of her life. In fact, they are forcing her to “relive this trauma in front of the world” despite the fact that between her coming out on the 16th and the hearing all communication to the world has been through her lawyers — and her lawyers have consistently *refused* to have her provide *any* information to the very senators she claims she is trying to get information to, in advance of a very, very public hearing with the worst possible format for actually giving information.
.
But that’s not all, in addition to following television, twitter, and social media, she is following what senators “in this body” are saying about her. And she somehow did this without being aware, according to her sworn testimony, that there was any offer to come to any location she chose.
.
But let’s take her at her sworn word and assume that she is telling the truth at this point. Let’s assume that she has been through the hardest two weeks of her life only because her lawyers unethically decided to conceal from her that it wasn’t actually necessary to come to Washington and testify in front of the world. Given the trauma that has been inflicted on this woman, I would expect outrage and fireworks. Instead we have this:
—
GRASSLEY: Dr. Ford. I’m going to correct the record but it’s not something that I’m saying that you stated wrongly because you may not know the fact that when – when you said that you didn’t think it was possible for us to go to California as a committee or our investigators to go to California to talk to you, we did, in fact, offer that to you and we had the capability of doing it and we would’ve done it anywhere or anytime.
FORD: Thank you.
—
SteveF,
IMO, Trump caved to get an agreement by the deadline. He wanted a five year sunset. He got16 years with a review in six years to extend beyond 16 years. He wanted to eliminate Chapter 19, which allowed countries to challenge anti-dumping and anti-subsidy tariffs. It was preserved intact. That, in fact, was the main sticking point with Canada. Canada won. If NAFTA was bad, USMCA is worse.
Canada won. That’s an interesting perspective. I suppose if they had a choice they would prefer the new agreement then. If you are saying it could have been worse, it could of been of course.
DeWitt,
“If NAFTA was bad, USMCA is worse.”
Why do you think that? There are a number of changes which appear better for the USA than NAFTA was.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #171171): “IMO, Trump caved to get an agreement by the deadline. He wanted …”
Trump wanted the best deal he could get. Negotiators always ask for more than what they will settle for. Trump has the reputation of pushing that to the extreme. So the fact that he got less than he asked for does not in any way show that he caved.
.
I don’t much care if the new deal with Canada is much better or a little better than the old one. Trade with Canada is not the big problem. The important thing with NAFTA/USMCA is Mexico. My impression is that Trump got a much better deal there.
DeWitt,
I’m also puzzled as SteveF was. Your comment pointed out two areas in which the US negotiating position was not adopted. Chapter 19 was not changed, and the a sunset provision was not added. What I took from those lines was that you considered the agreement was not substantially modified, that the final agreement was closer to Canada’s positions. In the first area, the situation remains as it was, and in the latter it seems to have moved slightly towards the US position.
So I don’t see why you think that the new agreement is worse (presumably from the US perspective). The re-negotiation might well be viewed as a failed opportunity to make significant improvement to the agreement (again, viewed from the US perspective), but why do you think it worse?
It’s probably near impossible to qualitatively measure the long term impacts of Trade A vs. Trade B based on real economic data. Once you get past primary effects in economics you can dial in any argument you want.
.
The voters aren’t going to read those articles and even if they did they can read just as convincing articles that say the exact opposite. It might as well be quantum mechanics.
.
What they are assessing is whether to trust people who overtly want to continue and endorse BAU (globalism, automation) that has had major long term negative impacts on their local economy, versus trusting someone who at least SAYS they want to go fix the problem and actively tries to do so, however fleetingly.
.
In short they want to know somebody prioritizes their problems over poor people in Mexico and China. This is normally referred to as local representation and what elections are supposed to enable. Only well off people think it is a good idea to elect people who want to solve global problems at the expense of their local citizens.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #171171)
” If NAFTA was bad, USMCA is worse.”
_____
It’s also harder to say,
I hope Trump’s generosity will improve the way Canadians view the U.S.
Under Trump, a majority of Canadians dislike the U.S. for the first time in 35 years, likely much longer Maybe as far back as 1812.
A major Pew Research survey in June 2017 “found that just 43 per cent of Canadians hold a favourable view of the U.S., with 51 per cent holding an unfavourable view.â€
In a Pew Research survey in August 74 per cent of Democrats were favourably disposed toward Canada, compared to 59 per cent of Republicans.
According to the survey 63 per cent of Democrats said their feelings toward Canada were “very warm.†Just 39 per cent of Republicans said the same.
It occurred to me some respondents may have been confused by the survey questions, thinking they were being asked
if they would feel “very warm†in Canada in August.
lucia (Comment #171167)
October 3rd, 2018 at 6:04 am
OK_Max
“These people made statements under possibility of perjury. And they take a greater risk than Ford, because all that would be required to show they perjured themselves is an instamatic photo by someone who attended.”
_______
lucia, it’s difficult to prove a “I don’t remember” statement is perjury unless it’s something that obviously should be remembered (e.g. a significant thing last week).
If you swore we were at a party 36 years ago (hypothetical), but I said I don’t recall seeing you at a party 36 years ago, and then was shown a 1982 dated photo of you and I in a party setting, I would say “Oh, now I remember,” or “Well, that’s proof, but I still don’t remember it.” I wouldn’t be guilty of perjury because no reasonable person would think just seeing you at a party 36 years ago is obviously something I should remember.
Dale S (Comment #171168)
October 3rd, 2018 at 6:13 am
OK_Max (Comment #171166)
“Kavanaugh makes falsifiable claims.”
___________
In an interviewed by Fox News host Martha MacCallum on September 24, 2018.
“Judge Brett Kavanaugh said he does not recall having any memorable interactions with Christine Blasey Ford, a 51-year-old research psychologist and professor who accused him of sexually assaulting her in the 1980s.â€
In the same interview he denied doing what Ford said he did to her,
leaving open the possibility they may have had an interaction of some kind that he couldn’t remember right then, and an interaction
he may have seen differently if he did remember it.
OK_Max (Comment #171198)
Why pick out that particular comment from the interview? I think the most obvious falsifiable claim from that interview was his claim to be a virgin in high school and many years after. Talk about going out on a limb….
.
Further, why pick out a *paraphrase* of the interview rather than quote him? Here’s a transcript, and as you can see he’s *quite* definite:
—-
MACCALLUM: This Christine Ford, do you know her?
KAVANAUGH: I may have met her, we did not travel in the same social circle, she was not a friend, not someone I knew—
MACCALLUM: You don’t remember ever being at parties with her ever?
KAVANAUGH: I do not. And this is an allegation about a party in the summer of 1982 at a house near Connecticut Avenue and East West highway with five people present.
I was never at any such party. The other people who are alleged to be present have said they do not remember any such party. A woman who was present, another woman who was present who is Dr. Ford’s lifelong friend has said she doesn’t know me and never remembers being at a party with me at any time in her life.
—
Kavanaugh leaves absolute no room in this statement for “Oh, now I remember”. And yes, it’s falsifiable. Now, in this statement he’s obviously working off press reports of Ford’s allegations, since the number of people at the party changed to *six* (and the location became less specific) for the actual testimony. But here’s the thing — if Kavanaugh *had* been at the party described, he’d know there was a sixth person, presumably the host, and know that person could expose him as a liar. Massively high risk, for absolutely no gain.
.
Note that he also hasn’t left the “I can’t remember because I was drunk” option to himself either. In sworn testimony he excluded that possibility, not only for this incident but for *any* incident. As I said before, as a defense strategy he has been beyond reckless *if he believes there’s any chance the allegations are true*.
Dale S (Comment #171199)
October 3rd, 2018 at 7:33 pm
OK_Max (Comment #171198)
I think the most obvious falsifiable claim from that interview was his claim to be a virgin in high school and many years after. Talk about going out on a limb….
________
“In high school could be falsifiable,” but I doubt Republicans would take one girl’s word. “Many years after” is vague.
The alleged sexual assault on Ford wouldn’t have destroyed his virginity anyway, as it was not successful.
I’m not sure what he said about his drinking, but he may be vulnerable on that.
OK_Max
lucia, it’s difficult to prove a “I don’t remember†statement is perjury unless it’s something that obviously should be remembered (e.g. a significant thing last week).
Nope. You’re wrong. If you did remember, you might have talked to someone about it. They could relate your conversation with them. Then the Feds ‘gotcha’.
“In high school could be falsifiable,†but I doubt Republicans would take one girl’s word. “Many years after†is vague.
No one come forward. So your speculation about whether Republican’s would the girl’s is moot.
The story wouldn’t necessarily need to be brought forward by a girl. If he talked to someone about having sex, a boy from high school could come forward and relate that story. Hasn’t happened.
It’s a pretty risky claim with plenty of people being able to bring up evidence to suggest it was false if it was false.
Dale S (Comment #171199)
Dale, in my previous post I intended to comment on your remarks quoted below.
“MACCALLUM: You don’t remember ever being at parties with her ever?
KAVANAUGH: I do not. And this is an allegation about a party in the summer of 1982 at a house near Connecticut Avenue and East West highway with five people present.
I was never at any such party. The other people who are alleged to be present have said they do not remember any such party. A woman who was present, another woman who was present who is Dr. Ford’s lifelong friend has said she doesn’t know me and never remembers being at a party with me at any time in her life.
—
Kavanaugh leaves absolute no room in this statement for “Oh, now I rememberâ€.
_____________
I think he does. He could say “Oh, now I remember the party, but I didn’t sexually assault that girlâ€.
His “I was never at any such party” refers to his previous “And this is an allegation about a party”. He is saying he was never at a party where he assaulted her.
OK_Max
He is saying he was never at a party where he assaulted her.
No. That’s not what the quote you posted says. He is pretty clearly saying he was never at a party ” in the summer of 1982 at a house near Connecticut Avenue and East West highway with five people present.”
That is: he was never at any party that matches the description of that specific party.
If someone found picture of him at a party ” in the summer of 1982 at a house near Connecticut Avenue and East West highway with five people present.”. He doesn’t merely say he “doesn’t remember” such a party. He says “I was never at any such party.”
And since this guy kept calendars, he actually has some basis for knowing if he ever was at such a party.
If they find a photo of him, they have him having made a false claim and pinning perjury on him.
He also also says he doesn’t remember being at any party with her. That one could turn into “Oh, now I remember”. But the other one can’t.
lucia (Comment #171202)
October 3rd, 2018 at 8:45 pm
OK_Max
lucia, it’s difficult to prove a “I don’t remember†statement is perjury unless it’s something that obviously should be remembered (e.g. a significant thing last week).
Nope. You’re wrong. If you did remember, you might have talked to someone about it. They could relate your conversation with them. Then the Feds ‘gotcha’.
_______
True, if the conversation was recorded. Otherwise, it would be his word against mine.
________________________________________________________
Me: “In high school could be falsifiable,†but I doubt Republicans would take one girl’s word. “Many years after†is vague.
lucia:
“No one come forward. So your speculation about whether Republican’s would the girl’s is moot.”
True, so far. No boys either. But Kav isn’t accused of not being a virgin in high school, he’s accused of trying to not be one.
Max_OK (Comment #171201)
The claim to be a virgin practically invites disputing, and it’s a much more dramatic claim than claiming he never assaulted women. It’s part of a broad pattern where Kavanaugh makes sweeping claims that can be directly contradicted by witnesses, even though such claims are not necessary to dispute the primary dispute against him. Would “Republicans” believe a contradicting witness? Some certainly wouldn’t. Would all Senate Republicans reject such a claim? I certainly wouldn’t bet my nomination on it, you never know when a theoretical supporter might Flake out.
.
It’s certainly true that his claim to be a virgin, if true, doesn’t directly contradict Ford or even Ramirez’s claim. But it wasn’t responding to either — he was responding to a question about Avenetti’s then-unknown client accusing him of gang rape, and virginity *does* contradict that. But true to form, he doesn’t just deny participating in gang rape. He denies even *hearing* about it, or being at a party where it happened. He not only claims to be a virgin, he claims he “never had anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years there after.” It is, once again, completely reckless claims for a man with sexual misdeeds to hide.
.
I think you’re off base about his party claim. He is specifically claiming, with no room for “Oh now I remember”, that he was not at the party described by Ford. Please note that Kavanaugh is not, and never has, denied that *Ford* was at a party such as she described, and has never suggested that Ford did not have the experience she described — his claim is that *he* was not present at such a party in any capacity, let alone as the would-be rapist.
.
Of course, his denial is working on the assumption that the attack was in summer 1982 as claimed. As has been noted, Ford’s therapist notes from 2013 have the attack happening in her “late teens” and her *first* text this year has the attack in the mid-80s — those details are consistent with each other and also consistent with her testimony that she subsequently struggled in her first two years of college. (It’s also consistent with her polygraph, since she crossed out the “early” before 80s.) . Had it remained in the mid-80s, the question of how she got to and from the party could also have been easily resolved. The difficulty would be getting Yale student Brett Kavanaugh at the party.
“Ladies and gentlemen, the story you are about to hear is true. The names and places have been changed to accuse the innocentâ€
Max,
How would you phrase it differently if you were Kavanaugh and wished to indicate unequivocally that you had not attended that party?
I think incumbent polls improve a little as the election gets closer What was 41-39 becomes 46-42.
OK_Max
True, if the conversation was recorded. Otherwise, it would be his word against mine.
Above, you seem to put a lot of weight on mere verbal testimony given under pain of perjury. That’s all Ford’s accusation is, but you seem to think we ought to give it heavy weight.
Meanwhile, you seem to come up with reasons to say other verbal evidence given under pain of perjury is someone lightweight and not to be given credit. That is: that seems to be your standard if that evidence cuts against your argument.
In fact: if the guy gave verbal evidence under pain of perjury, its still evidence. Of course people can weigh and consider credibility. But it’s still a risk for Kavanaugh if somone stepped forward and said they remembered him having sex in high school. Even if you some how imagine no one would believe the accuser, some people would. Many might. So it’s still at least as big a risk as you perceive Ford taking by naming kids at a party.
Notably, no one has stepped forward to gainsay Kavanaugh’s claims. Several people have stepped forward to give testimony that gainsays Ford’s claim.
But Kav isn’t accused of not being a virgin in high school, he’s accused of trying to not be one.
No one said he was accused of that. We were discussing application of your “rule” about the risk of lying. Many of Kavanaugh’s statements are much more easily falsified than the credit you give to Ford’s.
I think it’s possible the Kavanaugh accusations have created a backlash. I don’t think any of the three accusations have sufficient support to be published in a reputable newspaper, let alone stage-managing by high elected officials for the widest possible exposure to the world. The actions taken by Feinstein and Ford’s legal team are completely inconsistent with Ford’s motivations expressed under oath. If she truly is an independent person and no one’s pawn, as she testified, she perjured herself.
To my knowledge, not one Democratic Senator or even congressman has stepped forward to condemn the use of uncorroborated sexual allegations to smear Kavanaugh and block his nomination. And in the all too likely case that it works, we can look forward to similar behavior in the future. Based on the information in our possession, the question should not be whether Kavanaugh should be disqualified — it should be whether Feinstein should be censured. She should be.
I am about 1000% more motivated to vote in November than I was in August. I suspect I’m not alone.
The Kavanaugh hearings have fired up the Republican base. Many people see this as an orchestrated character assassination for political purposes that wasn’t fair to anybody involved.
.
What may very well happen is Kavanaugh will get confirmed and the needle will switch back the other direction again, but the hearing and the FBI investigation will temper that.
Dale S,
“I suspect I’m not alone.”
.
You’re certainly not alone. I got a haircut yesterday, same place as I have gone for 20 years. I never before heard a conversation about politics, but yesterday several people (and not just men!) were absolutely raging about the absurdity of the Kavanaugh hearings. It’s an anecdotal datum, but it is certainly unusual for me to hear people speak angrily about a political event while getting their hair cut.
.
“To my knowledge, not one Democratic Senator or even congressman has stepped forward to condemn the use of uncorroborated sexual allegations to smear Kavanaugh and block his nomination.”
.
No surprise at all. See the Lindsey Graham video: “Boy, you guys sure want power. God, I hope to you never get it.”
The Lindsey Graham video is interesting in and of itself. Graham seems honestly shocked at the tactics employed against Kavanaugh (maybe he was acting, but it didn’t seem like it). His anger and sense of betrayal by “my friends” in the Senate seem real. The interesting thing to me is that Graham could possibly think ‘progressives’ are interested in anything but political power; this has been self evident to me for most of my lifetime.
.
Progressives want fundamental change in how the country is run, (greater equality of outcomes, not greater equality of opportunity, transfer of sovereignty from national governments to international organizations, etc.) and that can only be achieved via naked political power. Few progressives have the desire nor even the inclination to discuss the issues with those who oppose their desired policies, and they have little stomach for substantive compromise on policy. The Supreme Court fight is the result of the (perfectly accurate) recognition that much “progress” over the past decades, and certainly since Roe V Wade, has come from a progressive Court acting as a super-legislature to impose progressive policies; policies which the elected legislature (AKA Congress) would almost certainly not enact. Reversal of some of those policies by a conservative court, and just as importantly, refusal to support other progressive policies which are plainly unconstitutional, is considered a catastrophic loss of power. Hence the hysteria, and uniform willingness to stoop to character assassination to keep Kavanaugh off the Court. This behavior is not going to change any time soon.
To me it has been rather obvious that Ford has been given a pass by the Democrats, the media and the Republicans. Her vague recollections and changing story of an incident that has real consequences for the accused are ripe for a hard cross examination that has never materialized. The MeToo movement has evidently made all these organizations gun shy. That is too bad as a more even handed process by all involved might well want to have more assurances that the professed victim has an account of the event that holds up to hard questioning.
Ford is rather obviously under the control of her Democrat handlers which is most readily witnessed by hesitancy to make her claims public and then insisting through her handlers that she wanted the Republican senators to question her and do it in a public setting. The only reason for that apparent about face was to obtain as negative a political impact as possible on the Republicans. I doubt very much that she is politically neutral in this matter. The only question might be how much her politics were enhanced by her handlers when she had a realization of a “civic duty”.
The story is not over. I will not try and excuse Democrats for their process misbehavior–but the story is not over.
As for Lindsay and his buds… M*E*R*R*I*C*K G*A*R*L*A*N*D…
(Does anyone remember The Education of Hyman Kaplan?)
Thomas Fuller,
The appoitment process involving the Senate was designed to be political. What happened with M*E*R*R*I*C*K G*A*R*L*A*N*D was entirely straightforward, fair and the way the process is designed to work. No one made any pretense about what was going on. The Republicans were running out the clock and hoping to gain control in November, which is what happened. The picked a method of not appointing that did not subject Merrick Garland to an indignity, probes, character assassination and so on.
Politics are politics. But character assassination to get what you want is not fair. I’m not surprised it happenes, because politics are politics. But anyone suggesting the Senate using its perogative to not consent to Garland as the same as what is happening with Kavanaugh has problems seeing the difference between apples and coal.
Maybe a better point of comparison would be K*E*I*T*H E*L*L*I*S*O*N.
If Trump had lost, it was reasonably likely that Garland would have been approved by the Senate in November rather than let Clinton appoint someone else who could well be even more liberal. There is no constitutional requirement for an up or down vote for a given appointee. This will become obvious if the Democrats gain control of the Senate in November. No conservative Trump appointee to the Supreme Court and possibly to an appellate court will get a hearing from a Democrat controlled Senate.
Nowhere in that document (the Constitution) does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote.
Harry Reid, 2005
What we need here is an investigation into the WH’s direction of the requested and allowed FBI’s investigation based on the requested and allowed public testimony of last minute uncorroborated allegations on a person who has had 6 different FBI background investigations and went through previous public hearings.
.
That should clear things up to everyone’s satisfaction .. or not.
Lucia,
“The Republicans were running out the clock and hoping to gain control in November, which is what happened.”
.
It was a big gamble… few people thought Trump would win, there was no certainty the Senate would remain in Republican hands, and Merrick Garland was far more moderate in his judicial rulings than the nominees Hillary would likely have sent to the Senate.
.
.
Thomas Fuller,
It is good you do not try to defend the indefensible. As for progressives everywhere who complain about Merrick Garland…. A*F*O*R*D*A*B*L*E C*A*R*E A*C*T and how that monstrosity of unconstitutional regulations was upheld by the Supreme Court, helps explain why Republicans took the gamble they did to gain control of the Court. Had Obama the good sense to compromise on Obamacare and insist on having empowering legislation instead of taking multiple very dubious (AKA unlawful) executive actions, there is a good chance the Democrats would have held the Senate in 2014, and Trump would still be a reality TV personality. Obama flipped the bird at half the country, but he was too dumb to understand that what goes around, comes around.
DeWitt,
“If Trump had lost, it was reasonably likely that Garland would have been approved by the Senate in November rather than let Clinton appoint someone else who could well be even more liberal.”
.
Maybe, but not at all certain. Obama could have pulled the nomination, and Dems might have filibustered to give the nomination to Hillary.
.
“No conservative Trump appointee to the Supreme Court and possibly to an appellate court will get a hearing from a Democrat controlled Senate.”
.
That is certain. Dems will probably insist on progressives for all appointments, judicial or executive. (They long ago declared war on Trump.) If Republicans lose control of the Senate, there will be a rush for judicial confirmations in the lame duck session, but the time will be limited, so a relative handful will be confirmed.
Based on what the Senators are saying after being briefed on the report, there is no there, there in the FBI report. The left is complaining about a limited investigation after being briefed. They don’t seem to be demanding that the report be made public if that means anything.
.
Sen. John Kennedy (R., La.): “There’s things in there that really make me angry.” Asked to elaborate, Mr. Kennedy said “anybody who thinks politics isn’t involved in this ought to put down the bong.â€
.
They are wisely not letting the report outside a secure room at the moment.
DeWitt Payne
DeWitt,
No conservative Trump appointee to the Supreme Court and possibly to an appellate court will get a hearing from a Democrat controlled Senate.
Yep. Which is allowable. And in that case, if any Republicans complain Dem’s can repeat M*E*R*R*I*C*K G*A*R*L*A*N*D… all day long and that will be entirely valid. But that’s not the same as what is happening now.
lucia,
But that’s not the same as what is happening now.
Indeed. What’s happening now is even worse than what the Dem’s did to Clarence Thomas. Anita Hill was far more credible, though still uncorroborated, than Ford.
The Senate never held hearings or scheduled a vote on Bush’s appointment of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court in 2005. But technically it’s not the same as Garland because the opposition to Miers was bipartisan. IMO, that’s a distinction without a difference.
I wonder what the current thoughts are on the ethics of a fishing expedition. I suspect it matters greatly on whose behalf the expedition is occurring. The Mueller probe and now the Ford probe look to me very much like fishing expeditions.
The Republicans could have Kavanaughed Merrick Garland. That action might have been better understood by the Democrats.
On USMCA vs NAFTA: I never saw the problem with NAFTA that needed such sturm und drang. Now after all the uncertainty and excitement, there’s little change. I seriously doubt the balance of trade, which appears to be Trump’s only measure of the goodness of a trade deal, will change significantly. Even if the enabling legislation is passed before the end of the year, Trump will at best be a very lame duck when the six year review takes place, assuming he’s even re-elected in 2020. The steel and aluminum tariffs and the retaliatory Canadian tariffs are still in place, which is a loss for both countries.
Kenneth,
“The Republicans could have Kavanaughed Merrick Garland. That action might have been better understood by the Democrats.”
.
Conservatives have less inclination for such things, in part because they want more civility, not less (eg the strongly negative reaction to Trump’s buffoonery by many Republicans), and in part because they are not as desperate for ‘progress’: they want less ‘hope and change’ not more.
SteveF (Comment #171237): “Conservatives have less inclination for such things, in part because they want more civility, not less (eg the strongly negative reaction to Trump’s buffoonery by many Republicans), and in part because they are not as desperate for ‘progress’: they want less ‘hope and change’ not more.”
.
True. Also, conservatives value freedom, while the tactics being used against Kavanaugh are those of totalitarians.
Mike M,
“Also, conservatives value freedom, while the tactics being used against Kavanaugh are those of totalitarians.”
.
Or people who are convinced they are absolutely right, which does tend to lead to totalitarian behaviors. When someone is absolutely right, niceties like presumption of innocence, or even due process under law, no longer matter. That is where many progressives are now. Hard to say if that will change, but I suspect not.
One of Facebook’s executives sat behind Kavanaugh at a hearing, this caused a predictable reaction from the never biased and ultra tolerant employees of Facebook. He has been friends with Kavanaugh a long time and was in his wedding, and Kavanaugh was in his. As a sign that sanity might be coming back, he posted this to complaining employees:
.
“If you need to change teams, companies or careers to make sure your day-to-day life matches your passions, we will be sad to see you go, but we will understand,†Mr. Bosworth wrote. “We will support you with any path you choose. But it is your responsibility to choose a path, not that of the company you work for”
.
He eventually had to apologize for that one, ha ha. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/technology/facebook-kavanaugh-nomination-kaplan.html
Mike M,
“Also, conservatives value freedom, while the tactics being used against Kavanaugh are those of totalitarians.â€
I think the only people who value freedom are those who feel they do not have it.
Cannot pick sides, Conservatives are just as bad as all the rest paying lip service to freedom only when they do not have it.
I’m not Asian and I don’t support it either. There’s a case to be made that those from poor backgrounds could use some help, but no case to make that racial quotas are the way to go. If Asians put in the work and get the grades, it IS racism to put further hurdles in their path just because they’re from an “over-represented” racial group. I’m sick of hearing that external superficial differences provide strength etc. It’s what’s inside that counts and it’s actual institutional racism to insist otherwise.
OK_Max (Comment #170193)
“mark, yes, there is a strong resistance to the Trump Presidency. Democrats can’t stand him and many establishment Republicans never wanted him as the GOP candidate. The dislike of Trump results not only from his policies, but from his behavior as a person.”
.
Rule Number One to get elected President: “Be, Act, Look Presidential”. Like being a respected father figure, someone who you look up to and you are willing to take moral advice from.
Some of the Presidents don’t measure this high, but their competitors were even worse.
.
The importance of Personality versus Policy with voters varies. I think there is a trend.
.
Trump is an exception for sure. Maybe Hillary too.
.
“The dislike of Trump results not
onlyfrom his policies, but from his behavior as a person.”I have mixed feelings, Harvard can do whatever it wants as a private school, I just don’t like them lying about what they are doing and then being glorified for the wink and nod as they self righteously vilify others for their “resentments”. If Harvard wants to be racist then it should be allowed to be racist, with all the shame and federal funding consequences that come with that. The emperor has no clothes in this palace of integrity on this issue.
.
I’ll be surprised if Harvard actually allows this to go to trial, although they may have no choice if the other side accepts no deal. The list of A level schools publicly supporting Harvard on this is quite distressing. I doubt these bastions of goodness and light are overconfident on the result if this makes it to the SC.
lucia (Comment #170205)
JD Ohio (Comment #170206)
lucia and JD, thank you for the tips.
I misinterpreted the National Review article in my previous
post. It did not say the Trump organization broke no laws.
It said Cohen and the Trump organization may have violated
New York State law by representing the hush payments as
legal expenses rather than campaign expenses. In New
York it is felony “to claim or deduct as a legal expense
something that was not a legal expense.†The article also
said the state is investigating .
I believe JD brought up the New York State matter a while
back. I didn’t recognize the National Review article was
about the same subject.
Paywall can be beaten by using private window. For Washington Post you also have to disable adblocker. You can beat this if your browser/computer are slow enough. Just do a select and copy (Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C) before the paywall shows up, then paste into Wordpad.
Ron Unz wrote an article years ago showing how quotas were being used for Asians as they previously were against Jews. Geography based affirmative action was one method of keeping numbers down.
Eventually, the Jewish quotas were removed.
There is one difference. Jews are mostly white.
Having lots of Jews on campus wouldn’t be that noticeable, while having a majority Asian one would. This can cause racial tensions that wouldn’t be there with lower numbers.
Tom Scharf,
I would not give better than 50:50 odds that Harvard will try to get out of this mess by settling the lawsuit. That would require a bit of eating of humble pie… not something the ‘elite’ at Harvard are used to… but even worse, would invite other lawsuits from Caucasians, Jews, etc who feel they suffer due to the obvious racial quota’s Harvard has instituted in admissions. If they choose to fight, there is a real chance the Supreme Court would find for the Asian students, thus confirming (in a legal sense) that Harvard practices racial discrimination in admissions. An unfriendly administration (eg. Trump) could then start withholding Federal funding of all types. Seating Kavanaugh makes such a finding more likely, but if Trump seats another conservative in place of one of the aging liberals, that outcome becomes very much more likely. Harvard can support itself well on it’s huge endowment, but that endowment would not grow like it always has, and might even shrink.
.
To get an idea of what Harvard would look like absent racial discrimination, you can look at the racial makeup of a very competitive school, CalTech, which by law can’t consider race in admissions: 28% white (a large fraction of those Jews), 43% Asians, combined “underrepresented minorities” (blacks, Hispanics, native Americans, Pacific Islanders) – 16%… and most of those Hispanics. This is the kind of racial makeup that Harvard desperately wants to avoid. You know, admission based on scholastic merit.
There is a conspiracy theory that is going around about what happened in 2016 with the Trump campaign. Some of it is well known, FBI getting a FISA with Steele Dossier paid for by Hillary campaign, and sending spies at his campaign. Before that political groups, possibly the same Fusion GPS, were doing research by taking advantage of FBI contractor access to the NSA database, with 702 About queries. This was shut down by NSA head Mike Rogers, and the FISC report on this is https://i-uv.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2016-Cert-FISC-Memo-Opin-Order-Apr-2017-4-1.pdf
After Mike Rogers shut it down, Glenn Simpson’s wife made her only ever trip to the White House the next day. Tours normally take months to schedule, but hers took just days.
After the election, the conspirators activated their ‘insurance policy’ to make sure their actions were not revealed. They leaked the existence of their investigation, and Buzzfeed even leaked the dossier, which they probably didn’t want. They eventually got a special counsel activated with intent of removing Trump.
Meanwhile, Trump has known about their actions since Nov 17, 2016, when Mike Rogers visited him at Trump Tower. That night the transition team was moved out of Trump Tower to New Jersey. Lisa Page sends a text message the next morning that Mike Rogers visited Trump Tower yesterday.
Trump activated a multi-pronged strategy of countering this conspiracy. Congressional inquiries, IG investigations, leak hunts, and grand jury investigations. Meanwhile, he distracted people from this with outbursts against Sessions and Rosenstein and the IG Michael Horowitz. This got Democrats to express support, making their eventual actions more credible for the public. Trump is playing his own base and getting them to call for Sessions to be fired. It’s not clear if Hannity is in on it. All the time, everyone is thinking Trump is helpless and has no idea what’s really going on. Gen Kelly is hiding the truth from him.
However, it is clear that Trump knows what is happening, just from his tweets that reveal things shortly after action is taken, like a pending IG report release. It is even more evident now because Trump Jr retweeted an article about Lanny Davis and CNN by one of the people explaining the conspiracy on Twitter.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/cnn-boldly-decides-it-no-longer-needs-reliable-sources_2635120.html
Tom
There may be strings attached to accepting federal money for projects though. I would suspect that’s what would give the lawsuit teeth. Also, maybe it’s a public accommodation? Dunno.
The entity suit will want concession and have them known publicly. I don’t see how Harvard can stop this suit without making concessions.
Harvard values their high opinion of themselves more than their endowment, so anything that has an admission or legal judgment of racial bias is a non-starter I expect even though this judgment would be news to absolutely nobody. One easily predictable and reasonable future outcome is a legal requirement to use race blind admissions in order to get federal funding and I expect they want to avoid this at all costs given their current ideology. Their demonstrated intent to racially discriminate through holistic methods and refusal to change would force the courts to demand race blind admissions. They have to see this coming. The current Harvard strategy might be viewed as a simple cynical delay the inevitable as long as possible.
.
This will force diversity by legal socioeconomic and geographic discrimination which almost everyone will be OK with. They will then attempt to wink and nod their way through this by inferring race through other means, the battle for justice is long and hard.
Ok_MAX
I think the legal problem is representing anything that is not a legal expense as a legal expense. The hush payments may not be legal expenses (I suspect they aren’t. ) But that doesn’t make them campaign expenses. My grocery expenditures are neither legal or campaign expenses. Trump, like you and I, can have lots of expenses that are neither legal expenses nor campaign expenses.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170208)
Thanks, Tom.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170207)
Tom, Cohen’ may have pled guilty because he was
offered a reduced sentence and lower fines rather
than because he was offered a reduction in the
number or kinds of charges, although I guess it
could have been a combination package. The
prosecution can get what it wants either way,
but I think the defendant is more interested in
sentence length and fine amount than the
number and kinds of charges.
Since the prosecution holds all the cards, it’s in
a strong position to say here’s our offer, take it
or go to trial. Do it now, because tomorrow the
offer won’t be as generous. The offer to Cohen
was very generous.
I wonder if it’s illegal for the prosecution
to present an offer that includes crimes
they know the defendant didn’t commit?
Seems like the defendant would perjure
himself by pleading guilty to a crime he
knows he didn’t commit, so lies by the
prosecution also should be perjury.
I can imagine a situation where the
prosecution is just fishing with their
offer, thinking the defendant might
or might not be guilty, but the right
offer could get him to confess if he
is guilty.
OK_Max
I don’t think a defendant is under oath when they submit a plea. It’s not sworn testimony, and so wouldn’t be perjury to plea guilty when you are innocent or vice versa. If it were, lots of people who plead innocent might be subsequently charged with perjury for their plea alone. That doesn’t happen.
Or get him to confess even if he is not guilty.
Max,
The Alford plea mentioned previously seems pertinent. I don’t imagine those who submit an Alford plead are viewed as having commit perjury by the court, but still – by submitting an Alford plea I seem to be reading that a defendant is essentially stating that they are innocent but that they plead guilty.
MikeN (Comment #170214)
August 30th, 2018 at 1:18 pm
Paywall can be beaten by using private window.
______
Yes, but I feel a little guilty doing it. Journalist at WSJ, NYtimes, and WoPo have to make a living. Unfortunately, alternatives (e.g. USAToday) lack depth and seduce me with click-bait or are extremely biased ( Huffpost and Breitbart).
I sometimes go to UK news sources and should explore foreign language news sources that have English language editions.
Here is a link to a report on pleading out to avoid the risk of trial.
I haven’t read it yet, just looking at it now.
lucia (Comment #170222)
but the right offer could get him to confess if he is guilty.
“Or get him to confess even if he is not guilty”
______
That’s not the way it works in crime shows on TV.
The defendant must present evidence of his guilt, and this
evidence must be consistent with what the prosecution already
knows. Actually on TV it’s usually the detectives who do this.
I hope I’m making sense. I’m still a bit woozy from surgery in
the AM. Nothing major, but was put under for about and hour.
mark bofill (Comment #170225)
August 30th, 2018 at 3:13 pm
Here is a link to a report on pleading out to avoid the risk of trial.
The ‘trial penalty’ refers to the substantial difference between the sentence offered in a plea offer prior to trial versus the sentence a defendant receives after trial. This penalty is now so severe and pervasive that it has virtually eliminated the constitutional right to a trial. To avoid the penalty, accused persons must surrender many other fundamental rights which are essential to a fair justice system.
____
mark, thank you, the linked report looks well worth reading.
The report is by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyer, so I would expect it to be from their point of view,
although doubtfully self-serving financially. I don’t think
many criminal lawyers are in it just for the money.
“The defendant must present evidence of his guilt”
.
I think this is handled by the defendant pleading guilty. I’ve never seen it where a defendant had to “prove” he was guilty, although I have seen where they basically had a signing statement that stated what actions they was pleading guilty to. The defendants should be aware of the evidence and the prosecution cannot hold this back (in theory). I imagine there are rare cases where a person is paid off to plead guilty for another’s crime, but my impression is the justice system is closer to a bureaucratic machine than a search for the truth and closing/winning cases is what’s important to prosecutors.
OK_Max (Comment #170226) : “That’s not the way it works in crime shows on TV.
The defendant must present evidence of his guilt, and this
evidence must be consistent with what the prosecution already
knows.”
I am pretty sure that is not the case, not even on TV. Sometimes a plea bargain requires the defendant to “allocute” as to what he did. But that is not automatic and, so far as I can tell from a brief web search, is not usually done under oath.
I have seen a TV plot device in which something said during allocution made the prosecutor or police realize they missed something, then set about getting it right. I think that is probably only on TV.
OK_Max
First: I would be very careful in thinking any particular tv show tells you much about the real process. Television and movies show all sorts of things, many self contradictory. In some, the police and DA are white knights in shining armor who never do anything wrong or unfair. In others the police and DA are constantly beating people, setting them up, getting away with it for years. Likely we can find examples of both in real life.
There’s no reason to believe that in real life, the prosecution hasn’t already revealed a substantial amount of information to the defendants attorney. Heck, some of it is in the newspapers.
That would be done to make the defendant know how strong the case is against him and so motivate a plea. That would make it pretty easy for the defendant to present evidence of guilt that is consistent with what the prosecution already “knows”. Beyond that, sometimes the prosecution doesn’t necessarily know much. So it’s hard to be inconsistent with their knowledge since that’s almost no knowledge.
The Atlantic figures out how to thread the needle on the Harvard case. Some Asians are now white people, the evil ones I guess.
The ‘Whitening’ of Asian Americans
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/08/the-whitening-of-asian-americans/563336/
.
“When I have asked myself whether or not I have ever been granted white privileges, I have found myself growing uncomfortable.”
.
The grand tradition of Vox, bad arguments must be really long and have cartoons.
https://www.vox.com/2018/3/28/17031460/affirmative-action-asian-discrimination-admissions
“We are cast as victims in a pernicious story about race.”
.
Edward Blum has hit a vulnerable spot indeed. It is curious that these liberal outlets always trot out token Asians to justify these anti-Asian arguments. How would this argument look coming from a white person? The answer starts with a capital R.
.
It seems they are a bit desperate that they might lose Asian support by overtly discriminating against Asians on education which is highly valued in that community. Out comes the shame hammer for being a pawn of the whites. I’m very encouraged to know we have so many anti-racists on task making sure racism doesn’t happen anymore.
.
This is really just classism in poor disguise. Upper whites crapping on lower whites. The upper whites now encouraging upper Asians to crap on lower Asians. Use a race wedge to keep the lower classes from unifying. I’m shocked Trump is president, just shocked.
lucia, I’m sorry I overlooked your instructions to post here on this new thread, and posted on the previous thread. So I’ll re-post below. I didn’t know how to delete this post from the previous thread.
OK_Max (Comment #170234)
August 31st, 2018 at 3:48 pm
Re mark bofill (Comment #170228)
mark, the subject of plea bargaining is very interesting.
In reading up on it, I couldn’t find a developed country
that doesn’t have some form. Japan had been an
exception until earlier this year when it decided to start
plea bargaining with snitches. Some in the legal
community find fault with the plan.
The following quotes are from the linked Japanese Times article titled Japanese-style plea bargaining debuts but authorities fear spread of false testimony.
“Unlike the U.S. plea bargaining system, admitting to a crime does not warrant a deal with prosecutors in Japan. The new system, introduced in a revision to the criminal procedure law, allows suspects in such crimes as bribery, embezzlement, tax fraud and drug smuggling to negotiate with prosecutors. The bargaining only applies to crimes listed in the law, with murder and assault off-limits.â€
“To prevent suspects or the accused from lying to get a deal, Japan’s revised law penalizes false depositions and obliges defense lawyers to be involved in the bargaining process. If depositions are found to be false, those giving them will face up to five years in jail.â€
“Penalizing false depositions could “make it harder for informants to retract what they said,†Sasakura pointed out. Instead of discouraging false statements, the penalty may instead push informants to stick with their story even if it’s false, she explained.â€
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/05/31/national/crime-legal/japanese-style-plea-bargaining-debuts-authorities-fear-spread-false-testimony/#.W4mrVJNKgS4
Apparently, the Japanese authorities will plea bargain only in cases where they will get more than just a confession of guilt. To get a reduced sentence or go free, the criminal defendant must lead the authorities to other criminals. I guess if Cohen had been subject to Japanese style plea bargaining he might have benefitted from his guilty pleas on the two campaign finance charges, unless he was lying.
Not your fault. I should have closed comments. I have now.
lucia (Comment #170231)
“There’s no reason to believe that in real life, the prosecution hasn’t already revealed a substantial amount of information to the defendants attorney. Heck, some of it is in the newspapers.”
“That would be done to make the defendant know how strong the case is against him and so motivate a plea. That would make it pretty easy for the defendant to present evidence of guilt that is consistent with what the prosecution already …”
_________
I could be wrong but I think the prosecutor is required to tell the
defense what he knows. The defendant’s attorney would need this
information to prepare his defense.
I’m not sure how involved the prosecutor is involved in the investigative work by police and detectives, but I believe that
is the stage where the guilty plea would be examined to make
sure the plea isn’t a lie. I doubt a lot of effort would be put
put into verifying unless it was a very serious offense and something
about the guilty plea just didn’t seem right.
OK_Max (Comment #170237): “I could be wrong but I think the prosecutor is required to tell the defense what he knows. The defendant’s attorney would need this information to prepare his defense.”
That is certainly so before a case goes to trial. But it seems it is not the case in the event of a plea bargain. I learned that (I think) is reading about the Flynn plea bargain. So it seems that the prosecutor can either reveal of withhold information as he sees fit to pressure the accused into a plea bargain.
I can see where plea bargaining is useful, even necessary. But I am coming to the opinion that limitations need to be placed on the process.
.
p.s – OK_Max, Why are there hard carriage returns in the middle of your sentences? Bit of a nuisance when quoting.
Mike M. (Comment #170238)
“p.s – OK_Max, Why are there hard carriage returns in the middle of your sentences? Bit of a nuisance when quoting.”
_____
Mike M, I too have found the hard carriage returns a problem.
It’s time I tried figuring out how to solve it.
I suspect the hard carriage returns are caused by my
composing a post in Mac Text Edit and then pasting
it here on The Blackboard. But I think it’s also happened
even when composing directly here, although I’m
not sure. Somtimes I’m able to edit the carriage returns
after pasting the copy here, other times not
I will work on the problem.
Interesting write-up on Brady evidence and plea bargains.
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4913&context=flr
Max,
Thanks for that on the Japanese system. I hadn’t looked at that and its interesting to me.
Earle (Comment #170240)
Earle has provide a link to an article that explains the Brady Rule and the lack of
uniformity in its application to plea bargaining among jurisdictions.
“The Supreme Court’s decision in Brady v. Maryland requires the prosecution to disclose evidence that establishes the defendant’s factual innocence during a trial. Some courts apply this rule during plea bargaining and require the disclosure of material exculpatory evidence before the entry of a guilty plea. Other courts have held or suggested that the prosecution may suppress exculpatory evidence during plea bargaining, forcing the defendant to negotiate and determine whether to accept a plea offer or proceed to trial without it. Substantial disparities therefore exist in the bargaining power and decision-making ability of criminal defendants, depending on where they are charged.â€
My understanding is exculpatory evidence favors the defendant and in a trial likely would result in a verdict of not guilty. If the prosecution has exculpatory evidence on a defendant, it seems only fair they be required to reveal it during plea negotiations, but I take it some jurisdictions do not, and require it only during the trial.
I don’t think there is anything Trump has done so far that rises to the level of an impeachable offense. However, if Trump tries to unilaterally tear up NAFTA without Congressional approval if (when) negotiations with Canada fail or they succeed but the revised treaty fails to be approved by the Senate, that would be a high crime, IMO. A treaty that has been approved by the Senate is the supreme law of the land according to Article VI clause 2 of the US Constitution.
In the past. some treaties have been abrogated by the President without action by Congress, but I believe there were extenuating circumstances in those cases. No such circumstances apply to NAFTA. The President is not above the law. Of course this may be moot as it’s extremely likely that Federal judges would grant injunctive relief that would likely be upheld by the Supreme Court.
As a negotiating tactic, a threat that has no teeth isn’t going to work.
Has Mueller completed a report on obstruction that we just don’t know about, because neither Mueller or Rosenstein are authorized to release it?
Who the heck knows. I’d expect the darn thing to leak out like everything else has.
Also, Giuliani says the administration is preparing a counter report.
I wonder what’s actually happening.
The prosecution not disclosing its evidence before plea bargaining seems borderline immoral IMO. The burden needs to be on the government even though this isn’t always a fair fight. The defense can of course just wait for a trial and get the evidence anyway, but the prosecution likely plays the “take it or leave it” plea bargain game before it discloses its evidence. Defense attorneys no doubt know their local game well, and will play the “no thanks, go spend the money to prepare for an expensive trial, we will wait, but if you give us your evidence now we can settle the matter” game.
.
The Duke Lacrosse scandal comes to mind.
If Trump has actually gotten a better deal, he should give it to Congress. A Democratic congress will not approve anything from Trump, because Trump. They will then need to live with that vote. Bringing this up for a vote before November would be wise politics.
Any obstruction case that is dependent on how Comey interpreted comments and guessed what Trump was really thinking is a non-starter politically. There will have to be more. Comey damaged himself enough that he is tainted. His public “vote for Democrats” comment wasn’t helpful, nor the report that indicated insubordination.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170243)
September 1st, 2018 at 2:12 pm
“I don’t think there is anything Trump has done so far that rises to the level of an impeachable offense. However, if Trump tries to unilaterally tear up NAFTA without Congressional approval if (when) negotiations with Canada fail or they succeed but the revised treaty fails to be approved by the Senate, that would be a high crime, IMO.”
______
“The trade talks with Canada were thrown into disarray Friday morning after The Toronto Star reported that Trump had told reporters in an off-the-record discussion that he didn’t plan to compromise with Canada at all on NAFTA.”
“Off the record, Canada’s working their ass off. And every time we have a problem with a point, I just put up a picture of a Chevrolet Impala,” Trump said, according to The Star. The Chevrolet Impala is produced at a General Motors plant in Canada.”
If the Impala is assembled in Canada with parts from the U.S., a tariff that increased the price of Impalas from Canadian assembly lines and resulted in fewer of these cars being sold, could harm auto workers in both countries until assembly was relocated to a U.S., unless GM absorbed the tariff.
According to the linked source, the current Impala is produced across factories in Detroit, Michigan and Oshawa, Ontario, Canada. I don’t know whether this means Impalas are rolling off assembly lines in both factories or just the Canadian plant. Presuming labor costs are lower in Canada ( at least in part because GM gets a break on health insurance), relocation of all Impala assembly would raise production costs and the price of the car in both U.S. and foreign markets.
The issue over where the Impala is assembled will be moot if GM discontinues the model. Sales of sedans like the Impala have declined as consumer preference has shifted to SUV’s. I’m not sure but there may be a 25% tariff on SUV’s imported into the U.S., which is the same as the tariff on pickup trucks.
Of course just because Trump said he won’t compromise with Canada
on the trade deal he wants doesn’t necessarily mean he won’t compromise.
And we enter day nine (9) of the morning coverage of Trump’s various inappropriate or inadequate responses to Senator McCain’s death. The Trump administration still shows no sign of funding development of a time machine to go back and extend the period of time the White House flag was kept at half mast. A senior unnamed Justice Department official has confirmed to us that Mueller will pivot to focus on this infraction next.
Notice how the media happily reported off the record comments from Trump which did nothing but cause conflict and lessen the chances of a deal, and exactly zero MSM outlets seemed to care about this failure of journalistic integrity.
.
They are in a finger pointing exercise about who “leaked” off the record comments. This is a distraction, any media outlet should not be publishing off the record comments even if they were leaked.
“As the Toronto Star explains, Bloomberg made the agreement to keep Trump’s remarks off the record, but the Star, which “obtained the quotes from a source†isn’t bound to that agreement.”
.
What a bunch of rationalizing BS. Don’t like “enemy of the people” propaganda? Don’t throw gas on that fire. This is where the framing bias comes into play, there won’t be a massive group think and group shaming on violating journalistic standards and a search for and career death for the violator. Ho hum.
.
The media deserves the disrespect they get. They have no honor if they can’t summon the courage to criticize their own.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170255)
“As the Toronto Star explains, Bloomberg made the agreement to keep Trump’s remarks off the record, but the Star, which “obtained the quotes from a source†isn’t bound to that agreement.â€
“The media deserves the disrespect they get. They have no honor if they can’t summon the courage to criticize their own.”
________
Lot’s of news services picked up the Toronto Star’s exposure of Trump’s “off the record” remark that he wasn’t going to budge
on his demand to Canada on trade. Even Trumps’s friend Fox
News reported it.
Any public figure who makes an “off the record” remark to a news
organization should know there’s a risk it will be revealed, and if
it does, the remark may seem more sincere and attract more attention than the same remark made on record. That could be why Trump did it.
Trump’s remark about his position being firm gives him the opportunity to make Canada’s leadership look like it accomplished something. All he has to do is yield a little to Canada.
Off topic rant – my kid’s teacher just posted an assignment online due tomorrow (irritation #1 – it would have been nice to have been granted the flexibility to have done this over the weekend). It’s a quizizz game/assignment, but the link doesn’t actually get to the specific game/quiz, just to the quizizz site. In Spanish. [No, the class is not related to foreign language in any way that I’m aware of, it’s an English class] (irritation #2, for goodness sake take a minute out and be sure the student has all the information required to do the assignment!). Messaging the teacher has thus far been fruitless; apparently she is off enjoying her Labor Day vacation. (irritation #… Gaarrrgghhhh!!)
mark,
Agreed on the time table. In fact I’d go further. I think teachers should not be allowed to post assignments after school is no longer in session unless they are due at no earlier than 24 hours before school is back in session.
That would mean: if they posted Sunday, it could be due Wed. Morning at whatever time school begins. No earlier.
I’d actually be tempted to talk to the principal about this.
Consider kids whose parents are divorced and who might only see the non-custodial parent every other weekend. They shouldn’t be required to be on the watch out for homework.
Honestly, teachers would have a right to be irate if their supervisor set them projects on Sunday night before labor date. Likely, if they have a union, they could talk to their union rep who would talk to the supervisor telling him that’s not allowed per contract rules. (Obviously, some bosses can be unreasonable, and one might have no recourse. But that’s no excuse for teachers having a “right” to be unreasonable. In fact, the teacher being unreasonable teaches the kids very bad life lessons which are both (a) people in power should be allowed to treat you disrespectfully or (b) you should permit others to treat you as a door mat.
Gotta say, “gamification” of assignments doesn’t, in my opinion, necessarily turn the assignment into a fun game. It’s sort of a teaching idea that’s out there. But…. dunno…. I tend to crigne when I hear it. But maybe kids like it.
Yep. A useful thing to report should you escalate this to the principal. If she thinks she deserves a holiday not responding to student queries about the assignment (which she does) she should not send out assignments over the holiday!
Thanks Lucia.
I agree with you on the quizizz thing in general. My other kid had what I considered to be a pretty decent assignment where he had to setup a quizizz thing to help him practice some programming vocabulary. I thought the idea was fairly good because it caused him to spend way more time on the vocabulary than he otherwise would have just in setting up the quiz, and then it caused him to be happy to play the quiz for an interval of time afterwards, since he’d written the thing in the first place.
But in general, yeah. Not so much.
So, maybe my Alabama is showing, but I’m not with Trump on this:
Sessions ought not to be making decisions on the basis of whether or not his decisions affect ‘easy wins’ for the GOP. Sessions was correct to have recused himself as well, in my view. If Trump wants an AG to protect him (and the GOP) in a partisan way, he ought to fire Sessions and hire somebody else.
Mark Bofill,
“If Trump wants an AG to protect him (and the GOP) in a partisan way, he ought to fire Sessions and hire somebody else.”
.
Sure, he should have found somebody else the day after Sessions recused himself. Recent history is littered with Attorney Generals who worked 24/7 to make sure the president who appointed them was protected from partisan attacks…. Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch are both typical of this kind of hyper-partisan AG, and never pursued any of the plainly criminal activities that happened under Obama, including Clinton’s unlawful handling of classified emails.
.
I’m sure Sessions is a good and principled man, but he is clearly not providing the Trump with the kind of political protection other AGs have provided their presidents. He should have long ago resigned.
Steve,
You’re right of course. It’s just I’d hoped that the ‘drain the swamp’ slogan was more than just rhetoric. I ought to be thankful for what I can have – decent economic growth, a tax cut, and conservative judge appointments.
[Edit: Wow, would you look at that. Coverage of John McCain’s funeral continues. Running clips of Megan McCain bashing Trump under the headline ‘Who will replace McCain’. I don’t know, I hope maybe somebody who votes with Republicans on major issues this time. I still haven’t forgiven McCain for spiking the wheel on repealing Obamacare.]
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170243): “However, if Trump tries to unilaterally tear up NAFTA without Congressional approval if (when) negotiations with Canada fail or they succeed but the revised treaty fails to be approved by the Senate, that would be a high crime, IMO. A treaty that has been approved by the Senate is the supreme law of the land according to Article VI clause 2 of the US Constitution.”
NAFTA is not a treaty, it is an agreement. It was enacted by simple majorities in both houses of Congress, not by a 2/3 majority in the Senate.
NAFTA specifically allows each country to withdraw. The only issue is the procedure within the U.S. to implement that. The act of Congress implementing NAFTA says nothing about withdrawal. But the enactment was done under the rules (fast track, for instance) of the 1974 Trade Act which does allow the President to withdraw from trade agreements. So one could argue either way, but it looks to me like Trump has the authority to tear up NAFTA. Even if he doesn’t have the authority or does not want to use it (which we know is so), the threat is real.
SteveF (Comment #170262): “I’m sure Sessions is a good and principled man, but he is clearly not providing the Trump with the kind of political protection other AGs have provided their presidents. He should have long ago resigned.”
——–
Trump is better off with Sessions as AG than with Sessions removed. We know that because Sessions is still AG. It might be that Trump would have been better off if he appointed someone else; we will likely never know.
The continuation of Sessions as AG is a powerful rebuke to those who claim that Trump is a would be autocrat. Trump keeps attacking Sessions publicly in order to hammer that point home. Of course, that is lost on members of the “resistance” who exist in a bubble, isolated from the real world. But it is not lost on much of the general public.
For all we know, in private Trump is telling Sessions: “Keep up the good work”.
It is better for Obamacare to die under its own weight than being killed by Republicans. This has removed a major talking point for the elections. It was effectively killed with death by a thousand cuts. The downside is without legislative finality then all this can be reversed by the next President.
I was buying some male undergarments recently and a question struck me: What happens to underwear bought online that is returned? I really don’t think I want to know the answer to this question if it isn’t “It is incinerated”. Maybe I have XenoUnderGarmetPhobia.
:> some things just shouldn’t be returnable.
Mike M.,
I was wrong, NAFTA is not a treaty. It is, however, a law, the Implementation Act. There is, AFAIK, no provision in that law for withdrawal.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/trump-nafta-withdrawal-order/524463/
As I said above, I still believe a federal court injunction would inevitably follow an executive order of withdrawal from NAFTA. However bad NAFTA may be, we are now in a Nash Equilibrium with Mexico and Canada. A disruption of that equilibrium would be very painful in the short term with possibly no long term benefits.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170269): “I was wrong, NAFTA is not a treaty. It is, however, a law, the Implementation Act. There is, AFAIK, no provision in that law for withdrawal.”
———
That is doubtful. Read the rest of the Atlantic article, allowing for the fact that it might not be exactly fair.
.
In 1974, Congress passed the Trade Act, setting up ground rules for trade agreements. That law provided that the President can withdraw from trade agreements. NAFTA was negotiated and approved under the provisions of the Trade Act. Since the NAFTA implementation bill says nothing about withdrawal (other than the provision in the agreement itself), the more general law should apply.
.
No doubt, in the extremely unlikely event that Trump might withdraw, someone would take it to court. They could probably find a circuit court judge to grant an injunction, because Trump. Then we would have to wait for an appeals court or SCOTUS to find in favor of Trump.
DeWitt wrote “A disruption of that equilibrium would be very painful in the short term with possibly no long term benefits.”
.
Which would be on the minds of the others involved also. Like a trade version of a nuclear deterrent. Personally, I think it’s a welcome change to the West’s “normal” way of doing things which is increasingly “I’ll scratch your back, then I’ll give you a mani/pedi because that’s what an amazing person I am! I’m so virtuous and magnanimous! Like me!” aka selling out their countrymen to people who don’t give a shit, or worse.
Tom Scharf,
I think that with legislation passed by a bare minimum number of votes, and with huge and unpopular public impact (like Obamacare), repeal with a bare minimum number of votes is perfectly reasonable. The fact the John McCain used his vote to scuttle full repeal, even after originally voting against Obamacare, is a smudge on his public record which will be long remembered. Yes he quite justifiably hated Trump. No, his vote, mean clearly to punish Trump, was not justified nor even ethical. He should have been ashamed of himself.
Mike M,
Trump can’t at this point fire Sessions; the political fallout would be “huge”. What I suggest is that Sessions should have long ago resigned (February or March 2017), so that the Trump administration would not be subjected to blatantly political “investigations” by career swamp dwellers with no comparably political supervision.
Chuck Todd: “I’m not advocating for a more activist press in the political sense, but for a more aggressive one. That means having a lower tolerance for talking points, and a greater willingness to speak plain truths.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/its-time-for-the-press-to-stop-complainingand-to-start-fighting-back/569224/
.
Strange that this is now an emergency, and a lower tolerance for talking points wasn’t contemplated 8 years ago. This article is basically a tiring “it’s all Fox New’s fault” rant. How would one be able to tell that the media is “more aggressive” than it already is today? Unified broadsides aren’t enough?
.
This is Trump winning, really, it is. His adversary has decided to go just as low as he does while wrapping themselves in false virtue. This fools exactly nobody it is intended to target. This mentality leads to activists overstating “facts” with no pushback because somebody thinks it is a war. The media has entered bunker mentality and gone uber-tribal just like climate science did.
.
People will trust the media more if it gets nastier and more one sided against Trump? They already call him a liar, racist, etc with regularity. We are transitioning to tabloid journalism. Good luck with that plan.
DaveJR,
If Trump throws out NAFTA, you can kiss Republican control of the Congress goodby. They will lose the House and the Senate. There are too many competitive Republican seats in districts that will be hurt by tariffs. And that’s not to mention that a substantial majority of Americans think trade is good for the country.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/congress-dont-let-trump-usurp-your-power-over-trade-1536010601
Speaking of that, I fail to see the difference between lower cost goods from trade versus automation. Both cost jobs in the industry affected, but both result in lower costs to the consumer and may produce other jobs elsewhere.
The Senate seat in TN, for example, is not a guaranteed Republican win by any means. The Democrats have a very good candidate in Bredesen, even though he is being at best disingenuous about not being Schumer’s lapdog if elected.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170275): “I fail to see the difference between lower cost goods from trade versus automation. Both cost jobs in the industry affected, but both result in lower costs to the consumer and may produce other jobs elsewhere.”
.
There is a big difference. Automation always increases overall productivity, trade increases productivity ONLY if the displaced workers find more productive jobs, i.e. better jobs, elsewhere. That has obviously not been happening.
Lower costs goods may an advantage to some, but it is not an advantage to the economy as a whole.
Mike M.,
Automation increases the productivity of capital, not labor; unless you’re a Marxist and believe that labor is everything. The benefits of increased capital productivity has gone almost entirely to upper management and owners, not workers, since the 1970’s. In real terms, worker’s income has been flat for decades in spite of a large increase in productivity. There has been no benefit for the average worker from that increased productivity.
As I have pointed out before, GDP/capita is not a good measure of standard of living regardless of what some economists would say. The correlation between GDP/capita and median PPP adjusted income is poor.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170278): “Automation increases the productivity of capital, not labor; unless you’re a Marxist and believe that labor is everything. The benefits of increased capital productivity has gone almost entirely to upper management and owners, not workers, since the 1970’s.”
.
I said that it increases overall productivity; I never said that it was equally distributed. But bad trade deals lower overall productivity and probably have an even bigger disproportionate impact.
.
DeWitt Payne: “In real terms, worker’s income has been flat for decades in spite of a large increase in productivity. There has been no benefit for the average worker from that increased productivity.”
That is often claimed, but probably not true. See, for example:
https://www.arcamax.com/politics/mod/robertjsamuelson/s-2116212
The is also the question of the official inflation rate being arguably too high and including taxes and government benefits. But even if there has been no benefit to the average worker, that is due to the benefits of increased productivity being wiped out by the damage done by idiotic, so-called “free trade” deals.
Don’t confuse support for trade with people also assuming all trade deals are good deals, or that support for trade is also support for unrestricted globalism. I doubt NAFTA will change the balance of the house or senate, it might matter at the margins.
.
Trade hurting or helping is pretty obscure and difficult to prove either way in the whole. Lower prices at WalMart vs factories being moved to Mexico and China are read entirely differently.
.
This is an absolutist position on trade that is not warranted by the facts on the ground. If the right runs on uber-globalism they will also be lose.
The U.S. as a whole exported 282.3 billion dollars in goods to Canada in 2017 and imported 299.3 billion dollars worth, a trade
deficit of 17 billion dollars or 6% of the import amount.
ttps://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c1220.html
This total, however, is not a representative measure of trade balances for individual States, some having large deficits, even larger than the total, and others having surpluses.
I could not find State data for 2017 but it was available for 2016
from https://globaledge.msu.edu/states/michigan/tradestats
In 2016, some States having large trade deficits with Canada (in billions of dollar) were Michigan 24.8, California 11.6, Illinois 9.7, Washington 5.3, New York 5.1, Massachusetts 4.2, and Minnesota 3.5.
Some States with large Canadian trade surpluses were Ohio 7.6, Texas 4.6, Indiana 4.2, North Carolina 3.2, Georgia 2.8, Wisconsin 2.5, and Missouri 2.2.
Because the source did not rank the States by balance of trade with Canada (each State is on a separate page), I may have overlooked some States that should have been on the lists given above.
Does anyone know where I can find a list of all States ranked by the amount of their trade balance with Canada? Doing it from the above source is possible, but is tedious and time consuming.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170278)
September 4th, 2018 at 5:16 pm
Mike M.,
Automation increases the productivity of capital, not labor; unless you’re a Marxist and believe that labor is everything.
______
I understand what you are saying, but consider how productivity is
measured.
Overview of BLS Productivity Statistics
“Productivity and related cost measures are designed for use in economic analysis and public and private policy planning. The data are used to forecast and analyze changes in prices, wages, and technology. There are two primary types of productivity statistics:
Labor productivity measures output per hour of labor.
Multifactor productivity measures output per unit of combined inputs, which consist of labor and capital, and, in some cases, intermediate inputs such as fuel.”
https://www.bls.gov/bls/productivity.htm
On AUG 27 when Trump announced a trade agreement had been
reached with Mexico you could exchange $100 dollars for 1,880
pesos. Today, SEP 4, you can exchange $100 dollars for 1,938 pesos,
meaning Mexican products declined a little in price in 8 days. This
probably isn’t the beginning of a long trend (Trump better hope not.)
The weaker peso may just be due to uncertainty over the agreement.
DeWitt,
“…even though he is being at best disingenuous about not being Schumer’s lapdog if elected.”
.
Lapdog may be a little harsh, since he almost certainly believes most of the same nonsense Schumer does. But he will vote 100% of the time to defeat any significant Republican backed legislation, will always support increasing income taxes and spending, and will vote consistently against Trump’s judicial nominees, unless Trump is forced to nominate ‘moderates’ to gain confirmation (that is, liberal judges who call themselves conservatives and discover endless new ‘understandings’ of the Constitution which facilitate ‘social progress’). He is a sure vote to remove Trump from office if Democrats gain control in the House and initiate impeachment (both seem to me likely). The guy is a ‘liberal’ Democrat, and those are the things liberal Democrats want to do. I hope the good people of Tennessee don’t fall for his work-across-the-isle rubbish, because he won’t.
.
“GDP/capita is not a good measure of standard of living regardless of what some economists would say. The correlation between GDP/capita and median PPP adjusted income is poor.”
.
Sure, median PPP adjusted income is a better indication of standard of living than GDP/capita. Which is why a state like California has a lower standard of living than the state’s mean income indicates.
The left is being pretty good at keeping impeachment talk tamped down (except Maxine Waters). This seems to be a national strategy, or alternately it is the media not making it an issue so their favored people win. If the left wins the house they will open approx. 1 zillion investigations into the Trump administration. Whatever Mueller comes up with it will be enough for a large number of Democrats to support impeachment. So the likelihood of ceremonial impeachment(s) with zero hope of removal from office by the Senate is high. Just like removing the filibuster, performative impeachments will set another worrisome precedent for US politics.
Tom,
“1 zillion investigations into the Trump administration.”
.
Which is a method by which to keep the administration busy and minimize what they can accomplish.
.
There is a fundamental disagreement in the country about the role and scope of government, but even more, a fundamental disagreement about the rule of law under the Constitution. The willingness of those on the left to ignore laws and undermine the plain words of the Constitution is a constant since at least the Roosevelt administration. What has changed of late is the number of people who accept lawlessness in pursuit of ‘social progress’. Support for ‘sanctuary cities’, abolishing ICE, open borders, subversion of federal tax laws (eg. New York’s attempted treatment of high state income taxes as ‘charitable contributions’) is unprecedented in my lifetime, and probable since the Civil War. I am concerned that there is no simple solution, and things will get worse before better. I am even more concerned that the USA will, via willful subversion of the Constitution by the left, cease to be a constitutional republic and become instead a tyranny of the majority.
SteveF (Comment #170286): “I am concerned that there is no simple solution, and things will get worse before better.”
There is a simple solution, although it is far from easy. It is called “federalism”. I hear that it worked well for a century and a half. It would allow deep blue states to do their thing, deep red states could do their thing, and the rest could pick something in between. It would be very hard to turn back the clock, but worth trying if it is the only alternative to civil war.
Mike M,
Federalism works perfectly well in some respects, of course (eg abortion laws, most criminal statutes), but there are two big problems that pure federalism does not address:
.
1) The open borders/sanctuary city movement means that immigration laws become unenforceable if there is free movement of people between states. The untold millions that would pour into California alone would present a huge problem for the rest of the country. Environmental laws? Same issues. Ditto global warming, illegal drugs, human trafficking, etc. Federalism has to be tempered with some uniform nation-wide and consistently enforced policies, or the result is havoc.
.
2) Progressives are ‘progressives’ specifically because they desire to impose on everyone everywhere public policies that are consistent with their personal values, choices, and priorities. It is not enough that New York and California have lenient abortion laws… they want NO state to have anything except lenient abortion laws. Same with wild eyed green policies, minimum wage laws, and many, many more.
.
I am sure the voters in Missouri and Alabama would be happy to give voters in California and New York lots of leeway in virtually all local laws… California and New York voters are unlikely to return the favor. That is the most fundamental characteristic of ‘progressives’: they want to control everyone and everything, not just themselves. It is the unbridled, obnoxious arrogance that is so offensive (“basket of deplorables”, “cling to their guns and religion”, “You didn’t make that!”, “eliminate the electoral college”, “apportion senators based on population”, “immigration laws are racist”, etc). The same unbridled arrogance makes reasoned compromise impossible. After all, if you know you are absolutely right and your opponent is absolutely wrong, why would you ever agree to compromise? Progressives don’t compromise.
Dewitt, Trump is acting under Sec 2202 of NAFTA. Any modification can be implemented without a vote of Congress, as long as there is 90 days notice. This notification has happened with regards to the Mexico deal.
A section 2205 withdrawal would then be pursued with Canada if they don’t agree to terms followed by a separate trade deal.
It is questionable if a modification can be done that eliminates one of the countries.
Note, these deadlines are only to maintain consistency with Trade Promotion Authority rules of Congress. Trump can submit an agreement at any time, but they would then be subject to amendment and filibuster.
SteveF (Comment #170288): “Federalism works perfectly well in some respects, of course (eg abortion laws, most criminal statutes), but there are two big problems that pure federalism does not address”
That is true. Things like foreign policy, defense, trade, and immigration must be at the national level. That has been recognized at least since 1787. But there is not that much disagreement on those things, other than activists on the left whipping people up. Most of the really contentious stuff could be left largely to the states. That would not eliminate conflict at the federal level, but it should greatly reduce such conflict.
.
SteveF “2) Progressives are ‘progressives’ specifically because they desire to impose on everyone everywhere public policies that are consistent with their personal values, choices, and priorities.”
There is a very strong element of that among the activists on the left. Much less so, I think, among the general population. So if we get to the point where the public realizes that the activists’ way leads to civil war and the activists realize that they are not going to get their way except at the state level, then the time could be right for a restoration of federalism.
Gross generalizations, actual mileage may vary with circumstance, but after consideration I think I basically agree with this.
.
I think this tendency might come from valuing equity [I should have said equality; sloppy] more highly than other things conservatives give more weight to. ‘If it’s a right for people in New York, it must be the same right for everybody everywhere’ sort of thing, because equality.
.
[Edit: I can confirm that personally I could not possibly care less what sort of zany laws California and New York pass locally. So long as the impacts are local (see also, illegal immigration as mentioned above). I don’t know that I typify the Southern mindset though; I’m not a religious person, for example. Dunno]
mark bofill,
Yes it is a generalization. Probably also an accurate one. Progressives are generally unhappy with the way things are, and so are actively looking to ‘fundamentally change how people live their lives.’ (You might even have heard climate change activists use that expression, which is no coincidence.) So they are constantly unhappy, humorless, and usually a real PITA. Since they are much less interested in conserving the current system of laws (and constitutional restrictions), they do things like ignore laws (Obama, sanctuary cities), and try to subvert the Constitution itself via orwellian interpretations of the plain words of the Constitution (progressive icons like Ruth Ginsburg). When you do not agree with what the Constitution actually says, and recognize that amending it is very difficult, the only option for ‘progress’ is through bizarre interpretations.
.
Contrast that with conservatives, who have a natural tendency to want to conserve the current culture. No burning desire for change.
mark bofill (Comment #170292)
September 5th, 2018 at 4:09 pm
Progressives are ‘progressives’ specifically because they desire to impose on everyone everywhere public policies that are consistent with their personal values, choices, and priorities.
Gross generalizations, actual mileage may vary with circumstance, but after consideration I think I basically agree with this.
_______
Yes, it’s true. Progressives want new public policies that are consistent with their personal values, choices, and priorities.
In contrast, conservatives want to keep old public polices
because those policies are consistent with their personal values, choices, and priorities.
I believe the difference may have to do with age. Progressives
are younger than conservatives. Young people like to try new
things and aren’t afraid of change. Older people fear change,
which is understandable because aging tends to bring bad changes
rather than good changes. Of course there are exceptions to this
generalization.
OK_Max,
That’s because they are, by and large, ignorant of history. That’s getting worse rather than better given academia’s current fascinations. Thus they don’t understand that there may be good reasons for why things are the way they are. They also tend to ignore the possibility of unintended consequences. Those tend to be greater the greater and more rapid the change. In fact, it’s possible to accomplish the exact opposite of what you intend, or claim to intend. Venezuela now, the Soviet Union and the French Revolution are examples of this.
Thanks all.
I understood that progressives are more interested in change and conservatives essentially want stuff to remain the same. What wasn’t as obvious to me was why progressives don’t seem to be satisfied with changes just to their localities (their states) and the notion that possibly conservatives are so satisfied. This is what I was trying to offer a speculative explanation about – that possibly a stronger emphasis on equality by liberals might explain this.
But as always, the commentary is interesting, thanks!
DeWitt,
“That’s because they are, by and large, ignorant of history. That’s getting worse rather than better given academia’s current fascinations.”
.
A huge problem which is indeed getting worse. I have sometimes asked my children’s friends (when they were late teens/college age) about the structure and function of the Constitution and Federal government. ‘Blissfully unaware’ is the most generous description of their knowledge level. History may not repeat itself, but those who know nothing of it are doomed to make stupid political choices. This seems a feature of current educational practice, not a bug.
OK Max,
“I believe the difference may have to do with age.”
.
If so, I have been old since my early 20’s.
.
I actually think it has more to do with how you think about the roles of the individual and government in a civil society. I read Orwell’s 1984 in my late teens, and it definitely influenced my thinking. With accumulated experience (and age), people’s thinking usually does evolve somewhat toward conservative views. I don’t find that surprising. What I find surprising is that Orwell is not required reading in high school…. nor it seems is the Constitution.
OK_Max (Comment #170294): “Progressives want new public policies … conservatives want to keep old public polices”
I don’t think that is quite fair. One could just as well say that progressive refuse to recognize the value of the things we have while conservatives do recognize the value of the things that have made the human condition so much better than they used to be. Either is at best a half truth.
.
OK_Max (Comment #170294): “I believe the difference may have to do with age. Progressives are younger than conservatives. Young people like to try new things and aren’t afraid of change. Older people fear change”
Again not fair. Younger people are often reckless while older people have learned from experience that it is much easier to break things than fix things, especially when those things are really complicated and poorly understood.
.
Also, as SteveF says the difference between left and right is not just attitudes toward change, but attitudes towards liberty and personal responsibility.
SteveF (Comment #170298)
September 5th, 2018 at 8:17 pm
OK Max,
“I believe the difference may have to do with age.â€
If so, I have been old since my early 20’s.
_________
I doubt that.
Anyway, the young wanting change is not a bad thing, nor is the aged resisting change. It’s just human nature.
Young people are the drivers of some cultural changes, acceptance
of same-sex marriage a recent example. I think most cultural changes, however, result from technological developments and economic necessity. The birth control pill and women working
outside the home come to mind.
Like it or not, cultures change over time, except for small pockets of resistance, such as the Amish who eschew technology and renegade Mormons who practice polygamy.
SteveF (Comment #170298)
September 5th, 2018 at 8:17 pm
OK Max,
“I believe the difference may have to do with age.â€
If so, I have been old since my early 20’s.
_________
I doubt that.
Anyway, the young wanting change is not a bad thing, nor is the aged resisting change. It’s just human nature.
Young people are the drivers of some cultural changes, acceptance
of same-sex marriage a recent example. I think most cultural changes, however, result from technological developments and economic necessity. The birth control pill and women working
outside the home come to mind.
Like it or not, cultures change over time, except for small pockets of resistance, such as the Amish who eschew technology and renegade Mormons who practice polygamy.
Re your comment “I actually think it has more to do with how you think about the roles of the individual and government in a civil society.”
I’m not sure how that thinking changes with age. With so many
depending on Social Security and Medicare, however, it seems
unlikely older people would believe the government should
not have those programs. I could see them believing government
shouldn’t be spending on other things at the expense of those
programs.
I apologize for the duplication in my previous post. I tried to edit out, but it didn’t work. Then tried to delete the entire post, but that
didn’t work either.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170295)
September 5th, 2018 at 7:42 pm
OK_Max,
Young people like to try new
things and aren’t afraid of change.
That’s because they are, by and large, ignorant of history. That’s getting worse rather than better given academia’s current fascinations. Thus they don’t understand that there may be good reasons for why things are the way they are.
_______
If you are talking about economic systems, I tend to agree, but if
you mean cultural issues, I do not agree.
Mike M. (Comment #170299)
Mike M, you said my comments weren’t quite fair. Maybe so.
I was just trying to give my view of why old people and young
people think differently about change. I didn’t mean it as a
criticism of either group, and I apologize if my comments
seemed that way. That’s not to say each is above any criticism,
but my comments were not meant to judgemental.
OK Max,
The issue for me is not change versus no change, it is lawful (and constitutional) change versus lawless (and unconstitutional) change. Mr. Obama simply ignored the law when it conflicted with the change he desired. I believe that is destructive of the fabric of self government. If the change you desire requires a change in law, then change the law. If you don’t have the votes in Congress, then work to elect people who will vote for the change you want. If you don’t succeed, tough luck. I think history will not be kind to his lawlessness. Obama simply ignored laws he disagreed with; I think history will not be kind to his lawlessness. If you don’t like the Constitution, then try to get it amended…. don’t subvert it via bizarre “understandings” by activist judges. If you don’t succeed, tough luck. There are lots of things I would very much like to change, but I accept those changes must take place legally and constitutionally. Far too many on the left reject the legitimacy of the Constitution and current law, and even the legitimacy of the self governing nation state, and so subvert rather than attempt legal change. That is the biggest difference between progressives and conservatives.
What do you guys make of the senior anonymous official who is sabotaging Trump?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html
1) Trump calls it treason. I certainly understand him being pissed off, but I don’t see that.
2) Saying it’s not the ‘deep state’ but instead the ‘steady state’ is a semantic joke. Bureaucrats foiling the efforts of the duly elected President sounds a heck of a lot like the deep state to me.
mark bofill (Comment #170305): “What do you guys make of the senior anonymous official who is sabotaging Trump?”
I think that person’s opinion is worth exactly nothing. I say that in spite of not having bothered to find out just what that person’s opinion is. I’d have thought that it was not possible for me to write those two sentences in juxtaposition; the world is full of surprises.
Obviously, the guy should be fired and possibly prosecuted.
OK_Max (Comment #170300) “I think most cultural changes, however, result from technological developments and economic necessity. … Like it or not, cultures change over time”
.
Other than extreme stick-in-the-mud types (a small minority, I think), everyone understands that. The big issue for conservatives (at least my type of conservative) is how the changes occur. It ought to be evolutionary adaption to changing conditions, with small experimental steps that can be accepted or rejected depending on how they work. Societies can do that; governments can not. The most sclerotic governments in recent history have been communist governments.
.
I object to the top-down imposition of social change. History teaches us that does not work. The biggest experiments of that sort were the French and Russian revolutions. Both were catastrophic. On a smaller scale, such as Roe v Wade , it leads to ongoing conflict. I object also to the top-down prohibition of change. The issue is not change vs. not-change, it is top-down vs. organic evolution.
“Older people fear change”
.
I’d like to interview you at age 60 and see if you think this is an accurate statement. This might be a surprising revelation, but old people were young at some point, ha ha. The difference being that young people were never old. I think the best word to use here is actually “experienced”. Most age-challenged people were just as disrespectful of old people’s wisdom and experience when they were young, and you can put me on the top of that list.
.
I don’t think there is an over 50 person alive who looks back and says “I was every bit as smart as I thought I was when I was 25”.
.
There is nothing wrong with people challenging the status quo, and it should continue to be encouraged. That being said, one lesson to be learned is things are the way they are for good reasons … usually. Social and governing experiments didn’t begin in the year 2010 when some millennial managed to turn 20, there is actually a lot to be learned from examining the experience of the previous 5 billion inhabitants of earth. This is just ignored as inconvenient data (for example the failures of economic socialism). I know people ignore this because that is exactly what I did, because you know, I was way smarter than those old fools.
.
Some challenges to society are valid, and some aren’t. The trick is determining the difference. The technical revolution has reset the rule book. Imagine growing up without the Internet. I did. It might be worth pondering that old people … built the Internet when they were young. And guess who resisted those changes kicking and screaming? Old people’s old people.
.
Old people see it from both sides. The word fear is incorrect. There is definitely an element of being set in their ways and prioritizing less on changing the world and adapting to those changes. It’s not exciting, it’s unnecessary tiresome work.
.
Same sex marriage, meh. Challenges to the 1st amendment? Really bad idea, that’s there for very good reasons.
Ben Sasse has a piece in today’s WSJ on why the courts have become so politicized. His opinion is that it’s because Congress doesn’t want to do its job, passing laws, and has delegated a lot of its power to the administrative agencies. That leaves the courts as the main resource to reign in (or egg on) the bureaucrats. The reason for the delegation of authority is so the representatives don’t have to take personal responsibility for individual votes, making it easier to be re-elected. Re-election is the primary goal of most representatives.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/blame-congress-for-politicizing-the-court-1536189015
My form of libertarianism is: Hey government, go build some roads and then stay the (redacted) out of my life. I have been this way since I was 13 when the authorities in my house wanted to impose social order on me. It has nothing to do with age. I get emotionally triggered anytime a group of busybodies deems they know what is best for me … this is important … without my input or vote. Anti-collectivism is the strongest political instinct I have, and yet I can still understand the benefits of collective action. What I don’t particularly like is * social * collectivism. I can accept gay marriage as the choice of society and respect all individuals, but don’t construct social fictions that everyone must celebrate it.
DeWitt,
Yes, representatives and senators want mostly to continue being representatives and senators, the country be damned.
.
But I think part of the problem is that the side with fewer votes on any issue reverts to obstruction of the process, doing their best to avoid the changing of laws rather than accept rescission or compromise. This leads to absurd government: federal law prohibiting sale and use of marijuana everywhere is ignored by law enforcement agencies, while state laws permitting it are tacitly accepted by Federal law enforcement. Same with state laws on the books for sodomy, a Federal requirement to have health insurance with no means of enforcement, Federal refusal to enforce immigration laws, and more. Laws should be enforced or rescinded; Congress seems to completely lack the required courage (wisdom?) to do anything sensible.
Max,
.
The op-ed isn’t of general interest, so I’ll drop that subject after this. I would like to remark to you in particular though that I view this as confirmation that indeed there are public officials who break rules in order to resist Trump. I think this point originally arose between us in discussion with regards to whether or not special counsel would break rules in order to try to make a case against Trump. If I recall you expressed skepticism or incredulity regarding this notion.
To be sure, the op-ed is pretty light on details:
Nobody can know what this actually means in terms of day to day practices, it’s ambiguous. But I can make a case that this internal Resistance fellow is behaving dishonestly at the least. He seems to me to be suffering from the noble cause corruption I’d mentioned earlier.
If somebody had suggested to me that Trump’s senior officials were dishonestly ‘working diligently to frustrate’ his agenda, I’d have considered that a conspiracy theory and demanded evidence. But lo and behold! The New York Times of all things hands it to me.
It’s food for thought.
[Edit: Obviously, special counsel isn’t part of Trump’s administration. Not suggesting it is. The point remains – at least some people in government are going out of their way to resist Trump, and at least some are doing so in a dishonest way.]
Last thing – I doubt Steven Mosher has much interest in the political discussions here, but should he chance by, a question: Any insights on who may have written the op-ed?
The op-ed is pointless noise. It’s just red meat for the resistance. That there are people in the WH who don’t like Trump has been clear since all the leaks. The fact that everyone isn’t on board for all of Trump initiatives or that they try to temper his worst excesses is also not especially illuminating and probably a good thing. Anonymous people resist unknown things in unknown ways. Politics has become a drama about destroying the opposing side above all else.
NJ’s Booker openly says he will leak confidential emails on Kavanaugh yesterday. Today the NYT gets leaked emails. This after the left went into faux outrage over not getting all the emails.
.
Remember when the NYT refused to print any ClimateGate emails because they were “stolen”? Ha ha.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/us/politics/kavanaugh-leaked-documents.html
.
The NYT has become so nakedly partisan they might as well be the DNC at this point.
SteveF (Comment #170304)
“There are lots of things I would very much like to change, but I accept those changes must take place legally and constitutionally. Far too many on the left reject the legitimacy of the Constitution and current law, and even the legitimacy of the self governing nation state, and so subvert rather than attempt legal change. That is the biggest difference between progressives and conservatives.”
________
SteveF, if progressives are more likely than conservatives to break laws they don’t like, it could be because progressives are more likely to be young people. Youth tend to be rebellious.
I guess among conservatives too, the young would be more likely to break disliked laws than the old. Little Rock school integration
resistance back in 1950’s might be an example, but I’m not sure.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170308)
September 6th, 2018 at 8:13 am
“Older people fear changeâ€
.
“I’d like to interview you at age 60 and see if you think this is an accurate statement. This might be a surprising revelation, but old people were young at some point, ha ha. The difference being that young people were never old.”
__
Old people have been young, but young people have not been old.
Thanks, Tom, I like that one.
____________________________
“Old people see it from both sides. The word fear is incorrect. There is definitely an element of being set in their ways and prioritizing less on changing the world and adapting to those changes.”
Tom, I believe it is fear, at least in part. As people age, they experience more things to fear and become more cautious.
That’s good unless the fear becomes exaggerated and keeps
them from doing things that involve little risk, things that
would make their lives fuller. I’m talking about this because
I have witnessed it.
mark bofill (Comment #170312)
September 6th, 2018 at 9:13 am
Max,
.
“The op-ed isn’t of general interest, so I’ll drop that subject after this. I would like to remark to you in particular though that I view this as confirmation that indeed there are public officials who break rules in order to resist Trump. I think this point originally arose between us in discussion with regards to whether or not special counsel would break rules in order to try to make a case against Trump. If I recall you expressed skepticism or incredulity regarding this notion.”
______
mark, I see your point, although I’m not sure breaking rules or trust
by White House staff is the same as prosecutors breaking the law.
The thought some of Trump’s staff are trying to keep him from hurting the country is shocking, shocking because they think
they need to.
Pardon me Max, because I dislike it when we run up against blunt disagreement, but it’s not shocking at all. People rationalize, it’s what humans are all about. I sincerely doubt ‘they need to’ do anything besides their honest best at doing their jobs, but I’m completely unsurprised that they think they need to do something else. You know, noble cause corruption is a thing. I didn’t just make it up one day for my own entertainment.
Whatever.
Jobless claims at 49 year low. 4.2 growth in the economy last quarter. Stock market near record high. Consumer confidence at 18 year internet bubble high. This in spite of a hyper negative end of times media. It’s fair to say that media/politics and the economy are highly uncorrelated. It’s hard to see the economy getting much better at this point.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/jobless-claims-fall-49-year-low-us/
.
Increases in consumer confidence may be offsetting any negative effects of the trade war.
Tom Scharf,
If Trump walked across the Potomac tomorrow morning, in full view of assembled reporters, the headline would be “Trump found unable to swim!”.
.
The disconnect between the MSM and reality is real and persistent. They are ‘elite’, wealthy, and extremely progressive. They will criticize Trump without pause no matter what he does, and no matter how large their 401k’s grow due to Trump’s policies. Trump would be well served by limiting press briefings to two or three per week, with a pool of a couple dozen reporters, chosen randomly from the White House press corps, and with no TV cameras allowed. They are clowns who need a circus to perform in. Better to deny them that circus.
OK Max,
” if progressives are more likely than conservatives to break laws they don’t like, it could be because progressives are more likely to be young people.”
.
More likely progressives hold the law in low regard. Oh say, a youngster like Barack Obama.
Oh, this, just to tidy up loose ends:
I don’t think prosecutors break the law when they use aggressive, hard bargaining tactics in plea bargaining. I thought that was clear from reviewing plea bargaining earlier. I don’t think Mueller’s team is breaking the law in aggressively going after people with relatively petty infractions (by the standards of such things in Washington) and offering them deals to try to get information on Trump. In fact, I don’t think Weissmann breaks the law when he gets somebody to plead to something that’s not a crime. My impression was that its your position that that would somehow be breaking the law, but my understanding is that this is just the way the system works.
But – if you believe these guys with Mueller violated some rule or some law, well. Alright. I give you Trump’s anonymous senior admin member as evidence that people break rules when they think they are serving some higher good.
The political shift to nativism vs globalism in the UK/US.
https://promarket.org/democracy-fails-reduce-inequality-blame-brahmin-left/
.
“To do so, Piketty tracks electoral trends across three countries—the US, Britain, and France—from 1948 to 2017. Despite their vastly different electoral systems and political histories, he finds, a similar trend can be found in all three countries: left and center-left parties no longer represent the working- and lower-middle-class voters they were traditionally associated with.
Instead, both the left- and right-wing parties have come to represent two distinct elites whose interests diverge from the rest of the electorate: the intellectual elite (“Brahmin Leftâ€) and the business elite (“Merchant Rightâ€). Piketty calls this a “multiple-elite party systemâ€: the highly educated elite votes one way, and the high-income, high-wealth elite votes another.
With the major parties on both sides of the political spectrum becoming captured by elites, it’s no wonder so many voters feel unrepresented.”
I think it’s OK for prosecutors to threaten criminal prosecution to the underlings to climb the tree to the real target. What is not OK is to threaten to punish underlings differentially from what normal citizens would get. They need to be punished according to normal sentencing guidelines.
Tom wrote “left and center-left parties no longer represent the working- and lower-middle-class voters they were traditionally associated with.”
.
No shit. This ended with Tony Blair in the UK, when he came to power in 1997, reformed the Labour Party and turned it into “New Labour”. The real irony is that the new labour party was really the enemy of the working class in all but name, viewing them largely as racist, ignorant oafs etc and doubled down on policies that would affect them the most, while belittling their protests. The era of Blair saw the rise of political correctness and the beginning of the removal of institutionalized British culture to make way for “multiculturalism” aka “respect every culture but your own”.
mark bofill (Comment #170319)
September 6th, 2018 at 11:52 am
The thought some of Trump’s staff are trying to keep him from hurting the country is shocking, shocking because they think they need to.
“Pardon me Max, because I dislike it when we run up against blunt disagreement, but it’s not shocking at all. People rationalize, it’s what humans are all about. I sincerely doubt ‘they need to’ do anything besides their honest best at doing their jobs, but I’m completely unsurprised that they think they need to do something else. You know, noble cause corruption is a thing.”
_________
mark, I’m afraid I didn’t make myself clear about what shocked me.
I was shocked because I hadn’t seen it happen to a president before. Perhaps it has happened, but wasn’t revealed, or was revealed and I didn’t know.
I am not shocked that people will intervene when they believe it’s necessary or that intervention may require being less than truthful to the person who needs help. My wife and I know this from trying to help someone with dementia. We weren’t shocked that we had to in effect lie to the woman, trick her, to get her car keys away from her. But I would be shocked if Trump was so bad off he needed to be lied to or tricked for his own good and the good of the country.
Maybe it happened to Reagan and Nixon ?
Max,
Bless your heart honey. Get some rest.
Oh no! Mark has thrown down a “Bless your heart, honey”!!!!
(I’ve tried to explain the meaining of that to some people in the UK who are convinced American’s are unfailingly literal while they use euphamisms, irony and so on. )
Max_OK
I would be very surprised if the number bureaucrats and political appointees inside previous administration who try to manipulate the sitting President in various ways and replace his policies with their own “better” policies was zero. In fact, I’d suspect it’s rather common. It’s common in other places too- private industry, clubs, school systems and so on.
It’s uncommon for the people doing these things to (a) contact the press to tell the press and (b) have the press think it’s a story worth reporting. One of the reasons they don’t do (a) is it’s easier to achieve your goal if the person you are manipulating doesn’t really know. Another is that the press generally isn’t going to thing “Oh. I work for the government. Sometimes I behave passive aggressively to try to promote my policies rather than the policies of the people officially in charge.”
If you think that sort of behavior is rare, you’ll be mystified by this long running BBC show
Lucia,
It was kindly and charitably meant. I dont know how we got from what we were discussing to Alzheimer’s, but. Maybe Max had a long day or something. I’ll get back to the discussion when he feels more focused.
mark bofill (Comment #170323)
“I don’t think prosecutors break the law when they use aggressive, hard bargaining tactics in plea bargaining. I thought that was clear from reviewing plea bargaining earlier. I don’t think Mueller’s team is breaking the law in aggressively going after people with relatively petty infractions (by the standards of such things in Washington) and offering them deals to try to get information on Trump. In fact, I don’t think Weissmann breaks the law when he gets somebody to plead to something that’s not a crime.”
______
Mark, I believe it would be contemptuous of the court for the prosecutor and defendant to enter into a agreement whereby the defendant agreed to plead guilty to something the prosecution knows isn’t a crime. The same could be said for a guilty plea where both the prosecution and defendant know the defendant is not guilty. Prosecutors have enough power to do their jobs without resorting to such dishonesty.
OK_M: “I believe it would be contemptuous of the court for the prosecutor and defendant to enter into a agreement whereby the defendant agreed to plead guilty to something the prosecution knows isn’t a crime. The same could be said for a guilty plea where both the prosecution and defendant know the defendant is not guilty.”
….
I am not a criminal lawyer, but I agree with the thrust of your position. Wiki gives a good summary of civil liability in this type of situation:
…..
“Abuse of process is a cause of action in tort arising from one party making misusing or perversion of regularly issued court process (civil or criminal) not justified by the underlying legal action. It is a common law intentional tort. It is to be distinguished from malicious prosecution, another type of tort that involves misuse of the public right of access to the courts.
The elements of a valid cause of action for abuse of process in most common law jurisdictions are as follows: (1) the existence of an ulterior purpose or motive underlying the use of process, and (2) some act in the use of the legal process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings.[1] Abuse of process can be distinguished from malicious prosecution, in that abuse of process typically does not require proof of malice, lack of probable cause in procuring issuance of the process, or a termination favorable to the plaintiff, all of which are essential to a claim of malicious prosecution.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse_of_process
…..
I strongly suspect, but don’t know, that there are criminal analogs to abuse of process and malicious prosecution. In any event, the cooperation of the NY US Attorney and Cohen in probably agreeing to an unsubstantiated guilty plea to campaign violations is improper, highly unethical and probably a criminal act.
JD
JD Ohio,
“.. the cooperation of the NY US Attorney and Cohen in probably agreeing to an unsubstantiated guilty plea to campaign violations is improper, highly unethical and probably a criminal act.”
.
Sure, BUT TRUMP!!! After which the ends justify the means.
Alright. Done with the open house thing at my kid’s school. Let’s [dispose of] the junk:
You appear to be implying the article is about Trump suffering from dementia or Alzheimers. The anonymous author did not suggest this at all. So. I guess when and if you decide to quit beclowning yourself regarding this we might talk about it, till then the best I can offer is indeed ‘Oh, bless your heart.’
Regarding the other, I’m no lawyer of any sort, and I certainly respect JD’s opinions. Perhaps both of you are correct and I’m dead wrong with respect to the pleading to something that isn’t a crime. In which case, I repeat:
SteveF, from what I’ve seen, I think it is possible to walk across the Potomac, or at least run and jump across.
I’m sure Mosher’s trying. It looks like it was deliberately written to hint towards certain people. Mike Pence uses ‘lodestar’ a lot. ‘free markets, free peoples’ is probably another feint. NYT says they got it thru an intermediary. I wonder if Trump wrote it.
lucia (Comment #170330)
“I would be very surprised if the number bureaucrats and political appointees inside previous administration who try to manipulate the sitting President in various ways and replace his policies with their own “better†policies was zero. In fact, I’d suspect it’s rather common. It’s common in other places too- private industry, clubs, school systems and so on.”
“If you think that sort of behavior is rare, you’ll be mystified by this long running BBC show”
___________
lucia, thanks for the link to the Yes, Minister episode, a Brit sitcom
from the 1980’s. I like the Brit sitcoms from that era. I was disappointed it’s not available for streaming on Netflix, Amazon Prime, Britbox, or Acorn, but I see quite a few episodes available on Youtube.
Trump hires staff who can advise him, which of course means they influence him. I have never had a job that consisted primarily of advising a boss, so I can only imagine what it would be like. I guess
trying to advise a boss who is capricious or irrational would be
frustrating, even exasperating, and I might complain about it to
co-workers who I believed were experiencing the same problem.
The temptation to make unflattering comments about the boss
could be strong.
JD Ohio (Comment #170333)
JD, thank you for your comment. I’m glad we can partially agree.
OK_Max,
The temptation to make the unflattering comments about the boss to coworkers, spouses and all sorts of people is likely irresistable. People grouse about their bosses all the time and even do so when the bosses are more or less normal.
Actually talking to the press about the boss is something most people don’t do.
mark bofill (Comment #170335)
“You appear to be implying the article is about Trump suffering from dementia or Alzheimers.”
I don’t believe Trump suffers from dementia or Alzheimers. He suffers from being full of himself and craving attention. No, I take that back. It’s we who suffer from him.
BTW, I have been trying to remember rules I may have broken for a higher cause. So far I haven’t recalled one
OK Max,
“He suffers from being full of himself and craving attention.”
.
Sure, and unlike most politicians, makes no attempt to hide it. Unlike most politicians, he also makes no attempt to hide his contempt for people. A big difference is who he finds contemptible. For too many politicians and ‘elites’ it is the the unwashed masses… the deplorables… while for Trump it is those who find half the country deplorable, including, of course, the MSM.
Max,
Good for you. I don’t follow your point though. So?
.
I expect Trump is nigh unbearable to work with. I’ve worked directly for CEO types in startups, and some of those guys were pretty intolerable. Arrogant, stupid, absolutely convinced of their own genius, narcissistic, ignorant, domineering, inconsistent, disagreeable, so on. This doesn’t mean they don’t get to be the CEO though. I think it’s much the same with Trump.
.
We elected the guy. If he’s an amoral populist pig who’s got negative characteristics that make him a PITA to work for, that’s too bad. Go find another job. If he’s insane; if he’s constantly trying to launch a nuclear first strike against the rest of the world for example, alright – invoke the 25’th amendment and take your chances removing him from command that way. If not, deal with it. We elected him, amoral populist pig that he is, warts and all, and it’s not for a bunch of bureaucrats to override that because they happen to not like his style or happen to disagree with some of his decisions.
“I wonder if Trump wrote it.”
.
Ha ha HA! That brightened up my morning.
An aide questioned whether Raegan should be removed from office in 1987 due to signs of his later diagnosed dementia. They took it seriously enough to have a meeting and secretly evaluate the President, test his memory, etc.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/09/15/aides-87-memo-raised-question-of-removing-reagan-from-office/a9ec7c98-2783-4362-8d9c-af41664af057
.
Strangely enough the aide didn’t do this by writing an anonymous hit job in the NYT.
“trying to advise a boss who is capricious or irrational”
.
Almost everyone knows this feeling at some point in their lives. Pretty frustrating. Sometimes it is the employees who are irrational, particularly in small business, who do not understand the stresses of just keeping a business afloat. Every day can be a different existential crisis for a struggling small business.
.
One of my lifelong ways to deal with that kind of stress is “Sanity will prevail”, and it almost always does. There are enough limits and filters to Trump’s worst impulses that they get filtered out. This is one of the primary responsibilities of a staff, unsurprised that it happens. I believed (or hoped?) Trump’s most crazy thoughts would never see the light of day when I voted for him because of the rest of government, and that is exactly what has happened. The style of Trump is an ugly circus, but the execution of Trump is pretty standard conservative policy. Durable institutions are built this way, and there is no doubt that the US institution is being tested here, and so far it is passing.
Tom,
Fine. Let me rephrase. I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy for the plight of the poor administration officials and staff who feel they have to ‘filter out Trumps impulses’. I don’t think they are doing any noble service that deserves my praise or admiration.
.
I still think that if Trump is making a mess, it’d be better to let him make a mess. As a voter I’d like to know that for future reference. If he’s making such a damn mess that our country isn’t going to survive it, the staff needs to get their shit together, document their case, grow a pair of fortitude and declare Trump “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office”. If not, let him screw it up. We’ll survive. Maybe we’ll learn something that way. BTW, I think it ought to be their necks (the officials removing the President from power) if in the aftermath it turns out that they didn’t have a case that withstands hostile scrutiny, to keep them honest.
.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
The laundry list of extreme actions predicted before the election by our valued experts, who only support truth and fairness, has not come to pass. You know, the jailing of journalists, shredding of the constitution, and police beat downs of minorities in the streets just for the fun of it. Mostly because Trump never actually supported those things to start with, and some things that he did support like The Wall(tm) have also been tabled.
.
In their minds even if these predicted things didn’t actually happen, well … they did happen … or … they are still going to happen, because they only care about the truth and facts. It is their solmen and thankless duty to inform the citizens of their moronic errors causing death to democracy. If that sounds confusing and incoherent, it’s only because it is truth, facts, and fairness.
.
What baffles me the most is the shame campaign to try to force anyone competent from working in the Administration. If one was to believe the stated goals of these pundits then this is the exact opposite of what you would want to do. After endless sham transparent performative displays of their high morals written in elegant prose that ultimately boil down to simple tribal propaganda it is little wonder Trump is in office.
Also – assuming that the anonymous author is as honest and caring and devoted to keeping America on the right track as he would have us believe, going to the NYT with the op-ed appears to be an extremely dumb thing to do. What’s the work environment going to be like at the White House now. Does the publishing of the op-ed: a) improve the situation, b) leave it the same, or c) make it worse? I think it’s like pouring gasoline on a fire, it’ll make things considerably worse.
I don’t buy it. Either the author doesn’t give a fig what’s good for the country, or the author is too stupid to understand publishing anonymous op-eds make the problem worse. Either way, Deep State Throat isn’t my hero here.
NYT has published anonymous government senior officials before.
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/us/27gas.html
These e-mails were tracked down, and it was a single entry level person.
Max,
One more thing. Look at me. Do you see any evidence of rationalization? You ought to, because it’s there. I will tell you with a straight face that I speak from rational conviction and I can argue my case. I can give you reasons all day long why Trump’s opponents are in the wrong and Trump is basically alright.
Don’t you believe it.
I know my nature, doesn’t mean I can override it effortlessly. Not clear that I override it at all. Sometimes the best we can do is to try to remain aware of the things that affect us behind the scenes.
I truly do believe we humans are pretty much all like this.
Anyway.
mark bofill (Comment #170351): “Do you see any evidence of rationalization? You ought to, because it’s there. I will tell you with a straight face that I speak from rational conviction and I can argue my case. I can give you reasons all day long why Trump’s opponents are in the wrong and Trump is basically alright.
Don’t you believe it.”
I think that rationalization gets too much “credit” in explaining behavior. Yes, it happens; sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not. But putting mental effort into bad decisions is counter-evolutionary. I think that most of what is called rationalization is actually filtering to prevent us from putting too much mental energy into worrying about things that we can not control or that do not much matter.
p.s. to Comment #170352: Belief in the ubiquity of rationalization is a convenient excuse for cynicism. 🙂
Mike,
I’ve heard the counter evolutionary argument – I think it misses the point. Rationalized decisions aren’t necessarily ‘bad’, and the idea that there’s some better way to arrange an intelligence is speculative. It’d be better from an evolutionary sense if we were omniscient, but. So what. We aren’t and there’s no evidence that nature can evolve omniscience. There’s no evidence (so far) nature can evolve a better arrangement than our rationalization system either.
It is important to be able to move on past the realization. I mean, pragmatically, so what. We still have to be able to speak and think and act. I harp on it with Max because it seems to be a constant underlying assumption he’s got, that people generally don’t rationalize things. Examples: If prosecutors bring a charge, they must have good reason. If some anonymous leaker complains about Trump and undermines him, it’s shocking that they think they need to.
I think it’s probably something like that too.
.
When I talk with Max, or Thomas Fuller, or anybody with a different ideology than me, I like to try to figure out how I can get out of my box and see what they see, see where they’re coming from, how they think. I try to encourage them to do the same. Maybe I harp on it for my own benefit as well, trying to figure it out, so to speak. So I tend to dwell on things I think might be relevant to that.
.
Anyways. I’m sure it gets annoying, and I apologize for that if so. I’ll dial it back some.
.
[Edit: I try to see what they see, but there’s tension in that I try to advance my views as well. It’s hard for me to keep it in balance. I felt that I’d been focused a little too aggressively on advancing my own views, and that maybe there was an opportunity there to provide an example (myself) to demonstrate what I’d been talking about. Anyway.]
mark bofill (Comment #170343) 
September 7th, 2018 at 6:21 am
Max,
BTW, I have been trying to remember rules I may have broken for a higher cause. So far I haven’t recalled one.
“Good for you. I don’t follow your point though. So?â€
_____________
mark, to see if I could empathize with people who break rules or laws for a higher cause.
________________________________________________________
mark bofill (Comment #170354)Â
“When I talk with Max, or Thomas Fuller, or anybody with a different ideology than me, I like to try to figure out how I can get out of my box and see what they see, see where they’re coming from, how they think. I try to encourage them to do the same.â€
________
mark, it’s good you are open to the ideas of others, and I like to think I am too. But if you want to talk on ideology, I’m not sure I have one that’s well defined. Before Obama described Trump as pragmatic rather than ideological, I would have described myself the same way, pragmatic rather than ideological. The suggestion I may
think like Trump is very disturbing to me. So I’m trying to come up with a new way of thinking and new label for myself.
Max,
Heh. Reminds me of the scene from the movie ‘Silence of the Lambs’ when Hannibal Lecter called out to the Senator as she was walking away:
(here)
I don’t imagine she ever wore that suit again. 🙂
A slightly more insightful view of Trump supporters
Stalking the Wild Trump Voter
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/09/07/stalking-the-wild-trump-voter/
.
“As one of the few Trump supporters I know put it, in 2008 and 2012 the Republicans nominated two of the most upright and decent politicians in their party as their candidates for president, only to see them ruthlessly maligned and slandered en route to crushing electoral defeat.5 Having learned the lesson that nice guys finish last, in 2016 they chose as their candidate an unprincipled, take-no-prisoners street-fighter who could dish it out as well as he could take it. Indeed, I think my friend has grasped an important truth.”
Romney was super decent, and was as being some sort of alien.
Obama ran an ad in Ohio HE’S NOT ONE OF US.
Pence is treated the same way.
With Trump they resorted to the standard playbook of Stupid/Old/Evil.
But it wasn’t enough because they nominated Hillary, and Trump wouldn’t let the Bernie Bros forget how she stole the nomination.
Breaking news from NYTimes
“George Papadopoulos got a 14-day jail sentence. The ex-Trump aide told The Times he lied to the F.B.I. to protect himself and the president.”
_________
Not much of a sentence. A plea bargain?
From the Manchester Guardian
“The sentence was significantly less than prosecutors’ recommendation of six months. Lawyers for Papadopoulos had requested probation, saying he lied not to impede investigation but “to preserve a perhaps misguided loyalty to his masterâ€.
“The president of the United States hindered this investigation more than George Papadopoulos ever did,†Papadopoulos lawyer Thomas Breen said in court Friday.”
WOW, 14 days instead of 6 months. George must be delighted.
How come the Guardian is faster than the NYTimes?
Six months is an error by the media. The prosecutors actually recommended 30 days.
MikeN,
Whether 14 days or 30 days, considering the financial and personal punishment he has endured, any sentence seems extreme… he has been pursued by the FBI in the hope he had damaging information on Trump, little more. He should serve his 14 days, then spend the next 40 on TV excoriating a corrupt and evil FBI.
Nikki Haley on the anonymous senior administration official:
————–
lucia (Comment #170330):
Tom Scharf (Comment #170346):
As Haley says, there is a right way and a wrong way. Staff trying to influence the President openly is good and proper. Changing or influencing policy surreptitiously is always wrong. It probably happens, but anyone who does that should be fired.That said, there is a place for filtering. It is appropriate for staff to stall when something seems rash, then later ask the boss if he still wants the action taken.
I have never been in a position remotely resembling a CEO. But if I were and found that a staff member was surreptitiously working against me, then I would fire that person immediately. And, I think, do everything in my power to destroy that person’s career.
Max,
Psychology today has an article that claims that this is reactive devaluation, part of tribalism in politics. I thought you might think the article was interesting.
The last two years has taught me something. I joined in harsh criticism of Mitt Romney and John McCain because I was supporting people I felt were superior candidates.
I wrote once or twice that the republic would survive if either of them made it into office, but most of the time I was very severe.
I still would vote for their opponents if there were a rematch. But I believe I will temper some of my criticism of people on the other side of the fence–at least I hope I will.
But just to confirm my natural bias, I find it a constant source of amusement that the Democrats apparently found the most horrible person in the universe to run for president–three times in a row. What were the odds?
SteveF
There’s a good chance of that. Some people will see the short sentence as proof the prosecutors were overly enthusiastic about going after him. Some seeing things that way will be enough to get him a tv gig.
Whether he can keep the gig will depend on how telegenic he is.
mark bofill (Comment #170364)Â
mark, thank you for the link to the very interesting article on reactive devaluation. Some statements from it follow:
‘What appeared to happen is called “reactive devaluation.†Once we discover it was the other side who said or supports something, then we withdraw or withhold our support. It doesn’t seem to matter what was said or proposed (Ross & Stillinger, 1991).â€
“Maybe we can’t admit the other side has a good idea because it would feel like we’re giving in to the enemy. After all the unforgivable wrongs committed by the other side, it might feel unfair or unjust to give them any credit, even if they’re doing the right thing in the moment.â€
“I hate to say it, given how angry and disgusted we can get at the other side, but it might help to try to find something, however small, to like or compliment in the other side. That might offset the demonizing if nothing else.â€
“Put another way, if you have some friends on Facebook who are from the other political side, go ahead and disagree when they talk policy or politics, but you can still click “like†on their cute dog posts.â€
_______
I wasn’t just kidding when I said it disturbed me to think both Trump and I are pragmatic rather than ideological. But after further thought, I see there isn’t necessarily a conflict. Pragmatist put priority on desired results rather than the desired means to achieving results. As pragmatist, Trump and I could agree or disagree on what results are desirable, or we could agree on results, but have different opinions on means.
Is being a pragmatist an ideology in itself? Maybe, depending on how ideology is defined, but I see it as being a position from which I can choose parts of other ideologies. I believe conservatives, liberals, and libertarians all have some good ideas. If I had to place myself in one of these, I guess I would moderate liberal, but I might be to the right or left depending on the issue. I said I was looking for a label for myself. How about wishy-washy pragmatist?
I have close relative who is a very conservative Republican. I enjoy discussions with him because we can talk about politics without getting upset and and share some other interest too (we like talking about cars). I find our differences on debt and spending interesting. He spends all his income and pays interest on credit card debt yet believes the government should not carry debt. I’m just the opposite, live below my means, never pay credit card interest, and believe there are times when the government should increase its debt. The recent Republican tax cut wasn’t one of those times.
Max,
No, I agree that pragmatism isn’t an ideology. I think its ‘adherence to or a preference for what works empirically over what is predicted to work according to a theory’, something like that. I’d like to believe I lean that way as well.
Your story about different debt habits and different political preference is interesting, still thinking about it.
lucia (Comment #170366)
September 8th, 2018 at 10:15 am
SteveF
He should serve his 14 days, then spend the next 40 on TV excoriating a corrupt and evil FBI.
“There’s a good chance of that. Some people will see the short sentence as proof the prosecutors were overly enthusiastic about going after him.”
_________
I don’t know about that. Papadopoulos said in court he lied to the FBI and hoped for a second chance to redeem himself.
I doubt the path to redemption is bad mouthing the FBI because he admitted to telling them a lie.
It would be silly for Papadopoulos to say if the FBI hadn’t ask him a question, he wouldn’t have lied, so it was the FBI’s fault that he lied. He could say he lied about lying, but that would raise the question of whether he’s lying about lying about lying. He could criticize the 14-day sentence and $9,500 fine. I don’t know what else.
He has bad mouthed Sessions. That could please Trump enough to pardon him.
Mike (re 170363),
I couldn’t agree more. Exactly.
One of my clients is an outspoken over the top liberal and absolute flaming environmentalist. We can talk about things without a problem because he doesn’t care that there exists people different from him and doesn’t feel that the world needs to be purged of all non-believers lest it end. He’s a very likable guy. He isn’t trying to convert anybody.
OK_MAx
I know about that. I said some people would think “X”. I know at least one will. I will. That’s enough to make my claim that some people will think it true.
Sure. But that doesn’t mean prosecutors didn’t go overboard in pursuing Papadopoulis. Given the definition of lying to the FBI, I’m sure lots of people do it and prosecutors don’t haul them off the court and subsequently to jail.
The sentence is light because the “wrong” associated with what he did was miniscule. Ordinarily, no prosecutor would bother with it. That he admitted doing a wrong thing doesn’t make prosecution anything other than overzealous.
I’ve jaywalked where it is illegal. No one has charged me, or hauled me off to court for it. Most people would be stunned if it happened. It would be considered overzealous prosecution even if I admitted the jay walking.
According to Papad’s wife, his lawyer was never willing to pursue the line that the alleged Russian agent, Mifsud, was actually a Western intelligence asset sent to set him up.
Reading the specifics, it appears he was prosecuted for lying when he did not lie.
For example, in an exchange on Russian hacking and dirt on Hillary, it looks like he was asked four questions in a row, and he gave a single response of No, which would have been truthful to at least the fourth question.
lucia (Comment #170372)
September 8th, 2018 at 3:56 pm
OK_MAx
I don’t know about that.
“I know about that. I said some people would think “Xâ€. I know at least one will. I will. That’s enough to make my claim that some people will think it true.”
_____
Lucia, I should have been clearer when I said ” I don’t know about that.” What I don’t know about is whether Papadopoulos, after serving his 14 days should then, as Steve F suggested, ” spend the next 40 on TV excoriating a corrupt and evil FBI”
I don’t know about whether Papadopoulos should bad mouth the FBI. I can see reasons not to. It might look like he was making things up just to improve his chances of a pardon by pleasing FBI foe Trump. He also said he wants to redeem himself, and I think he meant to redeem himself for lying to the FBI. Attacking the organization he lied to seems the wrong way to redemption for lying. If I wanted to redeem myself for lying, say lying to my wife, I would not start by excoriating her.
You said “Given the definition of lying to the FBI, I’m sure lots of people do it and prosecutors don’t haul them off the court and subsequently to jail.”
I don’t know the FBI’s definition of lying, but I would be sure to find out if being questioned, and I definitely would not go ahead and lie,
thinking lots of people do it and don’t go to jail.
You also said “I’ve jaywalked where it is illegal. No one has charged me, or hauled me off to court for it…It would be considered overzealous prosecution even if I admitted the jay walking.”
Shame on you. That law is for your protection. OK, I’ll admit
to jaywalking too. I was never charged. if I were I would
say everybody does it, why me? But I wouldn’t see the need
for a second chance to redeem myself.
OK Max,
The plain truth is Papadopoulos was being pursued by the FBI because they were (and are) after Trump. It remains unclear who (what intelligence assets) the FBI used, but if an asset contacted Papadopoulos, and the FBI subsequently questioned him about that contact, then it is pure entrapment, and if not unlawful, certainly unethical. I suspect in the end we will find the FBI was actively investigating Trump via multiple unethical if not unlawful means. Most management level staff at the FBI need to be discharged, and the sooner the better… starting with the current director.
Max_OK
To some it might; to others it won’t. But I don’t see how some people thinking badly of him ought to concern him. Their opinions are their problem. With only 14 days he doesn’t need a pardon.
That part might be made up to reduce the sentences. I think few would blame him for that.
Oy. Go read what lawyers have to say about talking to the police
Which applies double to talking to the FBI. See Popehat Everybody Lies: FBI Edition.
If you haven’t read Popehat or watched the police video and you think you wouldn’t say things the FBI consider lies — and which could accidentally turn out to be lies– don’t tell us you wouldn’t lie to the FBI. And if you watched it and still tell us you wouldn’t lie, I for one, don’t believe you. I’m not insulting you. Read Popehat.
Pap my not think he needs a second chance to redeem himself. That might be something he said to help assuage the prosecutors and improve the chances of a low sentences. His lawyer probably advised that. Yeah, it might only have made the 30 day sentence drop to 14 days. But to many people 16 days less in the clink is worth swallowing hard and saying you want to redeem yourself.
Heck, 3 year olds say they are sorry when they aren’t to assuage Mom. Husbands and wives say they are sorry when they aren’t to assuage each other. Most people say similar things. Most people tell “white lies”.
Maybe you don’t. If you, you learn that you are in the “fewer than 1%”.
There is only one way to make sure you never lie to the FBI, don’t talk to them. I often see interrogations by the local police on the show The First 48 and they routinely says things like “Now is your last chance to come clean and tell your side of the story” and such knowing BS by law enforcement.
.
Misremembering is lying to the FBI. If you think your brain isn’t using a lossy compression memory system then I suggest you look into it further. Doing your best to help can get you thrown in jail.
.
They rotely read off Miranda rights to suspects and I have never once in over 15 seasons seen a suspect say “Wait, are you saying I don’t have to answer questions?”. There is one certainty across all city departments though, “I want a lawyer” immediately ends an interview. It very much annoys the detectives, and that should tell you something.
.
There is almost no upside to making a formal statement as a suspect, even if you are innocent. How do you know if you are a suspect? You don’t.
.
All that being said, lying to the cops for common crimes is routine and almost never prosecuted. My boyfriend was home with me during the crime! It seems to be only white collar crimes and the FBI that this ploy is used.
There is allegedly a grand jury looking into McCabe now, unclear if any charges will be forthcoming, but it is being taken seriously. I still eagerly await the report on how Strzok’s “We’ll stop it” text was missed and not disclosed by the FBI. I imagine this is going to be another major embarrassment.
Tom Fuller,
FWIW, I didn’t think Hillary was the most horrible person in the universe. I thought her husband’s term[s] went reasonably well and hoped for (although I did not really expect) a similar result. Maybe a little more blatantly corrupt than usual, but what the hey.
There were many things I disliked about the Obama administration, but I don’t believe President Obama was the worst President we’ve ever had, either – not by a long shot.
lucia (Comment #170376)
“Go read what lawyers have to say about talking to the police”
“Which applies double to talking to the FBI.”
Tom Scharf (Comment #170377)
September 9th, 2018 at 7:32 am
There is only one way to make sure you never lie to the FBI, don’t talk to them.
___________
I might take the precaution of having a lawyer present in interviews
with the police or FBI. It would depend on the situation and nature of the interview. The only problem I can see in insisting on a lawyer is it suggests you have something to hide. The same goes for
refusing to answer a question, and perhaps to a lesser extent for a
“I can’t recall ” answer when it’s something you should be able to recall.
Of course “one way to make sure you never lie to the FBI, don’t talk to them.” Another way is to tell the truth. which includes “I’m not sure” if you aren’t sure.
Speaking of lying, I do not believe Papadopoulos, his lawyer, the prosecutors, and the judge are all lying about the harm Papadopoulos did by lying to the FBI.
It was a material lie, not an innocuous fib(e.g., lied about his weight).
“U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss said Papadopoulos’ deception was “not a noble lie” and said he had lied because he wanted a job in the Trump administration and didn’t want to jeopardize that possibility by being tied to the Russia investigation.â€
“Moss noted that many similar cases resulted in probation but said he imposed a sentence of incarceration partly to send a message to the public that they can’t lie to the FBI.â€
‘Prosecutors say those false statements, made during a January 2017 interview with federal investigators, led the FBI to miss an opportunity to interview Mifsud while he was in the United States in early 2017.â€
‘In court Friday, prosecutor Andrew Goldstein said Papadopoulos’ cooperation “didn’t come close to the standard of substantial assistance.” ‘
“He said Papadopoulos’ deception required investigators to scour more than 100,000 emails and gigabytes of data to reconstruct the timeline of his contacts with Russians and Russian intermediaries.â€
‘In response, defense lawyer Thomas Breen said his client was “remorseful” that his lies impeded the investigation.â€
“Breen also rejected the idea that Papadopoulos was the victim of a witch hunt or prosecutorial misconduct.â€
“We have seen no such thing. We have seen no entrapment. We have seen no set up by U.S. intelligence people,” he said, noting that he also had no reason to believe that Papadopoulos was the subject of a warrant obtained under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.â€
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-george-papadopoulos-sentencing-20180907-story.html
In addition to the 14-day prison sentence and fine Papadopolous will be on probation for one year.
“Papadopolous will also have 12 months of supervised release, serve 200 hours of community service within about a year and will be fined $9,500.â€
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/07/politics/george-papadopoulos-sentencing-hearing/index.html
I’m not sure, but a pardon may mean he doesn’t have to complete the one-year probation and 200 hours of community service.
Tom Scharf,
“I still eagerly await the report on how Strzok’s “We’ll stop it†text was missed and not disclosed by the FBI. I imagine this is going to be another major embarrassment.”
.
A lot more than an embarrassment… it is criminal refusal to respond to a legitimate subpoena from Congress. Someone should be sitting in prison for witholding this message. Unfortunately, the FBI, being a corrupt organization, long ago closed ranks and is in full turtle mode, refusing to provide information to Congress about its rampant malfeasance. So I doubt those responsible will be held to account.
mark bofill,
” I don’t believe President Obama was the worst President we’ve ever had, either – not by a long shot.”
.
That is a perfectly reasonable argument. But on the other hand, he was clearly worse than Carter (and I never thought I would say that!) and operated more lawlessly than even Nixon. IMO he was terribly damaging to both the country in general and political civility.
OK_Max (Comment #170380):
.
I imagine that is what Martha Stewart thought. And Michael Flynn. And who knows how many hundreds of others who also got the chance to reflect on their error while in prison.
Trump is very unlikely to issue any pardon until at least after the November elections.
Tom Fuller,
“But I believe I will temper some of my criticism of people on the other side of the fence–at least I hope I will.”
.
It is a nice idea, but after watching every single Republican candidate since Reagan accused of being a racist and the second coming of Adolf Hitler, I suspect you will be quite alone in tempering your criticism. There are large and deep disagreements about the best course for the country; over-the-top criticism of those you disagree with is a symptom of the problem, not the cause. Rather than temper criticism, consider accepting substantive compromise on policy. That is far more difficult for most people.
Mike M. (Comment #170383)
September 9th, 2018 at 9:32 am
OK_Max (Comment #170380):
Of course “one way to make sure you never lie to the FBI, don’t talk to them.†Another way is to tell the truth. which includes “I’m not sure†if you aren’t sure.
_________
.
“I imagine that is what Martha Stewart thought. And Michael Flynn. And who knows how many hundreds of others who also got the chance to reflect on their error while in prison.”
_________
Mike M, I’m not sure what you mean.
They thought they were telling the truth but actually were lying?
They told the truth not knowing it meant they broke the law?
Tom Fuller,
I’ve never thought Hillary was the worst person in the world. But I thought she was a horrible candidate in the sense of unelectable. She didn’t know how to run a campaign. She has no charisma. She doesn’t seem to have actual views of how to run the country– she seems scripted. Good campaigners may be scripted but they need to not seem so.
She also exhuded disingenousness which made her a poor candidate.
That doesn’t maker her the worst possible candidate. But she was bad enough to not be unelectable, and lost the election.
Every lawyer worth their degree will tell you to never answer questions posed by a law enforcement agency. You can sensibly extend that to include any Federal agent (like the IRS), where you are similarly at risk if you make any statements. The only suitable comment is: I want to talk to my lawyer.
Lucia,
All those things about Hillary made her a bad candidate. But I would add two more: 1) She had accumulated a substantial personal fortune, with at least the appearance of lots of influence pedaling, and 2) she made clear that she dislikes and disrespects voters who in any way disagree with her policies. I honestly think her “basket of deplorables” comment led to her loss. She was a terrible candidate before that, but she essentially flipped the bird at a huge voting block, and that gave lots of people motivation to vote against her (rather than for Trump).
OK_Max (Comment #170386): “I’m not sure what you mean.
They thought they were telling the truth but actually were lying?”
.
Oh, come on Max. That is such obvious nonsense that it seems designed as a clumsy attempt to set up a straw man. It is NOT possible to tell the truth and lie at the same time. It IS possible to tell the truth but to be mistaken. You have done that more times than you can count, just like everyone else. But if you do that while talking to the FBI, your honest mistake can be characterized as a lie. That is certainly what happened to Flynn. I think it is what happened to Stewart, but I am not sure.
SteveF (Comment #170384)
September 9th, 2018 at 9:43 am
Trump is very unlikely to issue any pardon until at least after the November elections.
____
It’s not likely Papadopoulos can get his 14-day sentence postponed until after the Nov. elections. His lawyer has been critical of Trump, not helpful for a pardon. As some here have mentioned, Pap might criticize the FBI, and that could gain favor with Trump. If he didn’t get the pardon, however, that also might hurt his chances of getting the probation period reduced.
lucia (Comment #170387): “I’ve never thought Hillary was the worst person in the world. But I thought she was a horrible candidate in the sense of unelectable.”
———–
I agree with both statements. She is not even the worst person to achieve national prominence as a politician. But I would add that she was one of the worst people to ever get a major party nomination for President. Possible the worst.
Max, I remember when the Bulls played the Pacers in 1998, game 7 was lost when the Pacers were leading by 3 with about a minute left and Michael Jordan won a jump ball against center Rik Smits. The record says it was with 6:50 left, meaning it was not a near guarantee for the Pacers. If asked by federal investigators I haven’t lied. I have stated my memory clearly.
Steve McIntyre has more details on why The Greek didn’t lie on some counts.
https://steemit.com/papadopoulos/@stephenmcintyre/papadopoulos-pled-guilty-on-two-counts-where-he-told-the-truth
Mike M. (Comment #170390)
September 9th, 2018 at 10:55 am
OK_Max (Comment #170386): “I’m not sure what you mean.
They thought they were telling the truth but actually were lying?â€
.
“Oh, come on Max. That is such obvious nonsense that it seems designed as a clumsy attempt to set up a straw man. It is NOT possible to tell the truth and lie at the same time. It IS possible to tell the truth but to be mistaken.”
______
Mike M, isn’t thinking I’m telling the truth but actually not the same as your “It IS possible to tell the truth but to be mistaken.”? Also isn’t it possible to “tell the truth and lie at the same time” by both telling the truth and lying in one sentence? These questions may not be very relevant to our conversation, but I think are interesting to consider.
Here’s the thing. Both Stewart and Flynn should have known better.
It’s arguable whether Stewart actually broke an insider trading law,
but her attempts at a cover-up was what landed her in jail. She should have know better than to misrepresent and lie to hide her
actions. Flynn should have know better than to break the law about
dealing with foreign governments and to try to cover it up, if he did try.
RE MikeN (Comment #170393)
MikeN, your example is not a material lie anyway. No harm done.
A lot of this Mueller investigation involves activities in London.
Mifsud and the Greek were working at LCILP.
Downer met the Greek in London. One report says he reported ‘dirt on Hillary’ directly in London, and not via Australian government.
Steele is former MI6.
One suspicion is that both parts of the conversation were a setup. They feed to the Greek and then arrange a meeting to receive the info, just to set up a collusion charge.
Some of the senior FBI team were in London just prior to the Downer meeting, I think it was Bill Priestap.
OK_Max (Comment #170395): “isn’t thinking I’m telling the truth but actually not the same as your “It IS possible to tell the truth but to be mistaken.â€?
Yes. Or at lest close enough that the difference would be a quibble. Why do you ask?
I suppose that the reason you ask is that you are pretending that “telling the truth but actually not” is what you said earlier. But you said “They thought they were telling the truth but actually were lying” which is, of course, a completely different thing.
———
OK_Max: “Also isn’t it possible to tell the truth and lie at the same time by both telling the truth and lying in one sentence?”
No it is not, at least if I understand that sentence. If one part of a sentence is true and a different part deliberately is false, then you are telling the truth and lying, but not simultaneously.
However, if you adopt a broad definition of lying (not relevant here), then it is possible to simultaneously lie and tell the truth by saying something that is technically entirely true but is deliberately misleading. But doing so under oath would not be perjury. Bill Clinton taught us that. The law uses the narrow definition of lying as a deliberate falsehood; perhaps JD will correct me if I am mistaken.
———-
OK_Max: “Flynn should have know better than to break the law about dealing with foreign governments …”
Flynn never did anything of the sort. Anyone who says he did is severely reality challenged.
.
OK_Max: “… and to try to cover it up, if he did try.”
He never did that either, since there was nothing to cover up.
Flynn did make an incorrect statement to the FBI about one of many things in his conversation with the Russian ambassador. The FBI agents who interviewed him thought it was an honest mistake. But Mueller, in a massive violation of prosecutorial power (IMO) used Flynn’s innocent error to attack him.
Max, I could construct a scenario where it is material. The point is I would be making a false statement, but thought I was telling the truth.
Then there is the suspicion that the Greek and/or his wife was a spy in the Trump campaign.
Here is Deripaska on his yacht.
https://twitter.com/jenn_mallory/status/1032802340649279488
Is that Red Sparrow the Greek’s wife?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/18/simona-mangiante-papadopoulos-george-papadopoulos-/
Max,
As usual, I don’t really know if I have false assumptions or not, and of course it’s possible I do. I tend to view the FBI more or less as gestapos. These guys have a lengthy and colorful history of breaking the law and abusing their powers.
.
I mean, maybe you’re absolutely right. Maybe it’s a great idea to just carefully and contientously try to tell them the truth, and not lawyer up because of the message that sends that you have something to hide. It seems to me that the folks at Popehat and other places would advise that if that was sensible, but even this isn’t the underlying problem I’ve got. Really my problem is that you seem to assume the FBI are the good guys, and if one tries one’s honest best to cooperate with them that one will come to no harm. I really really doubt this, based on their history and what I read about dealing with them today.
.
But. It’s your assumption set, and far be it from me to suggest you’re not free to believe whatever you like about them. I just don’t know how to work around the differences between my assumptions and yours in discussing this, so I guess I’ll just note it with this comment and drop the subject.
OK Max,
If Trump issued a pardon, the 12 months (parole) supervised release would end immediately.
Another spy sent at the Greek?
Remember he was arrested at the airport.
Before he flew to the US, he was given over ten thousand in cash. George left it overseas in storage.
Did the FBI arrange for him to get this money, hoping to arrest him for not declaring at the airport? They had no arrest warrant beforehand.
OK_MAx
In otherwords: normally, what Pap did would result in a slap on the wrist, but he got real time. This supports my view that he was treated more harshly and prosecutors and so on where overzealous. That there motive was “to send a message” only means they had a motive to be overzealous. It doesn’t mean they were not overzealous.
The lawyer, Breen, is going to say things that help his client get off lightly. So quoting him doesn’t mean much.
“didn’t come close to the standard of substantial assistance.†‘
“He said Papadopoulos’ deception required investigators to scour more than 100,000 emails and gigabytes of data to reconstruct the timeline of his contacts with Russians and Russian intermediaries.â€
They handled seven times as many e-mails from Hillary over a few days.
Makes sense that you would give a larger sentence in a high profile case, to let the public know this is not a law to be ignored. Martha Stewart probably gets a lighter or no sentence if it was someone else.
MikeN,
Lots of people sympathized with Martha. Lots of people think prosecutors and justice system went over board with her. Not everyone of course. But when someone gets a harsher sentence to “send a message”, that’s not exactly equal justice, which we supposedly value.
That the right voted for Trump “because Hillary/Pelosi/Obama” belies the fact that he won the Republican primary and continues to maintain sky high approval ratings amongst those identifying as Republicans. This is probably why Never Trumpers strike a nerve with them – because they remind the party of ‘moral values and self-responsibility’ that they voted for an amoral candidate who has not hesitated to employ every corrupt means in his business and political career, who has gone on to lead an administration of grifters, and who regularly attempts to gaslight the population into believing that others are the cause of the unprecedented situation he finds himself in. In other words, ‘he may be an a*hole but he’s still their a*hole’.
RB,
Not sure what point you are trying to rebut. Some who voted for Trump did so because they merely thought he was better than Hillary. There’s no doubt that others voted for him because they like him. I don’t think any have claimed that no one supports Trump. Obviously some people do.
As for who “the right” voted for: neither “the right”, “the left”, nor “the center” can vote. Individuals vote. So it’s silly to talk about who “the right” voted for or for what reason. Some on the right voted for Trump for “reason X”, orthers for “reason Y”, others for reason Z.
I didn’t vote for Trump and I didn’t vote for Hillary. I didn’t like either and still don’t. I’m still glad Hillary did not win. I still don’t like Trump. But I do like his SCOTUS picks, his setting aside many of Obama’s high handed executive orders and much of his deregulation. Since disliking Trump and disliking Hillary is a draw, I’m glad I at least see some changes that I consider for the good.
RB,
I can’t speak for others, but my vote for Trump was a hold-your-nose/lesser-of-evils vote. Trump is a buffoon. He is often obnoxious. He is thin skinned, etc, etc, etc. But for me, and many others, putting aside her obvious corruption, Hillary’s policies would have been much worse than Trump’s, and would have damaged the economy and reduced personal liberties. I am sure there are many reasons people voted for Trump, but the ‘not Hillary’ factor is probably the most important.
Re Mike M. (Comment #170398)
September 9th, 2018 at 11:59 am
Example of person who thinks he is telling the truth but is not telling the truth:
You ask if I met with Mr. X last Monday.
I reply, no, I met with him last Tuesday.
But in fact I did meet with him last Monday, but got my days confused. What I told you was not the truth, but since I did
not intend to mislead you it wasn’t a lie.
Later I realize my mistake and tell you the truth. But what if
Instead I do not tell you because I have discovered I can profit
at your expense by leaving you believing I met with Mr. X on
Tuesday rather than Monday? Would I be guilty of a material
lie?
Now for an example of a truth and a lie in one sentence:
You ask me if I met Mr. Y last week.
I reply, yes, I met him last Friday.
Actually, I met him last Tuesday, but I lied to you about the
day because it was to my advantage and, unknown to you,
at your expense.
> continues to maintain sky high approval ratings amongst those identifying as Republicans.
Perhaps this is because those who don’t approve no longer identify as Republicans?
That said, in most states Republican registration is up compared to Democrats.
RB,
Never Trumpers have never bothered me, but I do have a conscience. Heck, I voted for Roy Moore and I knew what he was. [It bothered me more than a little bit to do so.]
.
I don’t look to the President and our politicians for moral behavior. All things equal it would be nice, but it’s not the most important characteristic. I think Jimmy Carter was a moral fellow and a wretched President.
.
I’d prefer a situation where America could unite. Trump is more divisive than Obama in some ways. Unfortunately it takes two to tango. Until that part of the Left that loves division and identity politics loses dominance over the Democratic Party, I will nominate and vote for Donald Trumps and Roy Moores and probably worse. I’m ready to move towards the middle when the other side is ready to quit sprinting left.
.
Shrug.
mark bofill (Comment #170412): “I don’t look to the President and our politicians for moral behavior. All things equal it would be nice, but it’s not the most important characteristic. I think Jimmy Carter was a moral fellow and a wretched President.”
True, true, and true. But there is one sort of morality that I do expect from a President: I want him to do what he says. Trump passes that test with flying colors, unlike no-red-or-blue-states Obama or humble-foreign-policy Bush.
.
mark bofill: “I’d prefer a situation where America could unite. Trump is more divisive than Obama in some ways. Unfortunately it takes two to tango. Until that part of the Left that loves division and identity politics loses dominance over the Democratic Party, I will nominate and vote for Donald Trumps and Roy Moores and probably worse. I’m ready to move towards the middle when the other side is ready to quit sprinting left.”
I agree. But the real division in the U.S. in between the elites (both right and left) and the ordinary people (both liberal and conservative). Trump’s “divisiveness” is aimed at the people who have already divided themselves from the deplorables. He did not create that division or widen it, he only gives a voice to the side that had been largely silenced.
OK_Max,
I posted this a while ago. Popehat (attorney who has worked on both sides of the fence) on talking to the FBI:
Everybody Lies: FBI Edition
https://www.popehat.com/2017/12/04/everybody-lies-fbi-edition/
I don’t want the justice department sending a message to anyone about anything except how they apply the law uniformly. That’s not reality because of political pressures that corrupt the process. The OJ jury sent a message, I’m still trying to decode that one. The last thing you want as a defendant is for it to become a high publicity case where people are forced to send messages. Cases are different and some criminal acts are different than others, so we have to use judges to parse them. Drug dealers shooting each other is different than them shooting innocent bystanders, or is it? It’s imperfect.
For all us lucky people with spouses, how many times have you argued about the facts of something you were both present for and can’t agree on? Imagine if your spouse was the FBI, and they could put you in jail for being wrong. I’d still be sitting in my cell right now, but my wife would have a longer sentence, ha ha!
Tom Scharf (Comment #170414)
September 10th, 2018 at 9:53 am
OK_Max,
I posted this a while ago. Popehat (attorney who has worked on both sides of the fence) on talking to the FBI:
Everybody Lies: FBI Edition
Thanks Tom, I have read the Popehat warning. The following is a quote from Popehat:
“You, dear readers, know my advice about talking to the FBI: don’t. If the FBI — or any law enforcement agency — asks to talk to you, say “No, I want to talk to my lawyer, I don’t want to talk to you,” and repeat as necessary. Do not talk to them “just to see what they want.” Do not try to “set the facts straight.” Do not try to outwit them. Do not explain that you have “nothing to hide.”
______
Keep in mind this is lawyer telling us we need lawyers. Nevertheless,
it’s good advice if you are a law breaker, are related to a law breaker, are business partners with a law breaker, or happen to know a law breaker.
It’s also good advice if your fear you may have broken the law but aren’t sure. It might be good advice if you are none of those, but are paranoid, unless you end up being even more paranoid.
I am none of the above. Unless my situation changes I will not be
insisting on a lawyer before talking with the FBI or police. Hiring
an attorney could arouse suspicion and cost me time as well as
money.
I did talk with a couple of Feds one time regarding a security clearance for someone I knew. They may have been FBI, I can’t
remember. I wonder what they would have thought had I insisted
on a lawyer. RED FLAG !
I think an underlying point is if one is super confident that you are just a witness then obviously helping law enforcement is the right thing to do. This is about being connected to a criminal investigation, and whether you know you are. You may get charged because they believe you are holding back information, they are fishing and you pay.
.
Rational people who talk to lawyers seem to be convinced after the talk that it is still in their best interest to not talk. There are way more horror stories of talking then refusing to do so.
.
If you are guilty then one could theorize that by talking one could throw them off the trail by making them believe you aren’t guilty. That doesn’t usually work. It’s better to not help them prove it. Cops are pretty good at assessing a person who is lying, and have way more experience doing it.
.
If you have nothing to hide, then you also have nothing to fear from their potential suspicions. The more important point is to just stop the FBI from doing this, it is a lazy method to pressure people in an oppressive manner. It’s right up there with civil forfeiture, a flashing billboard for abuse.
OK_Max (Comment #170417): “It’s also good advice if your fear you may have broken the law but aren’t sure.”
.
Did you even read the popehat piece? He is not talking about: “Sir, did you happen to see the guy running out of the bank with a gym bag full of money?” He is talking about the FBI wanting to question you in a more or less formal manner; which happens to be what the discussion here has been about. If that happens, it is because either (1) they have reason to think you broke the law or (2) they have reason to think you have information about someone who broke the law. In either case, you had better fear that you might have broken the law, if only as an unintentional accessory.
.
If you look at popehat’s reasons, one is: “You can’t even talk properly”. I can tell you with certainty that one applies to you. Also: “You don’t know if you’re in trouble”. That one also applies, unless you know for sure that you are in trouble.
SteveF (Comment #170388)
September 9th, 2018 at 10:31 am
Every lawyer worth their degree will tell you to never answer questions posed by a law enforcement agency. You can sensibly extend that to include any Federal agent (like the IRS), where you are similarly at risk if you make any statements. The only suitable comment is: I want to talk to my lawyer.
_______
That certainly would be the “only suitable comment” if you have submitted a fraudulent tax return. Otherwise, I think not.
I’ve been audited twice by IRS. Didn’t have a lawyer, didn’t need one.
Why didn’t I need a lawyer? Because I do not lie on my tax forms.
Had I lied, I would have considered hiring a lawyer.
My misinterpretation of depreciation regulations triggered the first
audit, and I had to pay additional tax. The second audit was automatically triggered by the first audit, but IRS found nothing
wrong. During the second audit I spotted a mistake I had made that
resulted in IRS owing me a little money. I learned two things from being audited (1) don’t fear audits, and (2) pay a CPA to do my
taxes.
Max_Ok
Evidently not. Here’s a portion wikipedia’s definition of material lie.
To be a material lie, it must be both a lie and material. Lies must be intentional.
The mistatement was unintentionally false at the time it was stated. So that already makes it not lie. Since it is not a lie, it cannot be an adjective lie. So it is not a ‘material lie’, even if it turns out to be material.
Its not necessarily at the “expense” of the person lied to. The person lied to has to show they suffered an “expense”.
If you, ask me my weight and I lie to you about my weight, and the only “expense” to you is you continue to not know my true weight but think you know it, taking no action one way or the other based on that weight, you suffer no expense. So that particular lie is then an “immaterial lie”.
To conclude it’s a “material” lie, you need to show that for some reason or other, that information mattered. You can’t merely show its a lie. Otherwise there is no difference between “immaterial” and “material” lies.
Mike M. (Comment #170419)
September 10th, 2018 at 2:51 pm
OK_Max (Comment #170417): “It’s also good advice if your fear you may have broken the law but aren’t sure.â€
.
Did you even read the popehat piece?
Mike M. (Comment #170419)
September 10th, 2018 at 2:51 pm
OK_Max (Comment #170417): “It’s also good advice if your fear you may have broken the law but aren’t sure.â€
.
Did you even read the popehat piece? He is talking about the FBI wanting to question you in a more or less formal manner… because either (1) they have reason to think you broke the law or (2) they have reason to think you have information about someone who broke the law. In either case, you had better fear that you might have broken the law, if only as an unintentional accessory.
______
MikeM, I do not break laws and I do not have information about law breaking by anyone I know. Therefore, if the FBI has reason to think
I do, then the FBI is wrong. If the FBI interviews me, the FBI will find
it is wrong.
You seem to be suggesting I may have broken laws that I don’t know
about. Please tell me what you think those might be.
OK Max,
“You seem to be suggesting I may have broken laws that I don’t know
about.”
If you are unaware of some violation, how could you expect someone else to be aware of it? (real question)
.
So clearly, you won’t listen to the advice of lawyers (you know, the people trained in law and its practice). I suspect Martha Stuart thought the same way, at least before sitting in prison for no underlying criminal activity. Probably she thinks differently now.
mark bofill (Comment #170401)
September 9th, 2018 at 1:03 pm
“Really my problem is that you seem to assume the FBI are the good guys, and if one tries one’s honest best to cooperate with them that one will come to no harm. I really really doubt this, based on their history and what I read about dealing with them today.”
_______
mark, yes, I think the FBI are the good guys.
“If one tries one’s honest best to cooperate with them that one will come to no harm.” That’s true if you haven’t broken a law. If you have broken a law, cooperation can reduce the harm you will suffer
and in some cases eliminate it.
SteveF (Comment #170423)
September 10th, 2018 at 3:59 pm
OK Max,
“You seem to be suggesting I may have broken laws that I don’t know
about.â€
If you are unaware of some violation, how could you expect someone else to be aware of it? (real question)
_______
I believe I am aware of the laws that apply to me in my situation.
That’s my responsibility.
I was not aware of the laws that applied to Martha Stewart’s situation but she should have been. That was her responsibility.
While I am not aware of all the laws that applied to Stewart’s
situation, I do know attempts at a cover up can get you in trouble with the law, and I think that’s what she did.
OK-Max: “MikeM, I do not break laws and I do not have information about law breaking by anyone I know. Therefore, if the FBI has reason to think I do, then the FBI is wrong. If the FBI interviews me, the FBI will find it is wrong.”
……
You think you don’t know of any crimes. Federal and state and local laws are so broad that you do undoubtedly know of crimes. You just don’t realize it.
……
For example, see these Chinese people who were falsely accused by the FBI.
JD
Forgot to include links to FBI false accusations against Chinese.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-fight-against-china-espionage-ensnares-innocent-americans-60-minutes-bill-whitaker/
JD Ohio,
He is not going to listen, no matter how many lawyers tell him he is mistaken. Sort of like dragon slayers and “back-radiation”.
Re lucia (Comment #170421)
lucia, thank you for the info on perjury, lies, and material lies. I’m not sure, but 18 U.S. Code 1001 may be a little broader (see below). I recall seeing a legal blog discussing this but can’t readily find it. I will post from it when I do.
“(a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1)falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2)makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3)makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
There must be a legal constitutional way to investigate the FBI and DOJ even if the people at the top of these organizations are the ones who need to be investigated but are in charge of initiating the investigations usually.
JD,SteveF, anyone?
If, a very big if but did happen 2 years ago, the republicans do win more seats Trump could use the positive pressure to sack Sessions and put in someone amenable to opening the needed investigations.
Sessions should of course do the decent thing and open a parallel investigation though this would have the automatic effect of standing down the current investigation. On poast form this is not going to happen.
The third thing would be a Lisa Page or Bruce Ohr admission of guilt and implicating the others, Could Trump offer them a plea deal or would this be seen also as interference?
OK Max,
That looks exactly the same as wikipedia to me.
In your first case, the behavior was not illegal because it was not knowing and willful. Because it’s not none of (1)-(3) matter. That amounts to “it was not a lie or falsehood”.
In your second case, it was a “lie” so (a) is triggered. Nothing in your description indicates it’s “material” though. All of (1)-(3) require the thing to be “material”. Material is a term of art. You need to add some additional detail to show the lie was material. You haven’t.
Oh. And bear in mind, the liars motive isn’t what makes it “material”. So my lying to the FBI about my age because I want people to think I’m younger or want a job with the Trump administration who only likes hot young babes isn’t “material” to an investigation about connections to Russia because it doesn’t hamper the investigation or change the outcome in any way. To be material the lie has to make someone come to wrong conclusions about the investigation or something like that.
JD Ohio (Comment #170426)
September 10th, 2018 at 4:29 pm
OK-Max: “MikeM, I do not break laws and I do not have information about law breaking by anyone I know. Therefore, if the FBI has reason to think I do, then the FBI is wrong. If the FBI interviews me, the FBI will find it is wrong.â€
……
You think you don’t know of any crimes. Federal and state and local laws are so broad that you do undoubtedly know of crimes. You just don’t realize it.
________
Regarding the Chinese people falsely accused by the FBI, I am not Chinese, don’t know anyone who lives in China, have never been to
China and have no plans to go. Nor am I going to be in a situation even remotely like theirs. So I don’t fear what happened to the
Chinese people is going to happen to me.
BTW, according to your link “Professor Xi is now suing the FBI, the Justice Department, and the NSA for violating his constitutional rights. In May, three and a half years after her arrest, Sherry Chen won her job back. A federal judge ordered her reinstated with back pay plus interest, concluding that Chen had been the victim of quote “gross injustice.” The federal government is appealing that decision.”
I wish Professor Xi and Sherry Chen the best of luck.
As I said, I do not break laws and I do not have information about law breaking by anyone I know. Therefore, if the FBI has reason to think I do, then the FBI is wrong. If the FBI interviews me, the FBI will find it is wrong. If in finding it’s wrong, the FBI were to cause me harm, I
would do like Xi and Chen, sue for damages.
SteveF (Comment #170428)
September 10th, 2018 at 4:49 pm
JD Ohio,
He is not going to listen, no matter how many lawyers tell him he is mistaken. Sort of like dragon slayers and “back-radiationâ€.
_____
Dadgummit, SteveF, I am listening. Please read my posts more carefully. As I explained’ I don’t believe in my situation I would need a lawyer if talking to the FBI. That does not mean I believe no one would need one.
OK_Max,
Thanks. I now have a much better understanding of how an intelligent person like Martha Stewart can get herself into so much unnecessary trouble.
Though the falsehood must be “material” this requirement is met if the statement has the “natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it is addressed.” United States v. Gaudin , 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995). (In other words, it is not necessary to show that your particular lie ever really influenced anyone.) Although you must know that your statement is false at the time you make it in order to be guilty of this crime, you do not have to know that lying to the government is a crime or even that the matter you are lying about is “within the jurisdiction” of a government agency. United States v. Yermian , 468 U.S. 63, 69 (1984). For example, if you lie to your employer on your time and attendance records and, unbeknownst to you, he submits your records, along with those of other employees, to the federal government pursuant to some regulatory duty, you could be criminally liable.
https://www.wisenberglaw.com/Articles/How-to-Avoid-Going-to-Jail-under-18-U-S-C-Section-1001-for-Lying-to-Government-Agents.shtml
.
There is also a discussion here on how to decline to be interviewed.
.
“It is crucial to note that affirmatively declining to discuss the investigation in the absence of counsel is not the same thing as remaining completely silent. If you are not in custody, your total silence, especially in the face of an accusation, can very possibly be used against you as an adoptive admission under the Federal Rules of Evidence.”
OK Max,
“I don’t believe in my situation I would need a lawyer if talking to the FBI”
.
Ya, like I said, you are not going to listen.
.
Federal agents are under no obligation to tell you the truth; they can willfully mislead, they can straight out lie and fabricate, they can try their best to frighten you into saying something mistaken, or even a little exaggerated. They can head off in unexpected directions that you have not thought about and may not remember clearly. They can charge you with a crime based on only that they believe some other person’s conflicting statement instead of yours, or that your faulty memory (though perfectly clear in your own head) conflicts with some factual evidence from long ago.
.
It really is like you did not read the Popehat piece at all. If you look, you will find videos by former police investigators, former prosecutors, etc. telling you that it is simply foolish to make a statement to investigators without the presence and guidance of an attorney. I know you reject all this, and there is no need to continue beating a long dead and rotting equine. But I believe you are very mistaken.
OK_Max,
You want to present the minimal surface area to the criminal justice system. It is an unforgiving bureaucratic machine that grinds people up and spits them out. Not committing crimes is a good way to do that. If you miscalculate your blood alcohol level on New Years Eve and get nailed at a checkpoint, you are a criminal in every sense of the word. Good intentions might matter in liberal politics but they mean nothing to the criminal justice system. This is how the criminal justice system will view you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP5aqAC8PPY
angech,
“Sessions should of course do the decent thing and open a parallel investigation though this would have the automatic effect of standing down the current investigation.”
.
He already assigned US Attorney for Utah John Huber to investigate irregularities at the FBI and DOJ, including rampant leaking of information to the press. So far, not a peep has been heard from John Huber. It’s hard to say what if anything will come of it.
.
The DOJ and FBI are overwhelming staffed by people who are opposed to Trump. It is not realistic to think they will ever willingly admit to actively opposing Trump in their work. They will continue to say “Yes, I hate Trump, and I hate his stupid voters, but that never had the slightest influenced on how I investigated Hillary…. or Trump.” Of course any rational eight year old knows that is ridiculous. Washington is filled with people who believe voters don’t have the awareness of eight year olds.
Measuring economic inequality is pretty hard it seems, and tainted with agendas and the usual media lack of effort to clarify anything.
.
Comparing household incomes only obfuscates what you want to know. Comparing older people’s dual earner household income to young people’s single earner household income distorts what you want to know.
.
The bigger issue is how spikey the top 1% incomes actually are. It turns out that something like 90% of people in the 1% aren’t there year to year, but just have a particularly good single year. These people are switched in and out every year. One of the reasons is that capital gains are counted as income, so someone who cashes out capital gains from a 10 year investment has the entire amount counted in a single year and it isn’t averaged over the time of investment, distorting the person’s income. So this ends up being an income bracket comparison, not a consistent human to human earnings ratio comparison.
.
The same holds true for the bottom 20%, something like 95% of people in the bottom 20% will grow out of that bracket over time as their earning potential improves. Income inequality isn’t measuring what most people think it does, and the media continuously quotes distortions that aren’t helpful to understanding things.
Max_OK
I believe in my situation, the likelihood the FBI would ask me to come in to talk to them is practically zero. However if they called me in for reasons unknown to me to question me on some matter, I would take that as an indication that I may well need a lawyer.
lucia (Comment #170440)
“I believe in my situation, the likelihood the FBI would ask me to come in to talk to them is practically zero. However if they called me in for reasons unknown to me to question me on some matter, I would take that as an indication that I may well need a lawyer.”
______
If the FBI did contact you, I think the most likely reason would be to
ask you about the background of someone applying for a security clearance, a person you know. I presume the FBI still is the agency doing this work.
Earlier we were discussing material statements and § 1001. I thought
the following info from http://www.lawfareblog.com was interesting:
“In its present form, § 1001 sweeps incredibly broadly: just about any material statement to an official of any branch of the federal government on a matter they are investigating. It implicates many written representations to the federal government as well. In yesterday’s hearing, Representative Adam Schiff requested that Director Comey provide the committee with a copy of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s SF-86, presumably to see if Flynn disclosed foreign contacts and payments. In three separate locations on the form, the SF-86 warns of criminal penalties under § 1001. It even requires an affirmative acknowledgment that the preparer understands that withholding, falsifying, or misrepresenting information on the form is “subject to the penalties for inaccurate or false statement (per U.S. Criminal Code, Title 18, section 1001).â€
Because the lie need not occur in an official proceeding under oath, the existence of an ongoing investigation raises the likelihood that § 1001 would be relevant: it will sweep up almost all misrepresentations made to government officials in the course of that investigation. To the extent any leak investigations proceed, § 1001 is commonly the basis for charges in those cases as well.”
https://www.lawfareblog.com/law-lying-perjury-false-statements-and-obstruction
Tom Scharf (Comment #170437)
September 10th, 2018 at 6:45 pm
OK_Max,
“You want to present the minimal surface area to the criminal justice system.”
______
That’s good advice for both criminals and non-criminals. Minimize exposure.
As a non-criminal, my only exposure is driving. Obeying traffic laws requires constant attention when driving. It also requires constant attention to other drivers. I fear them more than the traffic laws. I no longer drive on Christmas Eve or New Year’s eve. Too many drunks on the roads.
OK_Max,
A different organization does the clearances for people at Argonne. So…no. I’ve been contacted for clearances. Those aren’t FBI.
http://gogovernment.org/how_to_apply/next_steps/security_clearance.php
Says ” he U.S. Office of Personnel Management, a central agency that serves as the corporate human resources organization for the federal government, performs the majority of background checks”
Not FBI.
On what you wrote
Still needs to be material. Some lies are not material.
You were previously trying to get the definition of “material lie”. You seem to be trying to go somewhere else on this now.
lucia (Comment #170443)
September 10th, 2018 at 11:13 pm
“You were previously trying to get the definition of “material lieâ€. You seem to be trying to go somewhere else on this now.”
_______
Yes, after reading the following quote from my previous link, I wondered if failure to correct an unintentionally incorrect material statement made earlier could be breaking the law, since such failure
would be a misrepresentation:
“Because the lie need not occur in an official proceeding under oath, the existence of an ongoing investigation raises the likelihood that § 1001 would be relevant: it will sweep up almost all misrepresentations made to government officials in the course of that investigation.”
Re FBI and security clearance, I was wrong. I had this confused with the FBI background check, which is a check on an individual’s criminal record. Sorry, for the confusion.
SteveF (Comment #170436)
September 10th, 2018 at 6:30 pm
“I know you reject all this, and there is no need to continue beating a long dead and rotting equine. But I believe you are very mistaken.”
________
Well, isn’t it moot since the FBI has no reason to be interested in me.
But anything can happen, and I should have a plan. If the FBI wants to meet with me, I will call my lawyer and my CPA, and do whatever
they recommend. The possibility the FBI will contact me, however, will be at the bottom of my list of things to worry about.
Tom Scharf,
Yes, people in the top 1% (and especially in the top 0.1%) tend to have a lot of year-to-year variation in income. As you said, this can be due to capital gains, but can also be because those individuals own small to medium size businesses, where year-to-year variation in earnings is potentially large. They can also be in investment banking or hedge funds, where earnings are often linked to stock market prices.
.
A better measure of economic inequality is the huge range personal assets (or if you prefer, personal wealth). I believe who is in the top 1% of wealth varies less year-to-year than who is in the top 1% of earnings. For the top 0.1%, in wealth, year-on-year income is much less important. For the top 0.01% in wealth, year-on-year income variation is mostly irrelevant.
.
A winning issue for Democrats (were they ever able to get past their derangement over Trump) would be the huge discrepancy in how different kinds of income are treated; the very favorable treatment of earnings for mostly super-wealthy individuals (eg the “carried interest” treatment of huge incomes, very low rates for capital gains, etc) tends to “lock-in” the secure position of the very wealthy with tax benefits most voters do not and never can enjoy. But since Democrats protect the super-wealthy from taxes (that is after all where they get a lot of their their funding), and can’t stop machinating about Trump 24/7, it is unlikely they will ever seize this issue.
OK_Max,
No. Failure to correct afterwards doesn’t make it breaking the law.
Traditioally perjury only happened after a person had been sworn in (often for a jury). That meant the person questioned was on alert there was legal (not just moral) jeopardy for lying. The part you are quoting only extends the “breaking the law” bit to cases where you have not been sworn in at all and the FBI is asking “in the course of an investigation”.
So now, even if you have not been sworn in and you don’t know they are asking “in the course of an investigation”, if you intentionally mistate anything that is “material”, you are committing a crime.
That’s what’s happened to people in the Trump administration. They were not sworn in.
Lucia,
I think very few people understand that you are always under oath when you talk to a Federal agent of any kind (heck, even a Fish and Wildlife agent!). Which is why you are under no obligation whatsoever to answer questions posed by Federal agents; to be so obliged would violate your 5th amendment right to not testify against yourself (under oath!). The requirement of the “Miranda warning” addresses the specific case of criminal arrest, but I think there needs to be a Miranda-like warming required any time a Federal agent wants to ask someone a question.
SteveF (Comment #170446)
September 11th, 2018 at 6:41 am
Also stock options and bonuses. Whatever happened to income averaging for federal taxes?
Kenneth Fritsch,
“Whatever happened to income averaging for federal taxes?”
.
Expired for most taxpayers in 1986. Still in place for farmers and fishermen. I suspect income averaging reduced taxes too much for too many individuals with large year-on-year income variation. I used it twice, just before it expired; it was a substantial benefit.
.
Yes, there are many tax advantages for very wealthy individuals. But nobody in Congress is going to touch this issue; too many campaign contributions put at risk. Revocation of the carried interest rule was (unsurprisingly) quietly dropped from the tax reform bill passed by Congress last year. You’ll also be burning corn ethanol, and extra money, in your car for the rest of your life, even if corn ethanol doesn’t make a pinch of difference in total CO2 emissions, and spending far more for foods with sugar in them than you should have to. The soft corruption of political influence peddling is, sadly, everywhere.
SteveF (Comment #170446): “A better measure of economic inequality is the huge range personal assets (or if you prefer, personal wealth).”
Wealth is an even worse measure of inequality than income. Yes, it usually varies less from year to year. But it is far more age dependent. I think it also excludes pensions, which makes it very misleading for moderate income persons. And it excludes intangible assets.
Consider two people, same age. One has a net worth of $0.00. The other has a net worth of -$100K. Which one is wealthier? The guy living under a bridge. Who is better off? The doctor with a bunch of outstanding student loans.
.
Personally, I see no good reason to measure inequality.
Mike M,
“Personally, I see no good reason to measure inequality.”
.
Which seems to be why you object to any measure of wealth at all. Sure, wealth is not always simple to measure, and can often include intangible assets (like a newly minted medical doctor’s degree) but there are indeed huge discrepancies in wealth. There is no reason to exclude pensions, or 401Ks, or any other asset, from an evaluation of individual wealth. And yes, wealth does tend to increase with age for many people (though certainly not all); that is not even relevant.
.
I have no problem with people becoming wealthy. I have no problem with people having large incomes. I do have a problem with wealthy people getting favorable tax treatment for their income because they are politically influential. I also have a problem with sugar farmers and corn farmers, and the whole of the corn-ethanol industry, getting protection from far more efficient competition… only because they are politically influential. I have a problem with unions being able to coerce people into paying union dues when they want to have nothing to do with the union… again, a symptom of political influence.
.
There is a good reason to be aware of the large inequality in wealth: poor people vote, and with little skin in the game, they may not vote to sustain the current economic structure. If they are being disadvantaged by the structure of tax laws, and I believe they clearly are, then they will vote accordingly. At present, 1% of the population controls ~42% of all wealth, while the bottom 50% of the population controls just over 1% of all wealth. The multi-decade trend is for an ever increasing share of total wealth to be in the hands of an ever decreasing fraction of the population. This is politically unsustainable. Tax laws that don’t give favorable treatment to the income of the wealthy seems to me a perfectly reasonable way to start addressing the problem.
SteveF (Comment #170450)
September 11th, 2018 at 7:28 am
It helped me several times before it expired.
Taxes should be viewed in light of what motivates politicians to impose taxes. It is two fold: 1. To grow government ever bigger and 2. Tax whatever is most expedient politically as in tax the wealthy because their are fewer voters in that class and tax the lesser wealthy by using emotional issues like sin taxes or do it indirectly by taxing an entity that will pass the tax onto prices paid by the less wealthy.
There are no Civics 101 high minded motivations or well thought out issues such as fairness behind taxation no matter what big government advocates might want us to believe.
Apparently most of the 1% get their income through capital gains instead of salary. It has become similar to a signal to noise measurement, the noisier the individual measurements (income) are, the large the ratio of percentiles are. Before measuring this ratio, the income noise needs to be removed for this intended purpose.
.
It’s not hard to measure income or wealth disparities by age bracket. Here is breakdown by age and percentile which is the best way to look at it I think.
https://dqydj.com/the-net-worth-of-different-age-groups-in-america/
.
Also see the income vs. net worth vs age chart here:
https://dqydj.com/correlation-of-income-and-net-worth-america-2016/
.
The wealth disparity (vs income disparity) is very large. A wealth ratio is pointless because these numbers easily go negative. The number of people with near zero or worse wealth (20%) in this country is dominated by the young, especially now with college debt. Wealth also has an income thresholding function, you need to have extra income to generate wealth.
.
A wealth tax should be a very seductive issue for politicians, that is one tremendous pile of money. Some states have personal property taxes that are recurring asset taxes. I consider this double, triple, … taxation so am opposed on those grounds, as well as the point that this wealth is not sitting around in Uncle Scrooge’s vault but is invested in wiser ways than what the government would do. No doubt wealthy donations will disappear once somebody supports that.
.
The entire tax system is a Rube Goldberg machine. Once you give somebody a tax break it is really hard to take it back. The left is making almost zero noise on recalling the Trump tax breaks.
The * perception * of unfair treatment regarding income and wealth will cause social upheaval, regardless of if it is true. This is why using a measurement that tells you what you really want to know is vital. Unfortunately these are messy statistics that are hard to get right even when you have no agenda. An exacerbating problem is the declining trust in (wealthy) elite expertise and the media. “Trust us, those sub prime mortgages aren’t going to cause a problem, we are Ivy Leaguers”. It’s making this volatile and the risks of exploitation by those with agendas is high. Economic socialism is the answer!
.
Part of the increasing wealth disparity is that the total wealth is expanding which makes the PDF tails spread out in both directions. Long tail statistics are easily mined for great sounding talking points, see climate change.
The link below allows one to see who pays most of the federal taxes currently.
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2016-update/
Income inequality is something that will always be with us in a capitalistic oriented economic system and allows wealthy individuals to invest their capital and grow the productivity of the economy which in turn improves the standard of living for all.
This argument is probably too complicated for most politicians to use and/or they see it as greatly reducing the influence of politicians and thus they use income inequality in attempts to extract more taxes for growing the government.
In socialist oriented societies you have more equal and low incomes by just about all except those running the government directed show.
Government expenditures vs GDP is about 38%. So we are getting taxed at about 38% (ignore debt for the moment) one way or the other. Everywhere there is a pile of money, the government is taxing it.
.
There are way too many stealth taxes which makes individual overall level of taxation very difficult to measure. Everyone pays gas taxes and sale tax. Medicare, social security, corporate taxes passed to customers, cable and cell taxes, property taxes, state income tax, city taxes, county taxes, license fees, and on and on and on.
SteveF (Comment #170452): “I have no problem with people becoming wealthy. I have no problem with people having large incomes. I do have a problem with wealthy people getting favorable tax treatment for their income because they are politically influential. I also have a problem with sugar farmers and corn farmers, and the whole of the corn-ethanol industry, getting protection from far more efficient competition… only because they are politically influential. I have a problem with unions being able to coerce people into paying union dues when they want to have nothing to do with the union… again, a symptom of political influence.”
.
I agree with all of that
.
SteveF: “There is a good reason to be aware of the large inequality in wealth: poor people vote, and with little skin in the game, they may not vote to sustain the current economic structure.”
.
That is why I object to the way wealth and income stats are misused. The misuse of those stats is designed to make inequality seem far greater than it is in order to drive a wedge into society and undermine the economic system that produces our wealth.
.
SteveF: “At present, 1% of the population controls ~42% of all wealth, while the bottom 50% of the population controls just over 1% of all wealth.”
.
That stat is so misleading as to be entirely bogus. In the U.S., retirement funds amount to about $19 trillion, compared to about $90 trillion in total wealth. A big chunk of that $19 trillion belongs to the bottom 50%. A big chunk of the bottom 50% consists of students and people just starting out, they often have negative net wealth. A person with a $250K home and a $200K mortgage controls far more wealth than his net worth.
.
The large majority of the bottom 50% are not poor in any meaningful sense.
.
SteveF: “The multi-decade trend is for an ever increasing share of total wealth to be in the hands of an ever decreasing fraction of the population.”
.
Only because of starting from an entirely atypical point in time and by ignoring most of the wealth of ordinary people.
The amount of retirement savings the bottom 50% have is quite small. The median retirement savings for all families (includes those without retirement accounts) is about $8,000 at age 55. 30% have zero.
.
One can imagine that future social security/pension benefits could be reasonably counted as wealth.
lucia (Comment #170447)
September 11th, 2018 at 6:44 am
So now, even if you have not been sworn in and you don’t know they are asking “in the course of an investigationâ€, if you intentionally mistate anything that is “materialâ€, you are committing a crime.
_______
Yes, clearly the defendant committed a crime if his misstatement was intentional and its material. On the other hand, If defendant’s material misstatement was unintentional, and he discovers his error later(say in a few days), but fails to inform the authorities, he also may have committed a crime by keeping his mouth shut. Or maybe not. I don’t know.
I feel like I’m going in a circle on this subject. I’m sorry for wasting your time if we have already covered it.
_______________________
Back to your Comment #170440
You said “I believe in my situation, the likelihood the FBI would ask me to come in to talk to them is practically zero. However if they called me in for reasons unknown to me to question me on some matter, I would take that as an indication that I may well need a lawyer.”
_____
If the FBI wants to talk someone, I don’t know how it goes about setting up the interview (when, where, the subject, etc). If agents just show up unannounced at your work place or home, I suppose
requesting (or demanding in a nice way) an appointment at a later
date would not seem unreasonable, depending on their reason for wanting to talk. Unless it were about an urgent matter, I imagine
the FBI would contact you to arrange an appointment. I don’t know how much they would tell you ahead of time about the subject of discussion.
I also don’t know what the FBI would think if you insisted on having your lawyer present before answering any questions. The agents might think you are just doing what they would do in your place
or they might suspect you have something to hide.
I know one thing for sure. If the FBI wanted information on a possible crime that occurred in my neighborhood, say a kidnapping, I most certainly would not say “I ain’t saying nothing until I have a lawyer.”
I would try to be as helpful as I could be.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170459)
September 11th, 2018 at 10:38 am
The amount of retirement savings the bottom 50% have is quite small. The median retirement savings for all families (includes those without retirement accounts) is about $8,000 at age 55. 30% have zero.
.
One can imagine that future social security/pension benefits could be reasonably counted as wealth.
______
Sounds reasonable. Your Social Security wealth depends on how long
you live, which means you don’t know for sure how wealthy you are when you start drawing it. But when you are about to expire, you can know how wealthy you have been.
Looks like Florence is predicted to make landfall and then basically stop for a couple days. This is very rare and now it has happened 2 years in a row. Gargantuan rainfall when this occurs. This will no doubt be called the “new normal” because of climate change. The models always predicted what the last storm did somehow, but they can never tell us that beforehand for some reason, ha ha.
Mike M,
“That stat is so misleading as to be entirely bogus. In the U.S., retirement funds amount to about $19 trillion, compared to about $90 trillion in total wealth. A big chunk of that $19 trillion belongs to the bottom 50%. ”
.
Actually it is not bogus at all. If you think a big chunk belongs to the bottom 50%, please show data supporting that. The $19 trillion in retirement funds is not mostly in the hands of the bottom 50%, it is mostly in the hands of the middle and upper middle class.
.
There is no need to get bogged down in the details. No matter how you look at it, the changing nature of the US economy (indeed the global economy) financially rewards some people (“knowledge workers”) much more than others, and those that are falling behind are those who do not have the skills in demand in today’s economy. The multi-decade trend is very clear. The growing disparity in accumulation of wealth is a natural consequence of growing disparity in income. How could it be otherwise? (not rhetorical)
.
If conservatives choose to simply ignore the growing disparity in wealth, bad (political) things will happen to them. The current tax structure is heavily tilted to give very favorable treatment (low tax rates) to the income of wealthy individuals. This needs to change, and very soon, or Republicans will find themselves in the political wilderness.
SteveF (Comment #170463)
“No matter how you look at it, the changing nature of the US economy (indeed the global economy) financially rewards some people (“knowledge workersâ€) much more than others, and those that are falling behind are those who do not have the skills in demand in today’s economy.”
________
Some attribute the long-term decline in the male labor force participation rate at least in part to “those who do not have the skills in demand in today’s economy.” Others believe the decline results from a supply side deficiency, basically saying more and more men aren’t worth a sh*t for moral reasons rather than lack of skills.
Regardless of the reason, a growing imbalance between labor force supply and demand could turn into a big problem for society and the
economy. I believe people need to feel useful.
Favorable treatment:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/US_Share_of_Income_Taxes_Paid_by_Income_Level_v1.png/350px-US_Share_of_Income_Taxes_Paid_by_Income_Level_v1.png
The top 2.7% pay over half of income taxes. I’d argue that until you get to $100 k of AGI, you’re being carried. The bottom 62% of earners pay 5.6% of the income taxes.
SteveF,
If our tax structure is tilted towards those with high incomes, then how come after the Trump tax cuts, the top 20% of filers by income is estimated to pay a larger fraction of total income taxes in 2018 (87%) than they did before the cuts (84%, 2017)? In fact, the US has an extremely progressive income tax, possibly the most progressive in the world since we don’t have a VAT. The top 1% is estimated to pay 43.3% of total income taxes in 2018 compared to 38.0% in 2017
https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-americans-will-pay-87-of-income-tax-1523007001
The cut in the corporate tax rate makes the US corporate tax rate comparable to the rest of the developed world rather than leading it by a large margin.
Max_OK,
Sure it’s hard to know the net worth of Social Security and Medicare for an individual, but that’s what actuaries are for. The estimates as a group are as accurate as mortality statistics allow, which is pretty accurate.
https://www.kitces.com/blog/valuing-social-security-benefits-as-an-asset-on-the-household-balance-sheet/
In 2015 the net present value (lump sum) of Social Security benefits for the average retiree at age 66 was ~$280,000 for a male and $335,000 for a female. For someone collecting the maximum benefit, the lump sum value was $572,000 for a male and $683,000 for a female. Note that delaying collection of SS benefits has little effect on the net present value. IMO, it makes little sense to spend down your capital, assuming that you have it, to collect higher payments in the future unless you know for sure you’re going to live past 100.
Likely a similar calculation can be done for Medicare benefits and employer pensions. I’ll leave it up to someone else to look that up.
Max_OK.
He hasn’t. I don’t understand why you seem to keep not knowing this. It only matters if it was intentional at the time he made the mistatement. If it was not intentional at the time he made the mistatement, then it was not intentional. It cannot become intentional because of something that happens after the statement was made. So: not illegal according to the statue you found.
Unless you find another statute that says the person is required to come in and correct when they realize their error, it is not illegal. Because the statue you posted merely says it has to be intentional. If I mistate unintentionally on Tues. Sept 11, at 5 pm, and then realize my mistatement on Wed Sept 12, my mistatement was remains unintentional. Remembering does not suddenly make what I did the day before intentional.
Now… it would be true I might be intentionally not going in and correcting the record. Maybe that’s just bad as intentionally mistating. But it’s still a different act, and this different act is not described as illegal in the statute. If this different act is not made illegal by a statute, then it is not illegal.
DeWitt,
Of course, income tax is not the whole story. Payroll tax, medicare, and employer matching are far more important for lower income employees.
.
But don’t misunderstand me: I am suggesting that it is the very wealthy who get special tax treatment for most of their income. For example, the top 20% or top 10% in income do pay at relatively high marginal rates. But a very wealthy person who gets most income from capital gains and/or share dividends pays much lower marginal rates than the maximum. The absolute amount paid is not the issue (a billionaire pays a lot of tax, in absolute terms, of course), it is the low rates the very wealth pay that is the issue.
To change the topic, there is a new report of near room temperature superconductivity. It is in LaH10 at 260 K (-13 C). The existing record holder is H2S at 203 K (-70 C). Both of those are at extremely high pressure, so they would not be practical.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/new-hydrogen-rich-compound-may-be-record-breaking-superconductor?tgt=nr
People in the top 1% of income changes from year to year, with people selling businesses.
Even the other 99% has a lot of S corp being listed under personal income tax.
Capital gains tax is a tax on new money, and similar to regulations serves the interests of the wealthiest in adding costs to competitors.
Re lucia (Comment #170467)
lucia, I’m afraid I have beat this subject into the ground, so if you
spend little or no time in responding, I will not complain.
Inaccurate statements on a form (e.g., a form SF-86) are subject to criminal penalties, under U.S. Criminal Code, Title 18, § 1001, according to the linked source. Possibly inaccurate material statements given verbally during an investigation could also be subject to criminal penalties under this code. My interpretation is “inaccurate statements†includes unintentional misstatements. My interpretation could be wrong.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/law-lying-perjury-false-statements-and-obstruction
But suppose unintentionally inaccurate verbal material statements aren’t subject to criminal penalties, the defendant has made such a statement, discovers his error before the investigators find his
statement to be untrue, and either (a) informs the investigators of his error, or (b) remains silent. If he reveals his error, the investigators may be inclined to accept his explanation that the error was just the result of a faulty memory rather than an intentional deception. On the other hand, if he has remained silent, the investigators may believe his intention was to deceive, and consequently charge him with lying. So in effect the unintentionally inaccurate material statement ends up being subject to criminal penalties anyway.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170466)
“If our tax structure is tilted towards those with high incomes, then how come after the Trump tax cuts, the top 20% of filers by income is estimated to pay a larger fraction of total income taxes in 2018 (87%) than they did before the cuts (84%, 2017)?”
___
DeWitt, I believe that referred to households with incomes of $150,000 or more, an arguably low amount to be considered a high income. I wonder if the results would be different if the cutoffs were raised to households with incomes of $500,000 or more, $750,000 or more, and $1,000,000 or more?
You said “Sure it’s hard to know the net worth of Social Security and Medicare for an individual, but that’s what actuaries are for. The estimates as a group are as accurate as mortality statistics allow, which is pretty accurate.”
Dewitt, thank you for those interesting statistics on Social Security payouts. While the dollar amounts don’t necessarily apply to a specific individual, since no individual knows with certainty how long he will live, these amounts can be helpful for an individual’s
planning.
“I believe people need to feel useful.”
.
This is the biggest problem we face i believe. People don’t scream for money, they scream for (well paying) jobs. Those who think universal income will solve things are wrong in my view. Most people have a yearning to be respected and useful, and to be contributing team members of their family/tribe. Desire for respect is not correlated to cognitive ability.
.
The losers in the cognitive lottery want to be respected, and they most certainly are not being respected by a certain segment of society. This is an explosively stupid way to treat people. “They don’t understand facts, they are racists, they are xenophobes, rednecks, deplorables, etc.”. People are murdered routinely over disputes on respect. Feeling disrespected and humiliated are very powerful emotions. The left preaches that lesson for gays, trans, and immigrants. Class based disrespect is a dangerous tool to use for those on top. It costs almost nothing to treat people with respect.
SteveF would you care to elaborate on what you see as political means to a more equal distribution of income and further how equal should that income distribution be.
There are tried and true means of getting incomes more equal and considerably lower on average, but that requires a very large and authoritarian government. It usually results in everybody being unhappy and the need for an even stronger government to keep the populace from revolting.
OK_Max
The form can say whatever it wants. It’s still the statute that matters.
Go read the statute:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
To be illegal it has to first be knowing and willful. That’s the mens rea. If there is no mean rea, it’s not a crime. Abbreviated text on a form that forgets to mention the “knowing and willful” part does not change the law. That’s not how our legal system works.
Honestly, it’s amazing that you both think you could be breaking this law by doing something that is unknowing and not willful and also think you somehow would not need a lawyer when talking to the FBI merely because you didn’t know or ever intend to lie! If it was actually illegal to lie unintentionally you would obviously need a lawyer when you talked to the FBI merely to prevent you from ever, ever, ever making a false statement. That amounts to having the lawyer force you to answer either “Let me check and verify.” or “I don’t have a record of that in my diary so I can’t really be certain” as an answer to every single freakin’ question!
But in short: it doesn’t matter what that freakin’ form says if the mistatement was neither knowing nor willful it is not illegal. If it was neither of those at the time you said it it can’t become “willful” retroactively later. Not going back to clear things up is a different act from making a willful statement and doesn’t violate that statute. If it violates anything, someone needs to point to that other statute.
OK_Max,
For that matter, to check on the lawfare blog’s completeness, go read the form. It ways
The blogger left out the words “knowing and willful” from her blog post. A blogger leaving these words out does not delete them from the form nor the law. I realize you are very impressed with that blog post. I’m sure it was not the intention of the blogger to mislead or confuse you. She just wants to put this in context of Flynn and the risks that happen when discussing the FBI. But if you want to understand the specific issue about “willful” which she does not address, you need to read the underlying documents. If you read them you “uncertainty” about this should disappear.
No it doesn’t. Because a blogger writing a brief post that leaves out the issue of “intentionality” both from the statement of the law, and when describing the warnings on the form, cannot magically change the actual law which requires it to be intentional.
An important distinction on “unintentional” lies is who has the burden of proof on knowing, willful, etc. once that lie has been made and shown to be a lie. I “suspect that the suspect” has this burden, ha ha. Every intentional liar is going to claim it was unintentional.
.
Some lies could be easily proven unintentional, ESPN reported the Yankees lost 10-7, the suspect said “the Yankees lost 10-7”, but the Yankees really won 10-7 because ESPN misreported it. He technically lied but had a reasonable basis for saying that statement. Somebody has to judge the lie. This is not a knowing lie, but only for illustration of how there are lies of different classes.
.
If you do an Andrew McCabe, then you lied multiple times, determined that your lie was exposed, then went in to correct the record after that. This isn’t going to cut it. Andrew McCabe should have the burden to correct the record before his lie was exposed to avoid prosecution.
One of these lying exercises I have run across is when you apply for new auto insurance, you typically get queried for previous claims as insurance companies don’t always share information. So I tell them everything I know, then they said “what about that 2009 claim?”. This is a material lie of omission that I would be motivated to make for financial gain. I just forgot about it. They asked me to detail claims live on the phone, I did my best, but failed because my memory is flawed.
.
Who is to say if this was intentional or unintentional? How could you possibly prove it? It’s quite convenient to say I forgot, forgive me.
.
Which is one example of why it is dangerous to go into a live interview without knowing what you will be asked. If the FBI told me “We are going to interview you on auto claims under penalties of a felony if you don’t get it right” then I would certainly remember the 2009 incident. Going to jail because I “lied” about the 2009 incident isn’t something that seems like fair justice.
.
One doesn’t need to be too cynical to understand that the FBI uses live interviews because they actually hope you will lie. It’s a useful tool to help them get their answers. The problem is the penalty compels reasonable people to not talk to them at all.
SteveF:
“But a very wealthy person who gets most income from capital gains and/or share dividends pays much lower marginal rates than the maximum.â€
What you said is true. My main job is doing personal income tax returns. The Mitt Romney effect where he looked bad for paying only about a 12% rate on his huge income.
Qualified dividends can be taxed favorably with a lower rate. Part of the logic is that corporations pay a tax and from what’s leftover after that, they may pay out as dividends, that can be taxed again. Almost all dividends are taxable income with some exceptions being things like, return of capital which is a rare situation.
A lower long term capital gains rates has some kind of logic like, It’s good to investment in places like Amazon. So then Amazon will pay corporate taxes and hire people. It was good for people to invest in Apple so that my son can buy the latest phone and have a MacBook. And that was a good scene in Forest Gump. One less thing to worry about.
Favorable taxation of qualified dividends and long term capital gains are good for at least one reason. To offset the many decades of us listening to people tell how bad corporations are.
Today’s most humorous news. $1 million was crowdfunded, if Sen. Collins votes for Kavanaugh then they pay her opponent the $1M.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/12/activists-raised-million-defeat-susan-collins-if-she-votes-kavanaugh-she-says-its-bribery/
.
It is almost universally acknowledged that this is illegal. This of course happens all the time in reality, but not blatantly in the open by unsophisticated people. Consider the quid pro quo of NRA election funding.
.
“Adav Noti, a senior director at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, which works on rules of ethics and finance in government, told The Post that he thought the listing was illegal, noting that bribery is a federal crime.”
Sorry.
.
There is a more humorous news article today. I present you with a shiny glittery example of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Hurricane Florence is Trump’s fault says the WP editorial board.
.
Another hurricane is about to batter our coast. Trump is complicit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/another-hurricane-is-about-to-batter-our-coast-trump-is-complicit/2018/09/11/ccaed766-b5fb-11e8-a7b5-adaaa5b2a57f_story.html
.
This article is not worth any further comment.
Kenneth Fritsch,
There are no panaceas, because the growing inequity in wealth has many causes, not the least of which are globalization of production and increasing compensation for those able to most contribute economically to the global economy.
.
The tendency for people to consider only income tax when looking at the progressiveness of taxes ignores reality on the ground: lower income people pay a substantial portion of their income to Social Security and Medicare, while wealthy people pay only a very small fraction of their income for these taxes. Social Security and Medicare benefits are hardly connected to lifetime social security taxable income; the suggestion that people “earn” their Social Security and medicare benefits is a fantasy, and one we can do without when considering federal tax burdens.
.
That said, there are a few things which I think would help under the heading of “Stop giving very wealthy people very favorable tax treatment”: First, no more ‘carried interest’ scam. Second, treat all exercised stock options granted to employees (the difference between the option price and the actual stock price) as normal income on the day of exercise or upon death of the employee. Third, capital gains should be treated as normal income, with an automatic inflation adjustment for gross profits on the sale of assets held more than 2 years (this eliminates most of the “inflation risk” for legitimate long term investments). Fourth, stop taxing C-corp profits which are distributed as dividends, and treat those dividends as normal income (fully taxable) for the shareholders; tax retained profits at C-corps at the highest marginal rate for individuals.
.
There are other things that can be done, but the above is a reasonable start.
Tom Scharf,
“Hurricane Florence is Trump’s fault says the WP editorial board.”
.
Of course it is Trumps fault. Everything bad that happens in the world is Trump’s fault… and the fault of the people who voted for him.
SteveF (Comment #170483): “The tendency for people to consider only income tax when looking at the progressiveness of taxes ignores reality on the ground: lower income people pay a substantial portion of their income to Social Security and Medicare, while wealthy people pay only a very small fraction of their income for these taxes. Social Security and Medicare benefits are hardly connected to lifetime social security taxable income; the suggestion that people “earn†their Social Security and medicare benefits is a fantasy, and one we can do without when considering federal tax burdens.”
.
Uh, no. Social Security benefits are tied closely to tax eligible earnings. https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/question-and-answer/how-are-social-security-benefits-calculated.html
There is a progressive component to the benefits, but that makes the overall system beneficial to the lowest income people.
.
Medicare benefits are the same for all, but the tax is an uncapped flat tax, plus the Obamacare surcharge on high earners. So again the overall effect is progressive.
.
A progressive tax, like the income tax, is appropriate for paying the common expenses of the country, like defense and internal improvements. But is is not appropriate for entitlements like Social Security and Medicare.
.
I strongly agree with SteveF that all income should be treated the same. As Ragnaar noted, the justification for treating unearned income differently is the corporate income tax. That tax accomplishes all sorts of other mischief and should be eliminated. But only if all income is to be treated equally.
There is also some progressive rules for how much of your SS it taxable. If you have no other income than none of it is taxable. If you have a bunch of other income (401K, IRA, etc.) then your SS is completely taxable. Sliding scale in between.
SteveF (Comment #170483)
September 12th, 2018 at 11:58 am
SteveF, as a libertarian I would not want to increase anybody’s tax burden and at the same time would like to reduce the size of government.
My plan would be along the lines of eliminating all government subsidies to businesses, and including farmers, and other groups and entities such as foreign aid. I would eliminate the SS and Medicare taxes for all low income people and at the same time means test the SS and Medicare payments with a publicized plan of continuing over time to lower the means levels for the means test so that higher income people could make plans accordingly. Means testing is something that liberals counter-intuitively oppose and thus must be a good tool for reducing the size of government. I think they see it as a way of eventually eliminating these programs and I, of course, would have to agree. I would also immediately reduce our military presence in the world and no longer support military bases in regions of the world where the US had military conflicts that have been concluded for decades. Also at this point I would not have the government involved in space programs on the basis that if it cannot be handled and justified for private investment it is not a good investment for government. I would also wean R&D from dependency on government money.
My instincts for the need for capital investments for increasing productivity and thus standards of living would go very much against higher taxes on capital gains. Our politicians are currently too much into the mode of Keynesian thinking that savings and investments are bad for the economy. That tendency allows politicians to ignore the growing debts at all levels of government.
One of my biggest problems with government that has not been sufficiently exposed is that arising from Federal Reserve policies whereby artificially low interest rates have been justified as a means to keeping the economy humming. Printing money out of thin air definitely favors those that have first dibs on this money and it greatly favors the wealthy and investments in equities as opposed to bonds. I do not hear those who complain about wealth distribution pointing to this action as a problem.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170486)
September 12th, 2018 at 2:47 pm
Only up to 85% as I recall.
Tom Scharf,
Up to 85% (not 100%) of Social Security benefits are taxable if income (adjusted gross income and nontaxable interest plus one half of Social Security benefits) is greater than $34,000 for an individual or $44,000 if married and filing jointly. Below $25,000 for an individual or $32,000 for a joint filing, there is no tax on SS benefits. For the intermediate range, up to 50% of benefits are considered taxable income. The taxes on benefits go into the ‘trust fund’.
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-2014/social-security-benefit-taxes.html
As long as there is a cap on maximum benefits, then there should be an income cap on Social Security taxes. In 2015 only 6% of workers earned more than the cap of $128,400.
Kenneth,
Trump has, in fact, castigated the Federal Reserve for hiking interest rates. Like tariffs, this would hurt the majority of his base.
Mike M,
The Medicare payroll tax is 2.9% (half out of your paycheck and half indirectly paid by your employer). Medicare tax is not applied to income from other sources (interest, dividends, capital gains etc.). It is true that the Medicare tax is not capped for payroll earnings, but that is irrelevant: wealthy people pay absolutely nothing on non-payroll income, which is often most or even all of their earnings.
.
“But is is not appropriate for entitlements like Social Security and Medicare.”
.
Why? (real question) How about food stamps, unemployment benefits, general welfare benefits, Medicaid, veteran’s benefits and other “entitlements”; is funding from general revenues inappropriate for all those things as well? (real question) If so, why? (real question) Seems to me money is fungible, and it is quite irrelevant where a specific dollar in the US Treasury came from. If you consider payroll taxes as taxes, the US system is not nearly so “progressive” as income taxes alone would suggest.
.
But that is not my biggest concern. My concern is that very wealthy people (like Mitt Romney) pay very low tax rates on very large incomes; Democrats pointed out how little tax Romney paid, and it hurt his candidacy. Trump (smarter than Romney!) simply refused to disclose his very low tax rate. But the real scandal is the very low tax rate for the very wealthy, not that some well known wealthy person took advantage of the low rates.
DeWitt,
“As long as there is a cap on maximum benefits, then there should be an income cap on Social Security taxes.”
.
Demonstrating that Franklin Roosevelt’s bedtime story about Social Security being “like insurance” lives on.
Minimum current Social Security benefit (required earnings of ~$60,000 in 2018 dollars over a total of ten earning years…. $6,000 per year) is about $1,200 per month. Maximum benefits (paying the maximum possible amount over 40 years, say roughly equal to paying taxes on ~$3 million 2018 dollars) is just under $2,900 per month. So, a 50-fold change in contributions generates a 2.4 fold change in benefits. There is little connection between benefits and contributions.
lucia (Comment #170476)
“Honestly, it’s amazing that you both think you could be breaking this law by doing something that is unknowing and not willful and also think you somehow would not need a lawyer when talking to the FBI merely because you didn’t know or ever intend to lie!”
______
Of course I would want a lawyer in that kind of situation, but it is extremely unlikely I would ever be in that kind of situation. As I said to you in my Comment #170380 back on Sept. 9, “I might take the precaution of having a lawyer present in interviews with the police or FBI. It would depend on the situation and nature of the interview.” I believe that was my initial comment on the subject. As I said to SteveF in my Comment # 170445 “If the FBI wants to meet with me, I will call my lawyer and my CPA, and do whatever they recommend. The possibility the FBI will contact me, however, will be at the bottom of my list of things to worry about.” I can see how some of my comments in between those two could be misinterpreted as a change in my position, but it has not changed.
It was recommended here that I read
on talking to the FBI: Everybody Lies: FBI Edition
https://www.popehat.com/2017/12/04/everybody-lies-fbi-edition/
The article starts by saying “You, dear readers, know my advice about talking to the FBI: don’t. If the FBI — or any law enforcement agency — asks to talk to you, say “No, I want to talk to my lawyer, I don’t want to talk to you,” and repeat as necessary.â€
Can you imagine yourself saying “No, I want to talk to my lawyer, I don’t want to talk to you,” if the FBI showed up at your door investigating a kidnapping in your neighborhood.
Not there wasn’t any good advice in the article, but I did find it exaggerated the risk of talking to the FBI or police.
For those of you counting at home, SS is based on your top 35 earning years, so if you have 35 decent years of earning you are pretty much maxed out, early retirement won’t change your benefits. The SS website has that record.
.
I have found the decision to collect at 62 versus 70 to be mind numbingly confusing. If you knew what future investment returns were and how long you are going to live then it is easy. If you have just 401K’s and IRA’s (as opposed to a fixed pension) then it may be best to collect later for a hedge against living a long time and running out of money. If you have enough to fund you for a long time then more money sooner might be advisable.
SteveF (Comment #170491): “How about food stamps, unemployment benefits, general welfare benefits, Medicaid, veteran’s benefits and other “entitlementsâ€; is funding from general revenues inappropriate for all those things as well?”
.
I was using entitlements in the older, narrower sense of something to which one is contractually entitled in return for having done something. So pensions, Social Security, Medicare (yeah, I know you refuse to admit that). I know people use entitlement to mean social welfare spending, but I resist that since it destroys a perfectly good word without gaining anything. Welfare would not fit the narrow definition of entitlement. Veteran’s benefit’s would, but that is obviously part of defense spending.
.
SteveF: “Seems to me money is fungible, and it is quite irrelevant where a specific dollar in the US Treasury came from.”
If you refuse to recognize distinctions that 250 million or more other people recognize, then you will come to different conclusions than those people. That is your prerogative. But please don’t pretend that it is impossible for others to see things differently, especially when you know that most people do.
.
SteveF: “If you consider payroll taxes as taxes, the US system is not nearly so “progressive†as income taxes alone would suggest.”
Yes. If you assume your conclusion, then your conclusion inevitably follows.
.
SteveF: “the real scandal is the very low tax rate for the very wealthy, not that some well known wealthy person took advantage of the low rates.”
On that, we agree.
SteveF (Comment #170493): “Minimum current Social Security benefit (required earnings of ~$60,000 in 2018 dollars over a total of ten earning years…. $6,000 per year) is about $1,200 per month.”
Uh, no. The statement I get projects my benefits to be much less than that. And this also says you are wrong: https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/06/28/what-is-the-minimum-social-security-benefit.aspx
As I understand it, the benefit is based on contributions, but is not linear. Much like the income tax.
Max,
Heck yes, I can imagine it. The FBI have sent a lot of innocent people to prison over time and they know it.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/fbi-evidence-single-hair-kirk-odom
I said I’d shut up about this, but as our Almost Madam President famously said, at this point what difference does it make.
[Edit: From the article (and this is only three years ago mind you):
I tell you, these guys are not on your side.]
Tom Scharf (Comment #170474)
“It costs almost nothing to treat people with respect.”
_________
Amen !
I think it’s its own reward, but I suppose some don’t get anything out of treating everyone with respect
I guess it’s human nature for the rich to look down their noses at the poor, the educated at the uneducated, the pious at the sinner. It’s not a good part of human nature.
Thankfully, we do have upward mobility. Some cultures don’t.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170495): “I have found the decision to collect at 62 versus 70 to be mind numbingly confusing.”
I decided it was easy. My idea is that it is not about maximizing money, it is about minimizing risk. I do not need my SS or CPP (that’s Canadian for Social Security) in the short term, so I will wait until I am 70 to maximize the monthly benefit. That will be a hedge against investments going bad or old age getting really expensive (always a possibility).
mark bofill (Comment #170498)
September 12th, 2018 at 6:17 pm
Max,
Can you imagine yourself saying “No, I want to talk to my lawyer, I don’t want to talk to you,†if the FBI showed up at your door investigating a kidnapping in your neighborhood.
Not there wasn’t any good advice in the article, but I did find it exaggerated the risk of talking to the FBI or police.
Heck yes, I can imagine it.
____
It was supposed to go without saying that you didn’t take part in the kidnapping.
:p
Read about it Max.
https://www.businessinsider.com/people-may-have-been-wrongfully-executed-because-the-fbi-messed-up-evidence-2015-4
Nine (9) people have been executed based at least in part on bogus FBI hair microscopy. Twenty one (21) are still on death row.
These people were innocent. You would have advised them that they had nothing to fear from the FBI. Their lives were destroyed, and nine of them were killed.
.
I don’t care what you believe. Still, periodically if you insist on proclaiming here that it makes no sense to lawyer up against the FBI when you know you’re innocent, I may rebut you because readers at a casual glance might mistake silence for agreement.
“Hurricane Florence is Trump’s fault says the WP editorial board.â€
Along with Iraq War and high spending, hanging George W Bush with Katrina was a major media campaign in 2005 leading to Democratic takeover of the House.
The polls are not coming in as favorable to Democrats as they’d like, and they are getting desperate.
SteveF:
Attribute carried interest existing to the swamp. Assume the tax treatment is a scam. It’s about 0.001% of all taxable income.
“…treat all exercised stock options granted to employees (the difference between the option price and the actual stock price) as normal income on the day of exercise or upon death of the employee.â€
From what I see, most of it is. I call them one day trades. The employee walks away with cash and and their ‘gain’ is treated as wages. As for the people that hold the stock, we aren’t talking about a lot of money. As long as we’re talking about capital gains, we could talk about capital losses that are capped at $3000 a year.
Lower long term capital gains rate have a long history. They were highest when Nixon, Ford and Carter were in office. You just won when they reduced the difference between ordinary rates and long term capital gains.
Your fourth point is making this too complicated. What if they retain them for 6 months and then invest them leading to an eventual write off? You’ve already taxed them, and then you need to make up more rules following what Congress thinks is fair. Get rid of the corporate tax. The corporate tax rate is the most discussed issue as a whole party dislikes them or acts like they do. Just listen to Sanders talk.
MikeN (Comment #170503): “Along with Iraq War and high spending, hanging George W Bush with Katrina was a major media campaign in 2005 leading to Democratic takeover of the House.”
Bush was not blamed for Katrina. He was blamed for the incompetent government response to Katrina; most of that blame was deserved. FEMA is almost entirely patronage, not Civil Service, and Bush replaced the Clinton people who did a good job with his own people who did not.
Max-OK “Can you imagine yourself saying “No, I want to talk to my lawyer, I don’t want to talk to you,†if the FBI showed up at your door investigating a kidnapping in your neighborhood.”
…..
I can. The FBI is legally entitled to lie.
…..
A short example as to how the FBI tried to frame my father many years ago. My father was golf pro at a public course. People were selling stolen tickets to the old Cleveland Open PGA golf tournament at the golf course. My father (an Italian) had nothing to do with it, but was aware that stolen tickets were being sold.
When the FBI first questioned my father, he lied about knowing about the stolen tickets at the golf course. (Wonder whether that was a crime at the time — He was afraid that if he got involved some Mafia types might knife him) He felt guilty about it and called the FBI and told them that he had lied and had seen stolen tickets at the golf course.
…..
What was the FBI’s response? When the Cleveland Open was played several weeks later, instead of asking holders of the stolen tickets where they got the tickets from, the FBI asked them whether they got the tickets from Tom (not father’s real name) If one person had lied about the source of the tickets, and said that my father had sold them, my father would have probably been convicted of theft and some sort of conspiracy or fraud.
JD
Should have said above that my father called the FBI the next day to tell them that he had lied and seen the stolen tickets.
Peter Strzok text message:
“Also, apparently Times is angry with us about the WP (Washington Post) scoop and earlier discussion we had about the Schmidt piece that had so many inaccuracies. Too much to detail here, but I told Mike (redacted) and Andy they need to understand we were absolutely dealing in good faith with them,†Strzok texted to Page on April 14, 2017. “The FISA one, coupled with the Guardian piece from yesterday.â€
I think this is the Guardian piece.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia
mark bofill (Comment #170502)
Still, periodically if you insist on proclaiming here that it makes no sense to lawyer up against the FBI when you know you’re innocent, I may rebut you because readers at a casual glance might mistake silence for agreement.
_______
I don’t insist on that. I insist you read my writing more carefully. I insist you read your linked Business Insider article on hairs more carefully. Here’s a couple of quotes from that hair article:
“It’s possible that some of these people who were executed were wrongly executed,” Paul Cates, communications director of the Innocence Project, told Business Insider.
mark, this means it’s possible some and it’s possible none.
“The 33 inmates on death row now could have been wrongfully convicted as well, Cates noted.”
mark, this means could have or could not have.
BTW, it’s irrelevant, but did you know Asians have bigger hairs than whites?
OK_Max
I knew the hair diameter of most Asian hair is larger than that of most whites.
JD Ohio (Comment #170506)
September 12th, 2018 at 8:31 pm
Max-OK “Can you imagine yourself saying “No, I want to talk to my lawyer, I don’t want to talk to you,†if the FBI showed up at your door investigating a kidnapping in your neighborhood.â€
…..
“I can. The FBI is legally entitled to lie.”
_________
JD, I’ll give a more detailed scenario about the kidnapping.
Two FBI agents come to my door seeking information as a part of a kidnapping investigation. They want to know if I have seen anything
that might help them with the case.
FBI Agent: “Mr. Max do you recall seeing a small child and an adult getting into a car across the street yesterday afternoon?”
Me (being helpful): “Yes, I saw a little girl who lives across the street get into a car with a man and woman, a couple I had never seen. I would say they were in their 20’s, maybe 30’s, the woman was a blond, and the car was a black Camry, I think a 95 because I used to have one.”
or alternately
Me (being unhelful): “I ain’t saying nothing until I get a lawyer. If I’m not under arrest, get off my property.”
Here is another scenario, inspired by mark bofill’s recent post.
FBI Agent: “Mr. Max do you recall seeing a small child and an adult getting into a car across the street yesterday afternoon?”
Me (at mark’s recommendation): I won’t tell you anything without a lawyer, and maybe not even then. I’ve heard about how you FBI
guys operate.
FBI Agent (now lying): OK, but may we have one of your hairs. Collecting hairs is our hobby.
BTW, JD, it sounds like the FBI was just trying to verify your father’s
story, not entrap him.
ucia (Comment #170510)
September 12th, 2018 at 10:05 pm
OK_Max
I knew the hair diameter of most Asian hair is larger than that of most whites.
____
I used to date a Chinese girl. She told me about the hair diameter
difference, and I was skeptical. She plucked a hair from each of our
heads and showed me. Seeing the difference was easy.
I can’t recall seeing many balding Chinese and Japanese men. I read they are less likely to get prostate cancer than whites or blacks. Perhaps it has something to do with hormone differences.
Max: “Me (being unhelful): “I ain’t saying nothing until I get a lawyer.â€
If the FBI is being truthful (you never know if they are), they shouldn’t mind if a lawyer is present. I wouldn’t characterize you as being unhelpful. Just protecting yourself.
…..
Max: “JD, it sounds like the FBI was just trying to verify your father’s
story, not entrap him.”
To verify my father’s story all they had to do was to ask people where they got the tickets. Instead they suggested an answer. It was possible that dishonest people bought the tickets and upon hearing the suggestion they would want to protect the actual seller and finger my father.
……
The FBI was not entraping my father. They were dishonestly suggesting an answer which could have been used to frame my father.
JD
Global native incidence of male pattern baldness: https://www.htandrc.com/images/Apicture4.png
.
If you are male, then the closer your ancestors were to the Mediterranean, the more likely you will become bald. Interestingly, men in Japan do bald at a rate of 20% to 30% (the higher rate in the north of Japan), but usually don’t start balding until their 40’s and 50’s rather than their 20’s and 30’s.
Ragnaar,
According to the CBO, carried interest treatment as long term capital gains results in a difference in taxes collected of about $2 billion per year (maybe a bit more in years with strong market performance). In 2018, total Federal income taxes are projected to be $2,300 billion, so the carried interest treatment represents a little under 0.1% of total income taxes collected (not anything like the 0.001% you suggested). And you know what they say: a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you are talking real money. But more to the point: it is a very valuable tax treatment given to a very small (probably well under 20,000) and very wealthy fraction of taxpayers who are politically influential. Nobody except fund managers can benefit from this special treatment of income.
Mike M,
I was mistaken about the level of “progressiveness” in Social Security Benefits; the benefits are not a progressive as I thought. The table here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)#Estimated_net_benefits_under_differing_circumstances shows that monthly benefits increase by a factor of ~3.6 for an increase in lifetime earnings by a factor of 10. Still, the system is extremely favorable to those with lower lifetime earned income, especially considering that Medicare benefits are the same for everyone. At the higher income levels, the increase in monthly benefits with rising income history is very small, topping out at $2,788 per month.
.
We will have to agree to disagree about whether on not all dollars at the Treasury are the same.
.
But I stand by my original comments: unless substantial changes are made in Federal tax structure, there will be a continuing and politically unsustainable increase in wealth discrepancy. We ignore this at our peril.
Max,
Like any distribution, the extremes are least likely. The probabilities that all of them were innocent and all of them were guilty are lowest. Probably some were in fact innocent and some were in fact guilty.
.
This is neither here nor there.
.
We have an adversarial legal system. The FBI can be a powerful adversary. Fortunately, our legal system provides powerful defenses for those who must deal with the FBI – but those defenses must be exercised by competent representation to be effective. The stakes are extremely high: years of life, reputation, savings, ability to make a living.
.
Don’t trust the competence or supposed benevolence of a powerful adversary who’s interests don’t necessarily coincide with yours. Avail yourself of the powerful protections our system entitles you to. Don’t trust the FBI. It’s not even a secret that they will lie to you, mislead you, and even threaten you if they believe it will further their investigation; this is documented. Get expert protection.
,
That’s all I have to say. I think we’ve already established that Max won’t find this persuasive, this is for any other casual lurkers reading.
SteveF, MikeM,
I tend to agree with SteveF. I tend to see money as fungible and view the notion there are actual “pots” of money as an accounting fiction. That’s true even if legislation is what creates the fiction.
OK_Max
Maybe. But it could be diet, exercise, immune system differences…. all sorts of things. Obviously, there are other differences on average like skin tone, hair color, bone thickness and so on. Most are probably not due to hormones, so I wouldn’t guess hormones was more likely that something else.
Lucia,
The Social Security accounting is a fiction because the Supreme Court long ago ruled that the Social Security system is not in any way a binding contract between the voters and the Federal government…. the system can be (and regularly is) changed in any way Congress and the Executive want it to change; increased benefits, decreased benefits, higher tax rates, and even (implausibly!) lower tax rates…. or complete cancellation. People do not have any ownership rights at all to the ‘contributions’ in their ‘accounts’. Social Security taxes are just that.. taxes…. and the ‘accounts’ are as good as the word of politicians. Enough said.
SteveF,
That’s how I see it. They are taxes, collected through this “payroll” mechanism. When collected, they are a regressive tax. At payout, the payouts tend to be more generous to those on the lower end of earnings. Money collected has been collected. There is no guarantee the payouts will remain as currently defined; historically they have changed. (Admittedly, they’ve historically generally changed to be more generous rather than less. But I suspect that will reverse because it has to.)
Above someone discussed the difficulty in figuring out whether to start collecting when you are young vs. when you are old. Most (I think all) are done with the assumption the payout system will not change drastically. That’s probably a fairly safe assumption over 5 years.
If we take the view of 20-30 years of payouts, I wouldn’t be so sure. Congress could decide to reduce payout based on other income stated on IRS forms. They could decide to compress so the difference between max and min is higher or lower. The could decide any number of things and will almost certainly change it in some way.
You can’t really account for that in the calculation other than to recognize checks you get this year are checks you got. Predicted benefits are less certain.
SteveF:
I assume your numbers are correct. I was wrong. Carried interest is AKA money you give your broker for no reason. I use low cost index funds and give nothing to a broker. I do give ballpark 0.12% of my total investments to a large mutual fund each year.
Money one gives to a broker is money one doesn’t have to pay income taxes on as it’s no longer there. The broker does have to pay tax on it unless he’s a crook besides being a broker. Where do I get this uncharitable attitude? I see people’s finances. So anyways, we are down to the differing tax treatment. It does surprise me that 1/10 of 1% of our economy is carried interest. Still 2 billion isn’t much. I think you can get 2 baseball stadiums in Minnesota for that. Or are they football stadiums? Your carried interest numbers are in what context? See the S & P 500 since about 2009. Thank you President Obama. Lately it’s been a lot of money as stock returns have been unusually high in my opinion. Reviewing my attitude about brokers, carried interest is more like ordinary income than capital gains. That didn’t sound right. Without regard to my attitudes about brokers, it’s more like ordinary income than capital gains. Blame it on the swamp. Looking at the bigger picture, we find more people are moving to low cost index funds. The problem is solving itself as people realize brokers can’t pick stocks any better than my cat can.
Ragnaar,
I’m sure my cat can and does pick stocks and lotto numbers very well. The problem is he refuses to tell me which to pick. I’ve asked him occasionally. He just looks away and either walks to the spot that communicates “I want treats”, or the spot that communicates “I want you to brush me”.
I give him the treats and brush him, but he still won’t tell me which lotto numbers or stocks to pick. Dang cats!
Lucia,
“Congress could decide to reduce payout based on other income stated on IRS forms. They could decide to compress so the difference between max and min is higher or lower. The could decide any number of things and will almost certainly change it in some way.”
.
The options to make Social Security “sustainable” are many:
* Means test benefits (some of that already with Medicare)
* Push back retirement age a year or two, then index to longevity
* Increase the maximum wage for FICA taxes
* COLA adjust based on inflation rather than wages
* Raise FICA/Medicare tax rates (yet again) by about 1%
* Other options… like funding from general revenue
.
Will Congress adopt any of these? Each has political downsides, so, no time soon is the best guess.
Ragnaar,
“Still 2 billion isn’t much.”
.
Good to know. I’ll much appreciate if you wire 0.01% of that to me.
😉
The real goal of social security is just to make sure old people don’t die in the streets of starvation, and give them a little self respect if they worked a little bit for a living. Curiously Asians are twice as likely to have multi-generational households. This could be part of their … ummmm … embedded cultural advantages or it may reflect that China was a third world country no less than 50 years ago and this was a financial necessity.
.
I have seen enough of Asian households to stereotype them as both much tighter and much more authoritarian. When you go to “real” Chinese restaurants, especially on the west coast, and observe large Asian families it is almost bizarre how well behaved young children are. I don’t know about today, but a decade ago beating a child in an Asian grocery store on the west coast wouldn’t raise an eyebrow.
.
I often wonder if these cultural differences reveal themselves economically. The US is chaotic and more innovative, Asia is more authoritarian and better at repetitive manufacturing.
I doubt Congress would be brave enough to alter the payout mechanism for existing SS retirees or those near retirement. There would be a voter revolt. They are reducing payouts currently by moving back the retirement age with is 67 for me. They can change the rules for those entering the system or more than 20 years away from retirement with much less career risk.
.
Means testing seems like an obvious answer but I find this emotionally revolting. I go crazy when systems are setup so that the responsible people are punished the most. I lived below my means, I put in the most, but get out zero? Realistically public sector pensions are going to have to solve their problem first and this might be a meaningful learning exercise. A federal bailout of public sector pensions while facing their own SS crisis would be … disappointing.
.
You can lift the cap on SS salary deductions. Mass immigration of working people would also help.
SteveF,
Your proposed solutions to the Social Security unfunded liability problem are a substantial part of the reason I started collecting benefits at 62. It’s called preserving capital. Victorian England was big on that. Too many people only look at cash flow when they should be looking at net worth. Delaying benefits by spending capital early decreases your net worth and makes you more dependent on the government.
If you were:
1. A median income worker
2. Didn’t contribute to SS / Medicare
3. Instead invested that money in stocks / bonds
How much would you have at retirement today?
.
Invested in SP500: $2.07M
Invested in bonds: $510K
https://www.crystalbull.com/Social-Security-Privatization-Calculator/
.
Using the 4% rule of thumb one would get $80K / $20K per year. This calculation assumes you wouldn’t have Medicare though.
Privatization of Social Security looks great when the stock market is at an all time high. The results would have been very different if you did the calculation in 2009.
The numbers for 2008 are there. $676K, $379K.
JD Ohio (Comment #170513)
September 13th, 2018 at 12:38 am
Max: “Me (being unhelful): “I ain’t saying nothing until I get a lawyer.â€
“If the FBI is being truthful (you never know if they are), they shouldn’t mind if a lawyer is present. I wouldn’t characterize you as being unhelpful. Just protecting yourself.”
_______
In my scenario there was an urgent need for my information because a child’s life could depend it.Time was of the essence. It would have been unconscionable for me to insist on waiting for a lawyer to be present before providing information.
Tom Scharf,
“Using the 4% rule of thumb one would get $80K / $20K per year.”
.
For ever, without ever reducing the value of your assets!
.
But here’s the thing: the system is not, never was, and never will be an investment or savings program. It has always been and will always be a means to fund welfare for elderly people by taxing youger people. Because politicians are in fact politicians, for almost all of Social Security’s history, much of the collected social security tax was “loaned” to the Treasury at superlow interest rates, and used to fund general expenditures….. the consequences of that are the current “shortfall” in the Social Security ‘trust fund’, along with rapidly growing real (that is, contractually obligated) Federal debt.
.
The only important questions are the future generosity of the welfare, the resulting overall tax burden, and most of all, who pays that tax burden. These are purely political questions.
OK_Max (Comment #170532): “In my scenario there was an urgent need for my information because a child’s life could depend it.Time was of the essence. It would have been unconscionable for me to insist on waiting for a lawyer to be present before providing information.”
It seems to me that OK_Max is stubbornly refusing to listen to JD and mark and they are stubbornly refusing to listen to Max.
Of course there are situations where you would talk to the cops and even the FBI without a lawyer present. But one should not do that when there is a possibility that you, or someone with whom you are associated, is under suspicion.
Even then, there are exceptions. If a cop pulls me over, it is likely because he suspects I have done something wrong. But in most cases, saying “I refuse to speak with you without my lawyer present” would cause me a whole lot of unnecessary trouble.
There is a place for suspicion of the authorities. There is also a place for a bit of common sense.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170531): “The numbers for 2008 are there. $676K, $379K.”
So the privatized account would give you maybe $20K per year. Enough to pay for your health insurance, with a bit left over.
lucia (Comment #170519)
September 13th, 2018 at 7:09 am
OK_Max
I read they are less likely to get prostate cancer than whites or blacks. Perhaps it has something to do with hormone differences.
Maybe. But it could be diet, exercise, immune system differences…. all sorts of things. Obviously, there are other differences on average like skin tone, hair color, bone thickness and so on. Most are probably not due to hormones, so I wouldn’t guess hormones was more likely that something else.
________
The Japanese diet is different (lots of fish, maybe less sugar) and
obesity isn’t as prevalent. Life expectancy is high.
The link talks about prostate cancer, baldness, and testosterone.
Looks like testosterone is a culprit. Maybe diet and obesity affect
testosterone.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/mens-health/testosterone-prostate-cancer-and-balding-is-there-a-link-thefamilyhealth-guide
Mike M. (Comment #170534)
Mike M, thank you.
If you take the bottom of the worst crash in 40 years and then subtract 10 years of investment returns the number will be lower, yes. This was only an interesting data point, I’m not advocating removing SS. Just comparing alternate scenarios.
.
If you took those low numbers, the annuity calculations for 20 year payout / 4% growth rate:
$676K = $48K / year.
$379K = $26K / year
.
The full term numbers:
$2.07M = $146K / year
$510K = $36K / year
.
Also remember this is for just one person. A two person household median worker / SP500 would retire at $292K per year.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170538): “If you took those low numbers, the annuity calculations for 20 year payout / 4% growth rate:
$676K = $48K / year.
$379K = $26K / year”
Annuity calculators are often misleading. Social Security does not quit after 20 years. It is also indexed. If you buy an annuity that works that way, then in your mid-60’s you pay something like 25 times the initial annual payout. So:
$676K = $27K / year
$379K = $15K / year
Not so great.
There is a trade off between return and risk. Social Security is very low risk. So of course the return is less than with higher risk investments.
I look at my Social Security as part of my portfolio. I regard it as a very valuable part although I would not want more than a minority of my retirement income to work that way.
If you are relying on Social Security for the bulk of your retirement income, then you are either in the income range where it is an extremely good deal or you are very lucky the government did not let you manage that portion of your money.
Wealth inequality used to be a lot worse than it is now. Cornelius Vanderbilt, when he was constructing Biltmore, had an income equivalent to 0.1% of the US GDP at the time. That would be an income of about $20 billion/year in current terms and an adjusted net worth of $205 billion in 2014 dollars. John D. Rockefeller was richer at $253 billion. Bill Gates is twelfth on the CNN list of the top twenty richest Americans of all time at $74 billion. The only other people in recent history on the top twenty list are Warren Buffet and Sam Walton.
https://money.cnn.com/gallery/luxury/2014/06/01/richest-americans-in-history/index.html
SteveF,
Ragnaar is correct, carried interest is peanuts compared to the elephants in the room of the Fed’s multiple Quantitative Easings and ZIRP. The Democrats complained that the Reagan tax cuts were trickle-down economics. QE and ZIRP didn’t even begin to trickle down. It all went to big banks and Wall Street. IMO, they were much bigger factors in increasing income and wealth inequality than tax favored treatment of carried interest income or even capital gains.
Those were calculations for annual income and running out of money in 20 years, not the indefinite insurance type annuity.
http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/annuity_calculator.htm
Tom Scharf,
“I have found the decision to collect at 62 versus 70 to be mind numbingly confusing.”
.
Not sure why. You are playing blackjack against the house in Las Vegas. The house has to hit 16 and stay on 17… it doesn’t matter if the players at the table have good cards or bad… hit 16, stay 17. The house (the Feds) are always betting on millions of ‘hands’ (millions of retirees), OTOH, you are looking at and betting on a single hand. And the difference is (a very key difference!) you know better your chance of survival to a very old age much better than they do. If everyone in your family dies at 94 to 100 years old, then by all means opt for the later retirement; you will have a long and more comfortable retirement. If most people in your family die by 69, then take the earliest possible benefit.
.
As DeWitt correctly notes, for a retiree with no (zero) information about longevity in their family (eg an adopted child) the boost in benefits with later retirement almost exactly matches the lower expected actuarial benefit period… so it is a wash. For people like me, where most males in the family do not survive much past 78-82, taking benefits at “normal full retirement age” is sensible (earlier would make sense for me except that benefits are taken away if you have continuing income). For the unfortunate few who are likely, based on family history, to die relatively young (eg <75), taking benefits ASAP usually makes the most sense.
DeWitt,
” IMO, they were much bigger factors in increasing income and wealth inequality than tax favored treatment of carried interest income or even capital gains.”
.
Sure, there are multiple causes for the growing discrepancy in wealth, and there is good reason to consider them all. But carried interest treatment of normal income is as much a poster child for gross inequity as anything else… especially if you believe $2 billion per year in avoided taxes by very wealthy people is “not very much”, as Ragnaar suggests. Favorable treatment of capital gains, dividends, and more are designed to help the most wealthy taxpayers avoid anything like the maximum marginal rates. I would be perfectly happy if the very wealthy ($500K per year and up) paid ~37% of their income in taxes. I am a lot less happy if they pay ~16-20%, because people with MUCH lower incomes, and much less ability to pay, pay a much higher percentage. It does not matter if the number of very wealthy people who benefit is relatively small compared to the total population, what matters, both practically and politically, are the existing tax rules which are designed to help those who least need the help. Until this changes, the playing field will be tilted in the favor of the very wealthy.
SteveF (Comment #170543)
” For people like me, where most males in the family do not survive much past 78-82, taking benefits at “normal full retirement age†is sensible …”
_________
Sensible if you are fatalistic. Possibly you could extend your longevity by finding out why most males in you family didn’t survive much past 78-82, and then doing whatever you can to postpone or prevent the same causes from affecting you.
It’s definitely a risk assessment exercise.
.
I think it also matters what your other retirement funds are. I have only 401K / IRA’s. So if I did live to 98 but planned on the other funds running out when I am 85 then it seems that using the fixed benefit of SS after 70 might be the better play.
.
I haven’t done the math of starting at 62, investing all that money for 8 years, and comparing that with larger benefits starting at 70 and then dying at the expected time. My understanding is that it is a wash if you live a normal lifetime.
.
Now if I lived to 95, is it not better to wait until I am 70 to collect? So my thinking was that if you have fixed assets at retirement then you wait until 70 to guard against living too long.
.
But there is more confusion. If you had 2x the money you needed at retirement then the SS at 70 decision is likely inconsequential, but I would collect early just in case I died early to maximize survivor benefits.
.
But then there is more! If you had 2x the money you needed then you can stay aggressively invested in stocks throughout retirement which changes the expected rate of return.
.
You could just buy an insurance annuity with your lump sum at retirement to avoid the length of life risk, but I’m hesitant to do that because I don’t trust the annuity providers, they basically just put your money in the stock market for themselves.
.
That’s why my head spins.
OK Max,
” Possibly you could extend your longevity by finding out why most males in you family didn’t survive much past 78-82, and then doing whatever you can to postpone or prevent the same causes from affecting you.”
.
Sure, and I could also pray a lot (nah, I’m not a believer). As I often say, if you want a long and healthy life, be very careful about choosing your parents.
.
We are engines with a limited lifetime, and that lifetime, though wildly unfair, varies quite a bit; we all have to get over that. It makes sense to avoid known risk factors (don’t smoke, don’t ride a motorcycle, if you do, wear a helmet), don’t be very obese; exercise regularly, and be prudent in what you eat and drink. All sensible, and all unlikely to have much impact on lifespan for most people. Being fatalistic about your demise has its pluses; being rational about your inevitable demise is even better.
OK Max,
I played golf the day before yesterday with a very nice man; a retired cancer surgeon (and obviously very well off, with multiple houses and frequent international travels with his wife). He was about 6′ 1″ and not at all overweight. While he looked 70+ he told me he was just past 63, and retired only 8 months ago. When I asked why he had retired at a relatively young age, he said that most of the people in his family did not make it to 70, and he figured that if he kept working, he would have zero time to enjoy the ‘fruits of his labors’. For me, it was perfectly rational and understandable: he absolutely looked like hell for 63, and even though he is super active (rowing, hiking, skiing, biking, golfing) those things are unlikely to save him from the grim reaper if his clock ticks too fast.
Everyone is a ticking cancer bomb. You have a 40% chance of getting cancer before you die and a 22% chance of dying from it. Color me a bit disappointed in food “science” and other lifestyle “science” that ended up much less reliable than they confidently told us it was. Being obese is a real risk, being overweight isn’t. I haven’t come across very many 300 lb 90 year olds. Being overweight isn’t really very helpful in any way though.
.
And here is an example of this bad science. Look closely at the “Increased BMI associated with decreased life expectancy” chart here:
https://www.rethinkobesity.com/the-science-of-obesity/chronic-disease/comorbidities-risk-of-mortality-of-obesity.html
.
Notice something strange?
.
Here is another chart that seems like science:
http://asserttrue.blogspot.com/2013/03/body-mass-index-vs-longevity-latest.html
SteveF (Comment #170547)
“It makes sense to avoid known risk factors (don’t smoke, don’t ride a motorcycle, if you do, wear a helmet), don’t be very obese; exercise regularly, and be prudent in what you eat and drink. All sensible, and all unlikely to have much impact on lifespan for most people.”
______
Fatalistic thinking again. Not healthy.
The mind and the body affect each other. If your mind tells your body it will last 78-82 years, your body may just do what it’s told. I’m not sure about this, but it could be.
You mentioned avoiding risk factors but said nothing about routine check-ups. Early diagnosis can be a life saver.
OK Max,
“The mind and the body affect each other.”
.
“You mentioned avoiding risk factors but said nothing about routine check-ups.”
.
So which is it: mind over matter or medicine over fate? (not rhetorical)
.
Good nutrition and immunization against major diseases have made the greatest addition to life spans compared to a century ago. Treatment for some otherwise fatal illnesses help (especially bacterial infections that ended so many lives early). A lesser influence is more effective treatment for illnesses of old age (cancer, cardiovascular disease, etc). Everything else is mostly fooling around at the margins. The average age at death has increased dramatically, of course. The maximum age remains about the same. We are machines with a limited lifespan. Use the time wisely.
OK_Max (Comment #170550)
“You mentioned avoiding risk factors but said nothing about routine check-ups. Early diagnosis can be a life saver.”
Possibly.
but most things discovered at routine check up have to have been there a while, possibly 3 years before a breast cancer is big enough to detect. meanwhile all the other 2 years 11 months missed ones are now 4 years 11 months or later when reexamined.
Furthermore the outcome is dependence on the aggressiveness of the determined cancer, not the stage so much.
In other words the 2 year 11 month one that may kill you has already spread pre the chance of removal and the one that was “OK” is still alright to remove, was not a worry.
Finally checking inconveniences lifestyle and causes unwarranted stress and ill health. Lost count of the number of women who, on hearing they need a biopsy for a detected breast lump, panic and stress for weeks, over nothing. 90% of biopsies reveal benign disease which they then sometimes had unnecessary operations for out of fear.
Colonoscopies higher rate of negative with a risk small but real, have seen 2 perforations of the bowel leading to death.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it is a , not very good but sometimes appropriate maxim.
Note, I like routine testing. Used to order screening CEA, Ca125 tests until gently suggested it was a good idea not to do tests that no-one knew what to do with the results.
SteveF (Comment #170551)
September 13th, 2018 at 7:02 pm
OK Max,
“So which is it: mind over matter or medicine over fate? (not rhetorical)”
SteveF, I think it’s both. A healthy mind and a healthy body
are complimentary. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying you
can will away a terminal disease, but the better the
mind can deal with the anxiety and depression, and the
pain, the less devastating the condition will be. The
medicine can help with the coping.
________________
angech (Comment #170552)
“Note, I like routine testing. Used to order screening CEA, Ca125 tests until gently suggested it was a good idea not to do tests that no-one knew what to do with the results.”
Sometimes ignorance is better than knowledge. Suppose you feel fine, have no symptoms, but a test shows you have an incurable condition than likely will kill you in 2 to 3 years. Who would want that kind of test?
I’m sorry I brought all this up. It’s not a fun topic.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170538)
Tom Scharf (Comment #170529)
September 13th, 2018 at 9:17 am
If you were:
1. A median income worker
2. Didn’t contribute to SS / Medicare
3. Instead invested that money in stocks / bonds
How much would you have at retirement today?
.
Invested in SP500: $2.07M
Invested in bonds: $510K
https://www.crystalbull.com/Social-Security-Privatization-Calculator/
.
Using the 4% rule of thumb one would get $80K / $20K per year. This calculation assumes you wouldn’t have Medicare though.
_______
But if everyone mindlessly invested in the S&P couldn’t the resulting rise in the P/E ratio eventually set the stage for a colossal crash?
Since I have a substantial investment in a S&P index fund, I would
welcome more buyers driving the price up, but at some point I would
fear the party is over, and pull out. It might take many years.
DeWitt
You seem to have done exactly the calculation I suggested most don’t do. You did it in your head, but basically you know colleting now means you spend your capital more slowly and more importantly you get the SS income before “solutions” get implemented that might reduce later payouts.
They are good at hurricane track predictions now, but they still suck at predicting power. Florence is still offshore and down to Cat 1 now. They might have to resort to calling it SuperStorm Florence, ha ha. I hope the WP gives Trump proper credit for reducing the storm size.
.
It is always amusing when this happens because the weather men / people / persons / they’s / zse’s act so disappointed that it didn’t cause a catastrophe.
Lucia
“..you spend your capital more slowly and more importantly you get the SS income before “solutions†get implemented that might reduce later payouts.”
.
Yes, that does reduce the risk that “solutions” to address the funding shortfall would reduce future payouts. But realistically, changes which would substantially reduce payouts to current (or near future) recipients would be so politically dangerous that few politicians would be likely to support them. For example, a change from indexing benefits to inflation rather than to average wages would have a significant impact on the unfunded liability in the 2040 and later time frame, but would have only a very small effect over the first 10 or so years. People like DeWitt and me would receive benefits that keep up with the cost of living. Only people due to retire well in the future would be impacted, since inflation adjusted average wages tend to increase over time, but benefits would not…. pain far in the future is a formula politicians like a lot. Pain now is avoided at all costs.
Lucia,
BTW, the edit function seems to work about 1 time in 5 now… I don’t know if that is something at your end or mine. Could be a recent Windows update, but I see the same thing running Chrome on a Galaxy S8, so the same problem on multiple browsers and operating systems.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170556): “They are good at hurricane track predictions now, but they still suck at predicting power. Florence is still offshore and down to Cat 1 now.”
Any forecast has a range of outcomes. Florence was always going to weaken rapidly as it made landfall. I think that it lost major hurricane status just a few hours earlier than predicted. Last year they missed the track for Irma enough that it hit the west coast of Florida rather than the east coast.
The real danger from Florence was always the rainfall. They are still predicting 20+ inches over quite a wide area.
Worst case scenarios are vital for emergency planning. The media seize on those while ignoring uncertainties. The result is that things almost always end up significantly less bad than expected, which will lead people to discount warnings in the future. Eventually, the wolf will come and a lot of people will die.
Irma was a close call last year. The media were so busy shouting from the rooftops that Miami was going to wash away that people in Tampa were caught off guard when the track shifted. Luckily, Irma weakened dramatically at land fall.
Tom Scharf (#170556): “I hope the WP gives Trump proper credit for reducing the storm size.”
No credit offered. Based on comparing a forecast with observed conditions to one with “conditions modified to remove the estimate climate change signal from the temperature”
HaroldW,
Those people are are absolutley nuts.
Let’s just say the standard deviation for storm strength at landfall is not improving much, and forecast track prediction is.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/verification/verify5.shtml
.
Hurricane Andrew went from 90 mph to 155 mph in 24 hours as it approached Miami. This is a critical parameter.
.
They are different measurements so they can’t be directly compared. They are absolutely terrible at hurricane season prediction. Not much better than throwing darts, but getting a little better.
HaroldW,
These things drive me crazy. They get a model that is already known to predict increased rain/drought/floods/etc. with climate change, then run it against recent conditions where it rained a lot, and make a striking discovery that the model predicted increased rain. Model validated!
.
It’s likely the model predicts increased rainfall amounts in areas where there are currently droughts. It is really weak tea when they do this, but the media laps it up. Team Science doing their Team Science thing.
.
Ask them to actually predict something, like in the future. You will get a Yogi Berra response “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future”.
And just to complete my hurricane rant. This is the new propaganda with hurricane trends:
http://euanmearns.com/atlantic-hurricane-trends-and-mortality/
.
Clearly they are getting worse .. or something. Cleverly hidden to the layman is they are counting all Atlantic “storms”. It is fortunate that they had satellite coverage for the last 150 years so they wouldn’t miss any storms that didn’t make landfall. Turns out they didn’t so they estimate the storms they missed and miraculously get the answer they think is right. Sigh.
.
So what can you count reliably? Landfalling hurricanes and especially major hurricanes that make landfall. These are not missed. A different picture.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2014/08/normalized-us-hurricane-losses-1900-2013.html
.
What does the satellite era show?
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2018/02/17/klotzbach-paper-new-insights-about-hurricanes/
.
What did the IPCC say in AR5:
“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basinâ€
.
Double sigh. I fault the media for only broadcasting a desired political narrative.
Tom,
I think they teach that as the norm in journalism school now. (only slightly sarcastic)
Tom Scharf (Comment #170564)
September 14th, 2018 at 9:14 am
And just to complete my hurricane rant. This is the new propaganda with hurricane trends:
http://euanmearns.com/atlantic…..mortality/
________
I don’t know why you cited that article. The author is a fossil fuel guy. He thinks some readers may not appreciate (or even know) that rescue ships and helicopters are powered by fossil fuel, or that wind power and solar power aren’t much good during during a hurricane.
Here’s what he says at the end of the article:
“Fossil fuels, the machines and infrastructure they have built have saved thousands and thousands of lives that were put at risk from hurricanes that are largely, if not solely, of natural occurrence. If you don’t believe me, why not offer the people of the British Virgin Islands rescue by wind and solar power alone and see what happens to them. None of the PV panels that may have been there will now be functioning. They are firing up the diesel generators and calling on the oil fired steel ships and helicopters of the Royal Navy to come to the rescue.â€
He might be interested in How Offshore Wind Farms Could Knock Down Hurricanes:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/offshore-wind-farms-could-knock-down-hurricanes1/
I don’t know if it’s practical, but it’s interesting.
OK_Max,
I was just pointing out the trend charts I have seen several times lately, I didn’t even read the article, ha ha. Sorry about that.
.
Wind farms knocking down a hurricane is absolutely psychotic and that was roundly laughed at when it came out. The amount of energy in a hurricane is gigantic. This is stopping an elephant with a mite on a flea.
.
Jacobsen is a bit of a whacko. He makes all kind of wild claims about getting the entire country to 100% clean energy by 2050 for low costs. A group of scientists eventually published a response to that as completely unrealistic, so he sued them for $10M.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-jacobson-lawsuit-20180223-story.html
It’s not slowed down like it was predicted to.
HaroldW, thanks much from that very informative and thoughtful link about Flo’s intensities and the attributions to climate change. I think the deniers posting at this site would do better to note the following excerpt from that link:
The fact that the dire warnings about Flo’s intensity (wind speedwise) at land fall may have been off does not at all counter the brilliant work of the authors of this paper. I might well infer that counterfactually, given what actually occurred, had it not been for climate change we are probably looking at worst a tropical storm.
That Trump must assume blame here for pulling the US from the Paris accords must be viewed on a long term basis in that while the accords even if strictly adhered to would not have had any effect on this storm and very little on future storms of this nature the point is that those accords were the groundwork for a gradual path to a socialist approach to a global reaction to global warming – kind of like the frog in a gradually heated pot. Trump and his gang of right wingers and deniers decent reaction to the Flo experience and the linked paper’s conclusion would be to immediately re-instate the US participation in the Paris accords., but that is probably too much to expect from mean and evil people.
We have, of course, the WSJ article today about Flo in an effort to redirect attention to the fact that people continue to move closer to the coasts that are susceptible to hurricanes and with little or no insurance to cover the consequences and that in the end the taxpayer must absorbed where bailouts are instituted. It is as if the WSJ and their ilk do not understand that it is times like this that people need to be reminded with real examples that governments must be ever more powerful and most importantly depended upon by the citizens.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170567)
“Jacobsen is a bit of a whacko. He makes all kind of wild claims about getting the entire country to 100% clean energy by 2050 for low costs.”
_______
Tom, I think 2050 would be too soon even if a revolutionary breakthrough in electric storage technology occurred during the next few years. Clean energy’s share of total energy consumed should grow, but not that fast, and 100% may never be reached.
I see solar panels and all-electric cars in my future. Would buy the mid-priced Tesla if the price comes down. All-electric trucks and buses are a great idea. I hate diesel fumes.
OK_Max (Comment #170570): “I see solar panels and all-electric cars in my future. Would buy the mid-priced Tesla if the price comes down. All-electric trucks and buses are a great idea. I hate diesel fumes.”
Solar panels are a way to transfer wealth from poor people to upper middle income people. All electric cars may never be really practical, or at least not unless supercapacitors get really cheap. They have little advantage over plug-in hybrids. All electric might be really good for buses and delivery trucks. Hopeless for transport trucks.
Mike M,
“They have little advantage over plug-in hybrids.”
.
Well, they have the the distinct advantage of making the owners feel even better about themselves being super righteous and more cutting edge green than plug-in hybrid owners.
Re Mike M. (Comment #170571)
Mike M, I hadn’t thought about solar panels being a way to transfer wealth from poor people to upper middle income people. Are you trying to give me another reason to install solar panels?
I see more and more all-electric cars on the road. This could mean prestige and performance trumps practicality. Tesla owners seem very proud of their cars, and the acceleration is breathtaking! Those puny Prius hybrids save on gas but are snails from a standing start.
You are right about all-electric trucks and buses being good for short-haul but not long distance. But that could change.
OK Max,
“But that could change.”
.
Not unless chemistry is completely wrong. (hint: it’s not) If battery lifetime could be doubled or tripled, it would make a bigger difference than added range.
.
There are buses with huge batteries which can go considerable distances. Unfortunately, they are expensive, and the batteries have a limited lifetime, raising lifetime cost. Those in service in the USA are all (I believe) subsidized. A diesel bus is cheaper. Heck, a trolley powered by overhead wires is cheaper… but limited in route.
Re SteveF (Comment #170574)
“There are buses with huge batteries which can go considerable distances.”
____
Probably, and I imagine truck trailers could carry even larger batteries than buses can carry and go even greater distances. The purpose of these vehicles, however, is to carry passengers and freight, not huge batteries.
Despite subsidies, manufacturers of long-haul trucks may be wasting their time experimenting with all-electric if you are right about technology never making it cost effective. On the other hand, they don’t learn anything if they don’t try.
Self-driving all-electric eighteen wheelers may be the future of over-the-road trucking. Dedicated lanes with overhead wire pick-up might do it.
I had attempted to post a very sarcastic comment about hurricane Florence, but Lucia and/or her filters prevented it from going public. In retrospect it is just as well.
While the deaths and destruction from Florence are serious occurrences, I was not at all surprised that the MSM, with the exception of the WSJ, had little or nothing to say about the the population increases in these storm danger zones with higher property values and with less insurance coverage. Less than 10% of these risky home locations have flood insurance and those that do have insurance that is subsidized by the Federal government. In typical fashion governments are involved after the fact and seldom do we hear about funding either privately or by government to avoid these catastrophes or deal with them. There are major risks for people living in these zones that unfortunately governments have rendered much less risky.
That governments do not want to deal with reality applies to not only hurricane damages but to an item under discussion on another thread here: which is SS and Medicare funding. A great majority of politicians considered even discussing the problems of SS and Medicare as a third rail that must be avoided at all costs. When those who want to increase the size of government do not consider these rather obvious innate tendencies of politicians I have to conclude that their interests are not so much solving any problems but rather wanting bigger government regardless of the consequences.
Kenneth,
That’s understandable because otherwise it casts doubt on the climate change/sea level rise/more severe storms meme which is dogma for the rest of the MSM. The WSJ seems to have a more rational position on that, certainly on the editorial pages.
As far as Medicare/SS/state and government workers pensions go, I don’t think there is a soft landing solution anymore. There will be a reset of some sort with a lot of pain for all in the next ten to twenty years or so.
I agree. Any “catching up” for SS and Medicare and pensions will be a major drag on the economy and that is something that almost all protagonists for bigger government either do not understand or do not want to think about. Most of them will use the wishful thinking line that when the time comes the politicians will apply some “minor” tweaks and everything will be OK.
DeWitt,
“As far as Medicare/SS/state and government workers pensions go, I don’t think there is a soft landing solution anymore.”
.
Maybe, but I still hold out hope that Congress will come to its senses and make changes to soften the impact. Indexing benefits to inflation (rather than wages), pushing back eligibility by a year, indexing retirement age to logenvity, and lifting the limit on wages subject to FICA could, jointly, resolve the shortfall. I am not suggesting Congress will adopt these things (they are, after all, politicians). But there is at lease a reasonable chance, if not to resolve all the shortfall, to push it back the final reckoning by a couple of decades, giving more time to make the program sensible.
‘Windmills that knock out hurricanes’ I get the feeling that this would lead to ‘hurricanes that knock out windmills’.
Not only is Social Security (and Medicare and pension funds) going broke, but the monthly payments to many recipients is quite low and many of those recipients have come to depend nearly entirely or least too much on Social Security because they did not learn to save on their own. There is a great pool of voters here who politicians are going to want entice with ever greater Social Security outlays.
When we speak of fixing Social Security, which in itself is no easy task and without major economic repercussions, we have the political issue of people not saving and depending way too much on Social Security and thus the innate tendency of politicians to make Social Security even more financially unsound.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-why-you-shouldnt-count-on-social-security-2017-10-27
https://www.ncpssm.org/campaigns/boost-social-security-now/sign-the-petition/
Not only is Social Security (and Medicare and pension funds) going broke, but the monthly payments to many recipients is quite low and many of those recipients have come to depend nearly entirely or least too much on Social Security because they did not learn to save on their own. There is a great pool of voters here who politicians are going to want entice with ever greater Social Security outlays.
When we speak of fixing Social Security, which in itself is no easy task and without major economic repercussions, we have the political issue of people not saving and depending way too much on Social Security and thus the innate tendency of politicians to make Social Security even more financially unsound.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-why-you-shouldnt-count-on-social-security-2017-10-27
https://www.ncpssm.org/campaigns/boost-social-security-now/sign-the-petition/
If only there was a way in the future to make an electric bus without batteries.
http://www.heritagetrolley.org/artcileBringBackStreetcars4.htm
I see our politicians are once again making us all proud in the Kavanaugh hearings, ha ha. What a slimy profession. I guess the incentives are just all wrong. Will all politicians please step down who at any point in their lives have squeezed a (redacted) without a formal written contract? They are probably hiding Trump’s phone from him to prevent him for saying something incredibly stupid on Twitter. Beyond a reminder of the ethics of our politicians there is little downside for the Democrats to do this, they basically win no matter where this goes.
Kenneth
Make no mistake. Even people who don’t need SSN payments to live on, want them to increase once they are eligible. In retirement areas, you will find people who one two homes, take vacations eat out and so on favor having their SSN checks increased. These people will always vote for bigger checks. Many become utterly blind to the idea that young whipper-snappers might deserve to have nice lives too.
Tom Scharf
Without making any judgement about the woman’s story or how we should respond to it, it’s obvious that if Feinstein thought this was important information and she wanted to serve the nation (as all Congress critters should) and she was eventually going to use it, she should have done so in July or at least no later than August when the woman took a polygraph.
(Polygraphs are inaccurate. But the only reason to take a polygraph is to use the story. And for all I know you can shop around for polygraphs or practice. Nevertheless, once you’ve got a favorable to your story poligraph in anything other than politics there is no point in waiting.)
The reason for the wait is clearly to run out the clock– which is for partisan benefit. Sort of like football teams running out the clock and so no. But. Still….
They did something similar to Clarence Thomas. Once in a while, the camara would show Ted Kennedy!
Those discussing Social Security may be interested in the population projections in the Census Bureau report Demographic Turning Points for the United States: Population Projections for 2020 to 2060.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/demo/P25_1144.pdf
Chart 2 in the report shows dependency ratios, which are measures of the potential burden on the working age population:
Youth dependency ratio = (population under 18 / population aged 18 to 64) * 100.
Old age dependency ratio = (population aged 65 and older / population aged 18 to 64) * 100
The youth dependency ratio rose from 49 in 1940 to peak of 65 in 1960, before declining to 38 in 2010, but is not projected to decline much lower. The old age dependency ratio rose from 11 in 1940 to 21 in 2010. It is projected to rise sharply to 35 in 2030, and then increase more slowly, reaching 41 in 2060.
As the report says, “In coming decades, the United States is projected to shift from a youth-dependent population toward an elderly- dependent one.â€
Raising the retirement age above 65 is one way to reduce the old age dependency ratio. This has already been done to a small degree. The age for full Social Security benefits has been raised to 66 and 2 months for people born in 1955 and will gradually rise to age 67 for those born in 1960 or later, changes that will of course increases the size of the working population. Immigration of young workers is another way to increase the size of the working population.
These two ways of easing the burden of dependent retirees potentially have the advantage of not requiring an increase in Social Security tax or a reduction benefits , although raising the retirement age could be considered a benefit reduction.
A increase in birth rates as way of eventually reducing the old age dependency ratio has the disadvantage of first increasing the youth dependency ratio, and thus the total dependency ratio. Regardless, encouraging families to have more children likely wouldn’t work without substantial subsidies.
lucia (Comment #170588)
Yes, lie detector test aren’t 100% reliable, but I don’t know whether these tests are useless. I would like to take one to see if I can fool it.
I think I read that she also years ago told her therapist Kavanaugh tried to rape her, and may have told her husband too.
P-E Harvey,
There are similarities and differences with the Anita Hill story. Among the differences: The current woman is describing something that happened when she was 15 and attending an all girls school. Kavenaugh was 17 and attending an all boys school. The woman says she and her friends usually hung out with boys from a different school and Kavenaugh was an “acquaintance”.
Given the level of details revealed in the WaPo interview, it’s possible — even plausible– she barely knew him– or any of the 4 boys she says were at the party. That alone makes the possibility of her mis-identifying her assailant highly likely. Since she would rarely have seen him, and only reported the issue to her own husband later in 2002, she may have, by that point convinced herself it was Kavenaugh. It’s possible that, though mistaken, she believes her own story.
Also: in the story, the kids had all gathered at a spontaneous party at a house with absent parents. Kavenaugh and his friend were supposedly reeling drunk. At these sorts of parties, generally speaking, all the kids have been drinking and that she herself was somewhat drunk. This increases the potential that she might not have known who assaulted her– or easily mis-remembered later.
Bear in mind: even in her story, no rape occurred. So nothing was reported and no investigation happened. In fact, had she reported it, there was no rape. In fact, there was no sex. There may have been an assault or an attempted rape. But, lets defer that for now.
The other boy (whose name appears to be Judge) will likely now as an adult say he doesn’t remember anything about this. There seem to be no witnesses to this incident. She doesn’t report bruising any physical injury a person might have seen after she left the room. So, given the story as she told it, I don’t see how the police would have had anything to work with even if they were merely trying to figure out if a non-sexual assault took place. The story they would be working with would be:
A girl claims that a much larger very athletic in shape boy pinned her to a bed, held her down forcefully, covered her mouth to prevent screaming. He was so forceful, she was afraid she would die. She somehow managed to get away when the other boy jumped on the bed. She escaped with no bruises, no scratches, no evidence of any injury, and none of the other people at the party noticed.
Of course, it very well might have happened. Or not.
And now over 30 years later given memory and so on we can’t really even be sure she remembers the right boy because it sounds like she barely knew him and didn’t see him regularly.
I’m not saying the story is unimportant. And I’m not saying she’s lying. But there’s a lot about this story that suggest it might really match historical truth.
Eliminating the income cap on Social Security taxes would increase the top marginal income tax rate to effectively over 50%. That’s because the employer’s ‘share’ would likely come out of the employee’s future income. That would do severe damage to the economy.
The workaround would be to lower the maximum rate to soften the blow. That would, in the end, make it a wash. So it isn’t going to happen.
As I remember, Elizabeth Warren is strongly in favor of raising Social Security payments. That makes even less economic sense than Medicare for all.
OK_Max
The WAPO Story is here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?utm_term=.0944139f1e6d
She says the incident happened in the early 80s.
She’s forgotten many of the details. (Where it took place. Who’s house it was. Who was at the party….)
She married in 2002. For at least these 10 years she didn’t mention it to her husband.
She revealed this during couples therapy with her husband.
According to the psycholgists notes of that meeting:
She reported an assault, with most specifying detaails omitted. She did not mention Kavanaugh’s name. She did not mention the school the boys went to. The therapists notes say she said there were 4 boys involved in the assualt, the current story says 2. (Fox says that was the therapists mistake. Perhaps. Or maybe Fox did say 4.)
According to her husband who did not take notes, and who would just be learning this shocking news, he remembers her mentioning Kavenaugh’s name. ( Honestly, I consider the therapist’s notes more likely accurate than the husband’ memory of whether a name was said in a conversation 6 years ago. I’d say other things about whether I necessarily 100% believe all shocking revelations that suddenly come up in couples therapy. . . )
Oh– Judge the other boy (now man) also says this didn’t happen and he never saw Kavanaugh act this way. Maybe Judge is lying. Or not.
In fact, the evidence for the story is thin. It’s plausible she is mistaken about the guy. She seems to have told no one about this during the 30 years from “early 80s” to 2012. She didn’t even mention it to her husband for 10 years. It came up at a time during couples therapy when…. honestly…. sometimes a person might be trying to garner sympathy for possibly being a selfish difficult spouse, and when a vague story that identifies no one might do that. And… so on.
Could it have happened? Yes. It might have.
Could it be a figment of her imagination? Yes. Could she have made this up in 2012 to catch a break from her husband and get the therapist to see her as more sympathetic? Not impossible. Could something sort of like this have happened, but she misidentified? Yep.
All sorts of things can be true. I have no idea.
If Feinstein had brought this up in July, there might be time to deal with this. Now? I guess that depends on whether you are hoping to derail, and are rooting for Democrats to retake the senate or whether you want to ensure a Republican on the seat. That’s partisan politics. Feinstein played them; others can and likely will.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170585)
September 17th, 2018 at 9:38 am
If only there was a way in the future to make an electric bus without batteries.
http://www.heritagetrolley.org…..tcars4.htm
______
Tom, thanks for the link on trolleys. IMO, cities were short-sighted in getting rid of their trolleys. I like trolleys. It’s easy to see where they are going.
Lucia,
“If Feinstein had brought this up in July, there might be time to deal with this. Now? I guess that depends on whether you are hoping to derail, and are rooting for Democrats to retake the senate or whether you want to ensure a Republican on the seat. That’s partisan politics. Feinstein played them; others can and likely will.”
.
There is a reason Feinstein didn’t bring it up in July: that would give people too much time to investigate/review/consider the charges, and reject them, just as the FBI did. To withhold the allegations until hearings were over and a vote on Kavanaugh was scheduled deprives Kavanaugh any chance to formally address the allegations under oath in the Senate. Disclosing the allegations now is absolutely outrageous, unprincipled, and immoral. I try to imagine the conversation Kavanaugh has had to have with his daughters, and it makes me more than a little angry. This is an ugly, unprincipled business, and Feinstein should be ashamed of herself.
>But the only reason to take a polygraph is to use the story.
It was conducted by the lawyer. Perhaps to use it, or perhaps to determine if the client is lying to her.
If done for use, then Ford would have known going in that if she failed, no one would hear about the result. Less stress, and easier to pass.
Anita Hill also passed a lie detector. Her story is known to be wrong on details.
SteveF
Yes. If brought up in July, people could go talk to Judge, the other boy. (In fact, he’s named and said Kavanaugh never did anything like this.) People could go try to find the other four boys from the school. People could go try to find the home in which it took place– presumably someone knew whose home it was. People find out if she ever mentioned anything to any girl friends.
All this could be done in time to not delay the vote.
Instead, just as the vote is approaching, the story is leaked slowly, then more. But the woman coming forward actually shows how thin the story is.
It could have happened just as she said. Or something could have happened to her that did not involve Kavanaugh. Or absolutely nothing might have happened. There’s really no way to tell. And right now the stakes of deciding to have the vote and confirm or not are very high.
Partisan politics will be played by both sides.
MikeN,
Polygragh, schmolygraph.
.
Even if a polygraph were accurate (and clearly that is not the case) honestly believed memories from 35+ years ago, on a night likely fueled by alcohol, are themselves very suspect. The facts are clear: whatever happened, it was never reported to anyone for decades; all those involved were minors; there is zero evidence now or at any time in the past of an assault; even the location and date of the alleged assault have never been provided, or even suggested; there is no possible way for Kavanaugh to defend himself against the allegations. Which I guess is the whole point. If Kavanaugh can be defeated based on these charges, then no Republican will even be confirmed without facing very similar allegations. It is 100% over-the-top nuts… Anita Hill on steroids.
Lucia,
“Partisan politics will be played by both sides.”
.
Sure, but I am reminded of the famous admonition:
And that is exactly to where Feinstein and the rest of the leftist cabal have descended. They should be ashamed of themselves. They should be voted out of office.
vMikeN (Comment #170597)
September 17th, 2018 at 4:06 pm
“If done for use, then Ford would have known going in that if she failed, no one would hear about the result. Less stress, and easier to pass.”
______
Of course because Ford has nothing to lose by failing a lie detector test, she might be under less stress while being tested than Kavanaugh, who would have a lot to lose. But I don’t see that as evidence she passed the test because she fooled it.
I understand the polygraph was done by an ex-FIB person. How do we know multiple examinations weren’t performed by one or numerous non-governmental examiners until she got it right? Seems sketchy to me without a known reliable non-partisan exam being given.
Bob-
Whether ex-FBI or not, it was presumably arranged by and paid for by the woman tested either direction or through some one arranging it for her, possibly her attorney.
Polygraphs are often wrong and need to be interpreted. Being carried out and interpreted by someone paid for by the person being tested does not instill confidence in the outcome.
They can also be practiced and cheated.
Do we know multiple were not done? No. We don’t know that.
Lucia: “Whether ex-FBI or not, it was presumably arranged by and paid for by the woman tested either direction or through some one arranging it for her, possibly her attorney.
Polygraphs are often wrong and need to be interpreted. Being carried out and interpreted by someone paid for by the person being tested does not instill confidence in the outcome.
They can also be practiced and cheated.”
In my workers’ comp practice, I roughly took 1,200 depositions of doctors as expert witnesses. If you are a lawyer and regularly use expert witnesses, you can find an expert to say that the moon is made out of swiss cheese if you pay him. Would almost certainly be easy to find a polygraph examiner very predisposed to find that the subject was telling the truth.
…..
One time, a treating rheumatologist tried to help his patient (my workers’ comp client) and said that my client had traumatic induced scleroderma. (which is ridiculous) In fact, my client worked heavily with trichloroethylene, which caused his scleroderma.
Also, it is well-known that polygraph tests are unreliable. From wikipedia:
” United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment report “Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation”.[30] Similarly, a report to Congress by the Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy[31] on national security concluded that “The few Government-sponsored scientific research reports on polygraph validity (as opposed to its utility), especially those focusing on the screening of applicants for employment, indicate that the polygraph is neither scientifically valid nor especially effective beyond its ability to generate admissions”.
Despite the NAS finding of a “high rate of false positives,” failures to expose individuals such as Aldritch Ames and Larry Wu-Tai Chin, and other inabilities to show a scientific justification for the use of the polygraph, it continues to be employed.”
JD
My guess is the polygraph was more for the WP, and a gate she had to get through before they would even print the story. I noted that the NYT basically didn’t even report on this story until she came forward.
.
She is apparently an outspoken progressive for whatever that is worth. She disappeared her social media before coming forward is my understanding but a few low dollar donations to Democrats are still on the record.
.
This thing reeks to high heaven politically, not that the possibility doesn’t exist it is true. Trigger warning … You just can’t do this to people, I don’t care if what she said is true. You can’t wait over 30 years and then smear somebody at a time like this with very little evidence. The MeToo McCarthyism has simply gone too far. She has a responsibility to take action within 30 years before she tries to ruin somebody’s life with a high profile politically timed smear. Breathing within 10 feet of a person of the opposite sex has become a sexual “assault”. I hold up as evidence his children to prove he has “assaulted” women in the past. If we get to simply assume that Kavanaugh is a 17 year old predator in the 1980’s based on almost nothing, then we should also be allowed to assume she is a politically motivated (redacted) who invited the contact, or assume she is lying or has faulty memories.
.
This mentality where we must now assume all women are the Virgin Mary and all men are Charles Manson for any allegation over the past 40 years is ridiculous. Real sexual assaults should be prosecuted, and a presumption of innocence should be given to the accused. We now have a very low bar for heinous assaults that are not differentiated from each other.
Tom,
Before the accuser identified herself, the story was a zero on on a scale of 0-100. It managed to rise to a 1 when she identified herself and told it. (It’s so scant that it’s hard to put it higher.)
The polygraph is a +1, raising the level to +2/100.
The story is thin.
Ordinarily, given sufficient time, and if investigating is low cost in outcome and actual $$ on salaries of Feds and so on, it would still be worth investigating.
The problem is: this is a political sphere and the time investigating and confirming or not actually makes a difference in a political sense. (That is, of course, why Feinstein waited. She picked her “reveal” for a time where delay to investigate would be as costly as possible for the GOP while benefiting the DEM’s as much as possible.)
For many people, what decision should be made vis-a-vis halting and investigation is based almost entirely on whether they want a conservative judge appointed to SCOTUS or not. It has almost nothing to do with whether they believe Kavanaugh assaulted Fox, or whether this level of assault by a 17 year old is something that means a person should never sit on SCOTUS. (Bear in mind, even in the accusers story, the level of assault resulted in no bruises or torn clothes. We have no idea whether it might have stopped merely due to her protests.
You can call it “attempted rape”, but… uhmmmm… I’m a woman. In my youth I experienced aggressive passes where the guy pressed his case rather uhmmm strongly initially, but did stop when it was clear the answer was no. So based on her story, even if every thing is true, what she describes as happening is not evidence of attempted rape.
.What she describes was aggressive. It’s assault. It’s beyond what is fair. But it’s not necessarily attempted rape. And they were teenagers.
And of course, even given all that, it might not have happened. Or, something similar might have happened but she could be mistaken as to who the boy was.
JD Ohio (Comment #170604)
Polygraphs are often wrong and need to be interpreted. Being carried out and interpreted by someone paid for by the person being tested does not instill confidence in the outcome.
They can also be practiced and cheated.
___________
JD, if anyone can buy a polygraph with a guarantee of favorable results, Kavanaugh has nothing to lose by buying himself one.
_________________________________________________________
Tom Scharf (Comment #170605)
“This thing reeks to high heaven politically, not that the possibility doesn’t exist it is true. Trigger warning … You just can’t do this to people, I don’t care if what she said is true. You can’t wait over 30 years and then smear somebody at a time like this with very little evidence.”
Tom, If it’s true, I don’t see why not.
“This mentality where we must now assume all women are the Virgin Mary and all men are Charles Manson for any allegation over the past 40 years is ridiculous.”
Tom, virginity has nothing to do with it. The law doesn’t make sexually assaulting a non-virgin less of an offense than sexually assaulting a virgin.
OK-Max: “JD, if anyone can buy a polygraph with a guarantee of favorable results, Kavanaugh has nothing to lose by buying himself one.”
….
His choice of a polygraph examiner will be heavily scrutinized. So far, the accuser’s choice of a polygraph examiner and the actual polygraph questions and results haven’t been scrutinized at all. (That I have seen. )
JD
lucia (Comment #170606)
You can call it “attempted rapeâ€, but… uhmmmm… I’m a woman. In my youth I experienced aggressive passes where the guy pressed his case rather uhmmm strongly initially, but did stop when it was clear the answer was no. So based on her story, even if every thing is true, what she describes as happening is not evidence of attempted rape.
___________
Lucia, it sounds like you were a good judge of character, and dated only young men who might make passes but would respect your wishes. Based on statements from Christine Ford’s lawyer, Lisa Banks, I believe the alleged sexual aggression of Brett Kavanaugh was far more serious than what you describe experiencing as a young woman.
“At one point she walked away to go to the bathroom and went up a small flight of stairs, at which point she was pushed into a bedroom. The door was locked behind her,” Banks told NPR. “And Brett Kavanaugh got on top of her on the bed, pushed her down on the bed on her back, began groping at her, trying to take off her clothes.”
“When she tried to scream, he put his hand over her mouth to silence her. Mark Judge was in the room, egging him on. They turned up the music very loudly and at some point Mark Judge jumped on the bed, they all toppled off, and she was able to escape,” Banks told NPR.
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/17/648803684/who-is-christine-blasey-ford-the-woman-accusing-brett-kavanaugh-of-sexual-assaul
Anyway, Senators considering Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court are going to delay his confirmation to next week so they can hear from Ford. Maybe we will learn more then.
JD Ohio (Comment #170608)
His choice of a polygraph examiner will be heavily scrutinized. So far, the accuser’s choice of a polygraph examiner and the actual polygraph questions and results haven’t been scrutinized at all. (That I have seen)
_______
Then I doubt he will take a polygraph. Too Risky.
But if he does, she could do a second polygraph, one having the same level of scrutiny as his.
OK_Max
Dated? Why would you think dated? I didn’t say dated. And in fact, I did not date the young men who were aggressive in this way.
There were three instances. Let me explain one.
I was living in the dorms during the summer. I went to stop by the room of a male friend I had know since childhood in El Salvador. He was out, so I stopped to chat with two guys I knew who lived on the dorm floor. I had gone to parties with one of these guys always in groups. Not dates.
The one I didn’t know said he needed to work on his cars, took some tools and left. At that point the one I knew better walked to the door, locked it, grabbed me pretty dang firmly, started trying to kiss me, push my blouse off and so on. I pushed him away, but could get him to release his grasp… This did not go on for long because the roommate had forgotten some tools and came back.
I left the room. I never, ever, ever allowed myself to be alone with that guy again. Ever.
This did not result in long term trauma on my part. I have no reason to believe he would not have stopped eventually. But perhaps he would not have. No clothes were torn, I was not bruised. The actions were never enough to press an action of “attempted rape”.
I’m pretty sure I’ve mentioned this to my husband, but I didn’t discuss it with anyone at the time. As I said: I was not traumatized.
That said: I’m pretty darn sure the story got around. Based on other things I saw a bit later, I’m pretty sure the roommate told guys on the dorm floor, because at parties on that dorm floor that fall, I could see that other guys on the dorm floor would actually keep an eye on this overly aggressive jerk and watch out to see if some girl seemed like she might be getting into trouble. (I would not be surprised if something similar hadn’t happened before and the roommate had actually intentionally “forgotten” his wrench in my case.)
OK_Max
Uhmmm… No. Sounds exactly like what I described. I forgot to mention, in the incident above, I was scanning around the room to gauge whether I could jump out the window. (I had, in the past jumped out windows on the 2nd story– for reasons having to nothing to do with any aggression. We were on the 3rd story.)
I don’t think the guy having his mouth on your mouth to prevent screaming is materially different from having his hand on it.
OK_Max
I don’t credit her polygraph as meaning anything much. It makes it a news story. But I don’t take it as evidence she is not lying.
That said, given what life is like, I think her being mistaken about the identity of her assailant is very possible.
Oh– also OK_Max,
Vis-a-vis screaming: During the summer the dorms were nearly unoccupied. Owing to the rules about dorm fees, kids did tend to have roommates because if you did not have one, you paid for a single room. So, only three rooms on that floor were occupied, my friend was the resident advisor and had no roommate, and the other two living on the floor weren’t there at that moment.
The guy grabbing me and I knew we were the only two people on the whole floor. The walls were cinderblock. Let me assure you that I was very aware that screaming for help was pointless. The possibility of escape was the window.
I have no idea why you think this is drastically different from what Fox reports.
lucia (Comment #170606): “That is, of course, why Feinstein waited. She picked her “reveal†for a time where delay to investigate would be as costly as possible for the GOP while benefiting the DEM’s as much as possible.”
.
There is an additional factor. A the reelection bids of a number of Democrat Senators are in serious trouble. Voting against Kavanaugh can only hurt them. A delay of the vote until after the election lets them off the hook.
—————
Tom Scharf (Comment #170605): “You can’t wait over 30 years and then smear somebody at a time like this with very little evidence.â€
OK_Max (Comment #170607): “Tom, If it’s true, I don’t see why not.”
.
There is no way to know if it is true. Even if the accuser is sure it is true, it may not be true.
I look forward to lucia’s “date” being nominated for the SC by the Democrats, ha ha. I do appreciate her sharing that story. It’s not obvious if one is understanding things correctly from the woman’s perspective in these type of cases.
.
Men have a dominance hierarchy. Especially in middle school it is expressed by picking on the people on the wrong side of the dominance curve. I got punched, pushed, and intimidated uncountable times. I was never really assaulted with intent to harm and there was a pretty clear line between those two. There were some mean dudes who you knew not to mouth off to though. I never viewed this as bullying, I viewed it as growing up in the real world and learning to deal with it. I definitely richly deserved some of it. I claim no negative impact and conversely see it as a useful learning experience. I don’t engage in road rage because those are likely some mean dudes. There was one case where there was some real harmful bullying done in my school and the victim had to change schools. The mean dude here ended up in prison eventually.
.
Normally these types of behaviors are not one-offs, they are a pattern of aggressive behavior. For teenagers they might be just not knowing how to act and being drunk and stupid. The “let’s pick a random girl, team assault her, and jeopardize our futures” plans just don’t happen very often, especially between a GROUP of men/boys who are all semi-responsible human beings from responsible households. The high profile cases where this has been alleged have fallen apart on review (Duke Lacrosse, UVA frat). The chances of it happening one on one out of view are at least a magnitude higher.
Tom Scharf,
Obviously, the incident was upsetting. I felt I’d dodged a howitzer. Obviously, I can believe similar things happened to other people. But I also know:
(a) I only specifically remember who it was because I did know him. He was in my social circle both before and after the incident. I saw him every day in the cafeteria. In contrast, Fox’s description suggests she barely knew the boys at the party. They were from a further away school, she mostly socialized with others. She would not have seen the boy who assaulted her much afterwards. The possibility she does not really know who did this is very real.
(b) I remember exactly where this happened. It happened in a North facing dorm room near the center of the 3rd floor north dorms at IIT campus.
(c) I remember exactly why I decided to visit the floor: It was to visit Mario Romero who did not happen to be there.
(d) Oh… above I was mistaken about something. It’s not true I never spoke to him again. We ate at the same dorm cafeteria. I never again sat at a table if I was not yet seated and he was there. I picked other tables. But he did sometimes sit at a table I was previously sitting at. (Tables sat lots of people. It’s a dorm cafeteria.) I did participate in conversations if he was there.
(e) The two main reasons I didn’t share the story with others were there were very few girls on campus at the time. So my friends weren’t there. I didn’t share with my actual boyfriend (who this guy knew) because I’d gotten away to what I would consider unscathed and I didn’t want the drama.
(f) He and I were both older than Fox or Kavanaugh were in Fox’s story.
(g) As noted above: this guy developed a reputation of being a pig among the women and, as I noted, I think among the men. He did, in fact, later get in a fight with a girl-friend’s boyfriend.
(h) I honestly doubt the guy remembers the incident. It wouldn’t have been as traumatic for him. If he does remember, he may remember it differently. His roommate likely also doesn’t remember the specific indicent, but would have if it had been discussed during the month or two after it happened.
(i) No one would have described this as attempted rape. If the roommate has not arrived, perhaps it would have turned into that, but it wasn’t that yet.
(j) I did not think the guy might accidentally or on purpose kill me. But I contemplate jumping out the window. No alcohol was involved.
One of the things that strikes me is that I remember a heck of a lot more detail about this than Fox did. And note: it happened the summer of 1978 so longer ago than what happened to Fox. I don’t remember details of most things that happened that summer but I remember this. So, honestly, I’m a bit surprised Fox would remember so few details about exactly when, where and so on. Yes, supposedly, she remembers who when — as far as I can tell– she barely knew him.
He’s never going to be nominated for SCOTUS. He didn’t study law. 🙂
BTW: As for details I remember: I was wearing a pink summer top that had a square elastic neck, and wide straps. It had elastic at the waist. I wore it with fairly short shorts by todays’ standards made of a knit material and elastic waist. I don’t remember the color of the shorts. Not extremely short– 1978 shorts were short though. Not bermudas.)
So yeah…. I remember quite a bit. Fox remembers very little given that she says she was traumatize. (Well… I’m not a psychologist. Maybe she was traumatized and maybe that often makes you forget. Dunno.)
Tom Scharf (Comment #170605): “This thing reeks to high heaven politically”
.
“Brett Kavanaugh’s mother is judge who dismissed a foreclosure action against accuser Ford’s parents”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/18/brett-kavanaughs-mother-is-judge-who-dismissed-foreclosure-action-against-accuser-fords-parents.html
.
“And her 2012 trip to the therapist took place right when Kavanaugh’s name came up in the news as a possible Mitt Romney Supreme Court nominee”
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/09/what_is_christine_braley_ford_trying_to_hide.html
.
If this event ever happened, no doubt she was drunk, at least enough to affect her memory. Add almost 40 years of memory effects. There is nothing left. I doubt she will appear to be questioned. I doubt Feinstein wants her questioned. She knows it won’t stand up well. It makes a better last-minute smear. FUD.
The lawyer said she arranged the lie detector. We don’t know if this test was for the lawyer to know if Ford is lying, in which case she would have an aggressive interrogator, or if it’s for the public to know she passed a lie detector, in which case she has just paid her guy to give favorable results.
I wonder if Ford would have the knowledge to beat a polygraph as a psych professor. She has authored almost 100 papers, which may be routine for Stanford professors. None relate to polygraphs, though.
Lucia,
“And note: it happened the summer of 1978 so longer ago than what happened to Fox.”
.
There is no substantive evidence that anything at all happened to her.
.
I agree that people usually remember when they felt threatened pretty well. I remember very clearly when I was 18 (49 years ago) and pinned against lockers by a guy twice my size, who told me he would ‘punch my lights out’ if he ever again saw me talk to a girl he was interested in. I also remember the girl, her name, exactly what she looked like, his name, exactly what he looked like, that he was the son of a local police officer, and the circumstances which led to the threat of violence (I helped the girl with a couple of physics homework problems in the 5 minutes before class started).
.
Ford’s vague recollections are not convincing.
“Nevertheless, I expect she will be “credible”. She has had four decades – or at any rate the six years since she first mentioned the incident at “couples therapy” in 2012 – to fix the summer of ’82-ish in her mind.”
https://www.steynonline.com/8836/docksider-dregs-of-seersucker-society
.
If this were at all scientific, now would be when the word ‘unfalsifiable’ starts popping up.
Assuming Ford’s story is true, how did she know it was Brett Kavanaugh that did this?
She went to a girls school, and generally socialized with a different boys school than Kavanaugh’s. How likely is it that she went to this party and knew the full names of the people there?
Max, I’m finding two different names for Ford’s lawyer, Lisa Banks and Deborah Katz.
Ledite,
“If this were at all scientific, now would be when the word ‘unfalsifiable’ starts popping up.”
.
That the claims are absolutely unverifiable and also unfalsifiable are features, not bugs.
SteveF,
Agreed: Longer ago than she says it happened to her.
Bear in mind, at this point there would probably be no evidence that the incident I relate involving me happened– other than my saying so. In my case, it’s not important politically so no one is going to investigate it. If they did maybe the room mate would remember, but I doubt it. The whole thing might not have struck him as strongly as me.
There’s a reason crimes have statutes of limitations. At some point, a crime no matter how vile is not worth investigating because no evidence can be obtained one way or the other.
I this case, the details are so vague, Kavanaugh can’t effectively rebut much because everything is so vague. The claimed incident occurred near where he lived. It’s unlikely he is going to be able to say he was never at any small party at any house with absent parents during any unknown date in 1982. I barely partied in high school, but I think I went to two of these. One for sure: Ring ceremony senior year, my juniors and seniors from my all girls schools got out a few hours early. The group I was with went to a party at a rich girls house in winnetka. The parents were not there; a keg was. It was fairly out of control– but all girls. Another: I went to a party after work with a work friend. I think the parents weren’t there. We didn’t really know anyone there and left after about 1/2 an hour.
I’m betting Kavanaugh who played football, and whose family was well off and whose friends were well off probably had access to rides and probably got to one or two of these parties during his senior and junior year. Just a hunch. So must likely, he’s not going to be able to say he lived a monk-like existence and never went out.
But what strikes me is she remembers almost nothing surrounding the incident. I remember tons of stuff including (or perhaps especially) the color the top he was trying to get off me. She’s a smart woman. I find it difficult to believe she would remember almost nothing surrounding this incident.
Like me: your remember details of those incidents that stood out.
Not remembering exactly where and when the event happened is a bit unusual if she was traumatized by it. Most traumatic events are called traumatic because they are stored in the precious permanent memory of the brain in detail, not that I am an expert. My trauma events are all characterized by strong memory. Memory loss is common for traumatic injury events but that I think is more of a physical thing. I don’t think they understand why that happens. I read it is the brain protecting itself from traumatic memory, I postulate that memory is an ongoing compression process that takes time to occur, a traumatic injury resets that process. I present zero evidence for this theory.
Lucia, your memory of the parties you went to would let you definitively say you were not at a party like the one Ford describes, even though we can’t say where or when this party happened.
Kavanaugh is reported by Hatch to have denied being at this party. While he presumably was at many, perhaps he can definitely say he wasn’t at one: in high school, without parents, drinking, at a place with a pool, just four boys total with at least one girl(lawyer now says at least 2) but not many, girls from a specific school.
MikeN,
Like me, Kavanaugh may well remember what parties he went to. The “ring ceremony” party had a pool. Some of the drunk girls started throwing other girls (drunk or not) into the pool. Jennie Stepan who was very modest got thrown in the pool. Her blouse went transparent and she was very embarrassed. I lent her my blue vest which I had made and which she was afraid would get wrecked. I told her it was a blend and would be fine, which it was.
I don’t remember everyone who attended, but I remember some who did. There were pretty many there. So I wouldn’t mistake it for a party of only 4 boys and 1 or 2 girls. My guess is it was probably 40 or so girls, maybe more. But I didn’t count. At the time, I could have named all of them by name, but I only remember a few people who were there. (Seniors included Aleca Uncovskoy, Lisa McDonald and Jennie Stepan. Elizabeth ?? a junior was there. Other that, I don’t remember.)
The other party I went to…. I remember less. I did’t know many people none of whom I knew, but my co-worker knew some. It was in libertyville. The kids were in the basement. There were pretty many and mixed boys-girls We left.
There may very well be evidence of something. This could be a planned staged event to take down Kavanaugh (regardless of whether it is true). Do it anonymously, then bravely come forward etc. Any evidence will show up a day before the hearing, another “witness” or something. I’d like to get all self righteous but there may be karma for the Merrick Garland incident.
Tom Scharf, Kavanaugh was named as a likely first Supreme Court pick for President Romney or any other Republican in a New Yorker article March 26, 2012. Could the therapist notes have been part of a setup? Alternatively, reading the article is what triggered the reveal to the therapist. Declaring to the therapist he went to an ‘elitist’ school is suspicious. Wasn’t her school elitist?
MikeN (Comment #170624)
September 18th, 2018 at 11:14 am
“Max, I’m finding two different names for Ford’s lawyer, Lisa Banks and Deborah Katz.”
________
I too noticed two lawyers, Lisa Banks and Debra Katz, speaking for Ford. I was puzzled until I found Banks and Katz are with the same law firm.
https://www.kmblegal.com/attorneys-and-staff
lucia (Comment #170611)
September 18th, 2018 at 6:50 am
OK_Max
Lucia, it sounds like you were a good judge of character, and dated only young men who might make passes but would respect your wishes.
Dated? Why would you think dated? I didn’t say dated. And in fact, I did not date the young men who were aggressive in this way.
______
Lucia, I’m sorry I misunderstood you. I thought you were talking about boys or men you had dated when you said ” In my youth I experienced aggressive passes where the guy pressed his case rather uhmmm strongly initially, but did stop when it was clear the answer was no.”
I was thinking I’ve done that, depending on what you mean by “strongly”. But now that I know what you mean, no I have never done that.
We may have different definitions of “aggressive.” During mutually enjoyable kissing, if I put my hand on my date’s knee, I would consider that aggressive, but I would not persist If she removed my hand or said keep your hands to yourself. Perhaps I should call it taking initiative rather than being aggressive. I believe the
recommended way today would be for me to ask my date if it
would be OK if I put my hand on her knee.
OK_Max,
I don’t see this as aggressive. Someone has to start moving hands around or things don’t go anywhere.
Yes. Which is a stupid rule if one thinks it ought to be one.
Ledite (Comment #170619)
September 18th, 2018 at 10:58 am
Tom Scharf (Comment #170605): “This thing reeks to high heaven politicallyâ€
.
“Brett Kavanaugh’s mother is judge who dismissed a foreclosure action against accuser Ford’s parentsâ€
http://www.foxnews.com/politic…..rents.html
______
I don’t get your point. Are you suggesting Ford is being ungrateful for accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault after his mother’s decision as a judge helped her parents?
Lucia: “But what strikes me is she remembers almost nothing surrounding the incident.”
.
Or rather, that she claims to remember some things in perfect detail and fails to remember other things. Could be an indication of fabrication. Could be quite normal. I wouldn’t trust anybody else’s memory and not even my own.
.
A friend was telling, in great detail, where he was when JFK was shot. Except it didn’t make sense. Turned out he was remembering when RFK was shot. Oops.
.
My theory is that usually old memories are not really memories of the event, they are memories of memories (and so on), with a bit of telephone game mutations thrown in.
.
It doesn’t even need to be old. Multiple people see the same thing, they don’t see the same things.’ Even the same person, between one night and the morning after.
.
Who could judge something like this, short of a Perry Mason moment?
lucia (Comment #170634)
September 18th, 2018 at 1:39 pm
OK_Max,
“I believe the recommended way today would be for me to ask my date if it would be OK if I put my hand on her knee.”
Yes. Which is a stupid rule if one thinks it ought to be one.
______
I tend to agree with you. I would feel silly asking such a question, but it would help prevent a misunderstanding.
Ledite
I think this is true. I seem to remember seeing this in a science special involving making people lose their phobias.
This is why not telling anyone for years and having no record is a big problem. I suspect something happened to her. A guy being really aggressive is not exactly unusual in a girl or woman’s life. But she’s forgotten so much, I don’t believe she is a reliable source for who the guy was. She may think she knows, but she probably doesn’t.
If you would allow a humble lurker to interject a mere anecdote:
A couple of years ago, I attended my 50th high school reunion, where I met up with my best friend from those long lost days. He and I discussed for hours stories of our times together, stories that I have retold over and over again (a habit, I think, of the old). My memories of those events were crystal clear . . . in my mind. But, not in his. Nope, our stories didn’t match. Close in many ways but different in many others. A bit of a shocker, actually. (I can’t say those memories were particularly “traumatic,” but some of the events were darned important to me.)
Turns out our experience was shared by many others at the reunion. Surely, other commenters here can share that same kind of thing. Sorry, but old memories aren’t really memories; they’re stories. not lies, just stories.
I remember many traumatic experiences:
I fell from a tree and landed on a barbed-wire fence.
Stepped on nail that went in bottom of my heel and came out back.
While going barefoot I got burning cigar butt lodged between toes.
Was distracted speeding on my bicycle and crashed into parked car.
Large firecracker exploded in my hand near my head. Dumb mistake.
I came close to being trampled by a Brahma bull. Not bull’s fault.
All these experiences occurred before I was age 15, and I remember the details. So it’s easy for me to believe Ford can remember a traumatic experience she had at age 15.
Max,
How do you error check your recollections? (real question)
OK_Max
No one is surprised she would remember the experience. Everyone expects her to remember traumatic experiences.
What everyone is surprised by is how little she remembers. According to the story at WaPo, she remembers almost nothing about the details surrounding it. What house? What month? Heck what year? How did she get to the house? How did she get home?
She remembers none of these details. It’s the lack of memory that is odd.
mark,
It’s difficult. Somethigns you can check:
1) My family did move back to the US when I was in 1st grade. Evidence: Photos, school records.
2) My family moved to Illinois the summer after 1st grade: Also photos school records.
And so on.
Some other things… hard to check objectively. In investigations or trials, you can see how many people agree on concrete things. You might be able to discover a person is especially unreliable.
Thanks Lucia.
I remember that I’ve decided in the past that I personally have a terribly inaccurate memory, although unsurprisingly I don’t recall exactly how I made up my mind about this.
Conveniently for Democrats, Ford does not wish to come testify anytime soon. She’d prefer the FBI investigate the matter.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/ford-letter-fbi/index.html
Too good to check news: Ford sent a similar letter against Gorsuch.
Mike,
.
I had to check. Josh Cornett on Twitter appears to be the source. A reasonable argument could be made that he’s being facetious. Another reasonable possibility is that he is demonstrating that unsubstantiated, implausible allegations should be handled with care.*
This said, Feinstein did say ‘Now, I can’t say everything’s truthful. I don’t know.’ to Fox News.
.
* – My money is on this option.
The rumor that she sent a similar letter of Gorsuch looks totally unsubstantiated. They need to find the letter.
Presumably, if it was sent, and forwarded to the FBI it will be in the FBI files.
mark bofill (Comment #170641)
September 18th, 2018 at 6:15 pm
Max,
How do you error check your recollections? (real question)
_____
I’m not sure what you mean. I have no documentation. Do scars count?
ucia (Comment #170642)
September 18th, 2018 at 6:15 pm
OK_Max
No one is surprised she would remember the experience. Everyone expects her to remember traumatic experiences.
She remembers none of these details. It’s the lack of memory that is odd.
________
Yes, that does seem odd. I remember quite a few details about the traumatic experiences I mentioned having before age 15. I had not,
however, been drinking. I don’t know whether Ford had been drinking. Intoxication could affect attention to details, particularly those that didn’t seem significant at the time. But a sexual assault and who did it are more than just details.
The new question: “Are you now or have you ever been a rapist?” — no, make that ‘a toxic male’. No, that doesn’t scan. In the future, all politicians, lawyers, judges, CEOs, film producers, need I go on, will have to be either female or gay. Not because they are better, but because they won’t have any hidden toxic male behavior in their past.
.
I think a lot of people who are “older” feel that they have had past lives. Not reincarnation, but in effect, yes, lives that they know was them, but yet lives of some person who is their backstory but doesn’t feel like them, something out of their novel.
.
The leading man and leading lady in this story were children when these events took place. Is what happened to them as children relevant anymore? Are those adults the same people as when they were children? My take on this is ‘no’. People may make mistakes, people may learn from mistakes and not make them again. Whether a SCOTUS candidate is a person of good character NOW is the only important question. Outside of statute of limitations, to quote Hillary, ‘What difference does it make?’.
.
If you want examples of “flexible” memory, follow divorces. You will find that hatred is retroactive. “I never loved you” kind of stuff.
Ledite (Comment #170636)
September 18th, 2018 at 2:06 pm
Lucia: “But what strikes me is she remembers almost nothing surrounding the incident.â€
.
“Or rather, that she claims to remember some things in perfect detail and fails to remember other things. Could be an indication of fabrication.”
_________
If she were fabricating, why say Kavanaugh’s friend Mark Judge was present during the assault and piled on? She then could have two denying it happened instead of just one, which is what has happened. I read somewhere that this is not a good way to fabricate.
Judge has said he doesn’t remember the incident and he has never see Kavanaugh act that way. If he doesn’t remember the incident how can he say how Kavanaugh acted during it?
Ledite (Comment #170651)
September 18th, 2018 at 10:42 pm
The new question: “Are you now or have you ever been a rapist?
No
“The leading man and leading lady in this story were children when these events took place. Is what happened to them as children relevant anymore?”
Yes
>If he doesn’t remember the incident how can he say how Kavanaugh acted during it?
This assumes there was an incident. Mark isn’t saying what he remembers, but what he doesn’t remember. He says he did not see Kavanaugh act this way ever.
Including Judge does seem an odd detail, but perhaps she thought it added corroboration, given his public history of drunkenness, having written a book about it.
Plus, if this were a long term setup with a deliberate tale to the therapist, then Judge made the news within weeks of the Kavanaugh New Yorker article, with a Daily Caller column about his bike being stolen and the thief was likely black.
OK_Max
Evidently, she hasn’t even been specific about the year. Only that they were both in high school. It’s rather difficult to attribute that to being drunk unless she was perpetually drunk.
Also, she doesn’t remember whose house it was at. One might have thought she knew whose house she went to before she got there. That shouldn’t be erased by being drunk.
Given what she does not remember, it’s entirely plausible she doesn’t remember who was at the party or who might have assaulted her. She didn’t know the boys where. The likelyhood of misidentifying the boy is even higher if she was drunk.
Maybe it happened the way she claims. Or maybe she was drunk, confused, and her mind later filled in details. Or maybe it never happened. I sort of lean toward the mistaken memories.
Oh, and BTW, in her story, one of the thing that supposedly terrified her was that her parents would discover she’d been to a party where kids were drinking. My theory of why she was terrified is that she wanted to avoid being grounded so she could continue to go to similar future parties. That’s a common motivation for not telling parents something. But if it was, then I would also suggest she wasn’t all that traumatized. It was closer to the level of “trauma” Steve F experienced being shoved against the lockers and threatened, or I felt during the incident I described. That is: something that ordinary people get over pretty quickly.
(That a victim gets over it doesn’t mean what the aggressor did was ok. It’s not. But I think exaggerating the “life long effect” of this does no one any good when discussing it.)
OK_Max
First, the frame of your question seems to have us assume she’s fabricating and ask why she does it in this way.
The answer to your question: Claiming someone was present sure as heck beats claiming there were no witnesses at all. Also, her story needs someone present to create a way for her to get away from Kavanaugh who, after all, is much larger than she was.
I can assure you that in my story, what with the door locked, and the guy being much larger than I was, I would have had trouble getting away if the roommate had not arrived.
Why pick Judge? He wrote a book in which he constantly drinking and mentions a friend with a last name Kavanaugh. That would make him a good pick in the role of guy who was present. It’s not unlikely she might have read the book or some high school friend of hers read the book. If nothing else, they might have been attracted to reading a book by a student who was on the fringe of their circle of friends in high school. That could supply her with names to make up.
(It could also be the source of names for a false memory btw.)
Anyway: just because something is a poor way to fabricate doesn’t mean she or others don’t chose poor ways to fabricate. Also: if leaving out details is a good way to fabricate, she’s doing a bang up job. Her lack of memory extends to (a) what year, (b) whose house, (c) how she got there, (d) how she left. Her WAPO report does mention if she was drinking. She says four boys (and evidently 1 other girl) were there, these are unnamed in the WAPO article.
I woudn’t take the fact that she’s left out zillions of details that might be used to confirm or refute her allegation. But by the same token, I wouldn’t put in one single potentially corroborating or refuting detail as evidence it must be true because she “risked” having it be refuted. In any case, it turns out Judge doesn’t recall any such event. So this particular detail does tend to refute. (And possibly shows the “danger” of including corroborating details in a fabrication. Or even a mostly true story one might mis-remember.)
He didn’t. He said he never saw Kavanaugh act that way ever. And he doesn’t remember any incident like that. He gives no details about how Kavanaugh acted during it.
Full FBI investigation for a teenage groping that occurred in the 1980’s? We are going to have to hire about a million more FBI agents to get to the bottom of these things. To save some taxpayer money, I admit it, I was a teenage groper. #HeToo. I hereby (long winded fake apology and dubious sticky contrition). I also give up my career and plan to donate my retirement accounts to Victims Of Clumsy Teenage Groping. My groping was “accepted” from my viewpoint and even reciprocated, but that is no excuse. Reciprocation only means the victim is so traumatized as to not know what she was doing and only play acting to get out of the situation.
.
Like I said, I don’t even really care if this happened, people should be allowed to straighten out their lives if they show decades of responsible behavior. An isolated event like this as a teenager just doesn’t matter, at least to me. This only applies if this happened and Kavanaugh admitted it. Kavanaugh knowingly lying about doing it would be a different matter.
.
This is increasingly looking like a staged political operation to run out the clock as long as possible. Have the hearing, if she shows up fine, if she doesn’t then move on. Calls for an investigation ring pretty hollow on something they knew about since July.
Tom Scharf,
“This is increasingly looking like a staged political operation to run out the clock as long as possible. Have the hearing, if she shows up fine, if she doesn’t then move on.”
.
Sure. But the Democrats will never agree to that…. it has always been a staged political operation. The disagreement has absolutely nothing to do with Kavanaugh or what happened at a teen-age party 35+ years ago. It has everything to do with a fundamental disagreement about accepting the US Constitution as meaning what the plain words in the document say. The Kavanaugh fight is nothing more than an extension of the “living Constitution” fight (AKA, no binding constitution at all versus a binding constitution).
.
The current POV on the “progressive left” is that much of the constitution is no longer valid, and should be simply ignored. For example, see: http://theweek.com/articles/796519/electoral-college-civic-abomination . The “progressive left” does not, and never has, believed in the rule of law (eg Obama’s lawless executive orders)…. only in raw political power to achieve their political goals, by any means available, constitutional or not, lawful or not.
On a more positive note, than the current news, my son’s college entrance ACT testing saga has ended well. He scored a 33, which included a perfect score of 36 on the reading portion and a 34 on the math portion. He scored a 30 on the English portion, which was 5 points better than his 25 on the June test he took. Worked about 30 hours per week over the summer to improve his June score, which was a 30 overall. (The 33 was in the top 1.3%)
……
To improve on his June score, I offered him a bonus of $750 for each point over 30, and $500 for each point 32 and above on the four individual components of the test. He made $5750, which I am very happy to pay.
…..
My son’s first score in February was a 25, which included a 23 on the the reading portion. His substantial improvement shows that hard work and a moderate amount of coaching can make a big difference. Luckily, my son was motivated and instead of feeling pressure, just took the attitude that he was playing a game.
JD Ohio,
” He made $5750, which I am very happy to pay.”
.
Yikes! You obviously have a lot more money than my parents ever did. If you divide that value by a factor of 6 to account for inflation since the 1960’s, it would have represented about 1 1/2 months of my dad’s net earnings when I was in high school.
JD Ohio!
Great! Now for the scholarship round! 🙂
And some say ACT and SAT prep don’t work… (They work if the kid is motivated. Same as regular school.)
SteveF,
Yep.
I think sometimes poor kids can be more self-motivated than richer kids. JD Ohio probably doesn’t think of himself as rich, but there are certainly people in much more strained circumstances.
Regarding Kavanaugh, for me the question is not so much his behavior as a high school student. The question is his veracity about it today. Given that his answers on some other questions raise doubts about his honesty, I believe further investigation is warranted.
Tom,
I think the investigation should start right away. But I consider testimony by Fox especially and Kavanaugh at the senate part of the investigation. It thing should be the first step.
I’d have favored a more leisurely investigation kicked off by the FBI interviewing Fox to get a concrete story on record and names of people who might be witnesses if Feinstein had brought this up promptly or if Fox had come up publicly more promptly (as in not just sending anonymous stuff), but this is the position the two put us in by electing to wait. And yes, both elected to wait. So I don’t think there’s any reason to say they get to call the shots and say things need to be done in the slowest way possible.
The FBI can be investigating in parallel with Senate hearings . Or FBI investigations can be deferred until we hear the accuser in more detail so as to give the FBI some specifics to investigate. In anycase, testimony will speed along any investigation because we, and the investigators, will then have some information.
Fox speaking in a public form that permits questions and answers is the most efficient way to firm up the story so that investigation can be done efficiently.
I get Fox might not want to do this. (Rumors say she doesn’t– after initially having her lawyer say she’d be glad to do so.) But the only way that speaking to the Seante could have been avoided is if Feinstein or Fox had stayed mum.
Fox did send out letters. She asked for anonymity, but yah’ know…. She’s a 50 something professor of psychology who seems to have managed to enter academia in her early 20s. She is educated, intelligent, well read, and has to have known that you can’t have your story taken seriously if it is completely and utterly anonymous and if you won’t answer questions about it in a timely manner. In this case, the forum was bound to be the Senate.
No matter how traumatic she says this was, the fact is, she wasn’t raped. She seems to not have even been bruised. She supposedly gone through therapy. People aren’t going to see her as a soiled dove of days of your based on this story. Fox knew enough to lawyer up before the story was public and did so. Her lawyer has been preparing for the circus. She ought to be prepared for facing the Senate. So I don’t see how anyone should treat her as a delicate hot house flower who can’t face discussion of this topic.
However traumatic the incident she claims occurred may have been, she hardly seems to be a delicate flower who will wilt in public.
She should accept the invitation to testify in the Senate and get the transparency started. When we hear all that, we can know what precisely the FBI should look into, who they might phone and so on.
Lucia, it’s Ford, not Fox.
Tom Scharf, Ed Whelan has looked thru the claims of Kavanaugh’s lies to Congress.
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/629365/
Ford didn’t just identify Judge as a witness, but also named two other attendees.
One of them has written a letter denying ever being at such a party.
The other is still publicly unknown.
Not knowing whose house it was is consistent with her story that she would be hanging out at some community place and would find out about parties there. But then she should know how she got to the party, who took her there.
MikeN,
Opps….
Yes. Ford.
On Kavanaugh lies: If the Senate things he lied, we don’t need to learn more about Ford’s claims.
They should not confirm him. In that case, they can skip thinking about Ford’s allegations. Trump can nominate someone else. There is no reason for the Senate to waste time on those allegations, just vote to not confirm and be done with it.
If the Senate believes Kavanaugh was truthful,then the fact some are calling his statement lies should have no bearing on whether they look into Ford’s allegations. They should consider Ford’s allegations and new information that needs to be considered.
I think the most expeditious way is to have Ford and Kavanaugh appear before the Senate present their stories and allow questions.
MikeN,
My mistake. I thought she only identified Judge. So two guys supposedly there say the were never at such a party. ‘
Unless she was already blotto before even going to the party. In which case, she’d be prone to mis-identifying who might have assaulted her or even misjudged stumbling into a room for being pushed.
A woman on twitter (facebook) evidently claimed the incident was talked about at the girls school immediately after the incident. Then she took her post down.
There is a difficulty with the woman’s post: Ford said during summer. She does report wearing a bathing suit under her clothes. School is not ordinarily in session in the summer.
Thomas William Fuller (Comment #170663): “Given that his answers on some other questions raise doubts about his honesty, I believe further investigation is warranted.”
That is not true. People have lifted statements of Kavanaugh’s out of context, then claimed that they are not true. But when looked at it context, there is no problem with the statements.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-character-assassination-by-democrats/
Memory is very plastic and often unreliable. I remember the famous science fiction author Isaac Asimov commented that when writing his autobiography, entries from his journal from the time not only did not confirm his memory of some events, but that the event was the exact opposite of what he remembered.
Then there was the recovered memory thing from the 1990’s as well as the satanic ritual child abuse thing. People were convicted and imprisoned for years because of that, not to mention the damage to the children who were made to believe they had been abused.
I would be very suspicious of anyone who claims to remember something from long ago but does not have a lot of detail and corroboration.
And again, you’re not lying if you believe what you are saying is true and aren’t a sociopath.
I don’t think Ford ever explicitly said it was summer, but that makes most sense with the hanging out somewhere and then going to a party and the swimsuit. It could also be end of school year or start with the pools still open.
She told Post the names of two others at the party, and they gave no comment when asked.
If I had to bet, it would be on one of two things:
1) She was at a party like this, got drunk, and this happened to someone else at the party.
2) She heard this tale from one of her students, and retold it.
In both cases she is deliberately targeting Kavanaugh and Judge.
MikeN
From WAPO article
That says “summer”.
Here is text of collaboration letter that was posted and pulled from Facebook.
https://twitter.com/jaybookmanajc/status/1042386834284789760
There is issue of summer vs hearing about it at school, but also how did he hear about it if Ford never told anyone?
Summer it is then. It’s just the month and year she’s a little unclear on.
When it hasn’t been your day, your week, your month, or even your year…
JD Ohio (Comment #170660)
“On a more positive note, than the current news, my son’s college entrance ACT testing saga has ended well. He scored a 33, which included a perfect score of 36 on the reading portion and a 34 on the math portion. He scored a 30 on the English portion, which was 5 points better than his 25 on the June test he took. Worked about 30 hours per week over the summer to improve his June score, which was a 30 overall. (The 33 was in the top 1.3%)”
“Luckily, my son was motivated and instead of feeling pressure, just took the attitude that he was playing a game.”
__________
JD, congratulations to your son. And to you, too.
I think looking at a test like it’s ” a game” is a good approach.
JD,
Your white privilege is showing, ha ha. You may more than makeup for that payment with a scholarship and it will be money well invested for both you and your son.
From today’s WSJ Notable and Quotable:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-betsy-devos-1537310937
Betsy DeVos on the philosophy of relativism, i.e. find your own truth:
SteveF “Yikes! You obviously have a lot more money than my parents ever did. If you divide that value by a factor of 6 to account for inflation since the 1960’s, it would have represented about 1 1/2 months of my dad’s net earnings when I was in high school.”
The way I look at it, I invested $6,000 to make $100,000 or $150,000 because he is now eligible for a lot of merit-based free rides. Also, he worked very hard, and I will bet his hourly “salary” for the time spent (on very boring work) was not that high. (Too lazy to figure it out). I would also add that when you give kids bonuses, they end up spending it on things you would often buy for them anyway. So, the real, functional amount comes out to be a lot less than the apparent facial amount of the bonus.
JD
MikeN (Comment #170672)
“If I had to bet, it would be on one of two things:
1) She was at a party like this, got drunk, and this happened to someone else at the party.
2) She heard this tale from one of her students, and retold it.
In both cases she is deliberately targeting Kavanaugh and Judge.”
__________
MikeN, perhaps it didn’t occur to you that your bets don’t exclude Kavanaugh and Judge. Or maybe it did.
You could win the first bet if Kavanaugh and Judge sexually assaulted a girl other than Ford at the party.
You could win the second bet if one of Ford’s female students was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh and Judge at another party.
Of course you could win both bets.
If one can veto a high profile career with 36 year old unverifiable claims then we can certainly assume this isn’t the last time this power will be used. The Republicans are going to need to hold a confirmation vote if she doesn’t testify, or else they will suffer the consequences from their own side. It’s pretty obvious the testimony if it occurs will just result in he said / she said and exactly zero people changing their minds. The goal for Democrats is to get Collins to vote against and delay the vote until after the election so red state Democrats can have cover. She is going to have to testify or this drama will end within a week.
lucia (Comment #170656)
“The answer to your question: Claiming someone was present sure as heck beats claiming there were no witnesses at all. Also, her story needs someone present to create a way for her to get away from Kavanaugh who, after all, is much larger than she was.”
lucia, I see it another way. If she was going to fabricate, why go half way. She could have just claimed he raped her rather than attempted to do it. Adding a witness to a made-up story would not be a good idea.
You also said “He said he never saw Kavanaugh act that way ever. And he doesn’t remember any incident like that. He gives no details about how Kavanaugh acted during it.”
Yes, Judge said he doesn’t remember any incident like that. He’s not
saying it never happened, just that he doesn’t remember. He also said he never saw Kavanaugh act that way. Of course if he didn’t remember any incident like that, and can’t be sure whether it happened or not, then he can’t say for sure that Kavanaugh never
acted that way.
I recall reading something about Judge being unwilling to testify. If he refuses, it will look like he has something to hide about himself,
Kavanaugh, or both.
MikeN,
Presumably one of the boys or the other girl might have known about it and talked. If so, they will want to find the other girl and boys (now adults) to see what they have to say.
But once again: Could be a different incident that was talked about.
Tom Scharf
I think the same is likely with an FBI probe. I also suspect Feinstein things an FBI probe would be inconclusive or at least there is a sizeable risk it won’t support Ford. That’s why she waited so long to make this an issue. Had it been brought up a month ago, the FBI could have questioned all named parties, and people who might rise up and support Ford would have done so– and had their stories investigated and so on.
Of course.
MikeN (Comment #170665)
September 19th, 2018 at 12:10 pm
Lucia, it’s Ford, not Fox.
______
That’s not the first time lucia has referred to Ford as Fox. I suspect something is going on there. A Fox is a clever animal. Perhaps lucia thinks Ford is like a Fox. The following quote is from the Urban Dictionary:
“Like a Fox” is used after an action that one has just achieved as a discriptive phrase. When you have done something, adding “Like a Fox!” at the end will emphisize the slyness, talent or precision you or someone else has achieved something. “Like a Fox” can also be said; “Like Fox!”. Like a Fox is traced back as far as an ancient phanton comic, where the Phantom states; “Crazy like a fox”
Seen in today’s USAToday, an unfortunate statement by Kavanaugh in a 2015 speech:
“But fortunately, we had a good saying that we’ve held firm to, to this day, as the dean was reminding me before the talk, which is, ‘What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep,’ ” Kavanaugh said, drawing a few laughs. “That’s been a good thing for all of us, I think.”
Like they say about Vegas, except herpes.
OK_Max,
I saw that video. I don’t see it as evidence of anything related to the Ford allegations.
Lots of people say “what happens in vegas stays in vegas” and are not referring to anything disreputable at all.
Of course some kids were young and stupid in high school. Of cousre some kids don’t want to discuss that later. That doesn’t tell us much more than that.
Regarding the possibility that Ford is fabricating her story to some extent, assuming this is the case for a moment. It may be that she wishes her story to remain somewhat consistent with what she has said to people in the past. For example, her therapists notes from six (6) years ago have apparently been reviewed (their contents mentioned here). They seem to be sparse enough on details, perhaps she fears that contradicting them will leave her even less credible than she is now.
This may explain why, assuming she is making up elements of her account, she does not embellish too far as Max suggested in #170682. It may be that she dare not suggest actual rape for this reason.
The FBI does not investigate ‘crimes’ which are not crimes under federal statute. I doubt people will find any “teenage-party-groping” stature in federal law. The whole “FBI needs to investigate” trope is nonsense. Kavanaugh has already had multiple background checks done. Are we to assume all those earlier checks were worthless? I guess so.
Irony alert. There’s lots of chatter about whether he did it or not, based on zero evidence. The masses love it. But not much chatter about due process. Rules of procedure in a court room are pretty strict, and there is a judge to make sure they are adhered too.
.
Here we have a free for all, closer to a lynch mob than a court room.
Directed at someone who is the among the highest of the high in the judiciary, someone who certainly can see the difference. It’s a sad day, and the future of democracy isn’t what it used to be.
.
The masses haven’t had so much fun since OJ.
lucia (Comment #170686)
I saw that video. I don’t see it as evidence of anything related to the Ford allegations.
Lots of people say “what happens in vegas stays in vegas†and are not referring to anything disreputable at all. and are not referring to anything disreputable at all.
______
lucia, no one has ever said to me “what happens in vegas stays in vegas.†All I know is what I’ve read, including dictionary definitions. I believe this idiom implies something happened you aren’t supposed to talk about, something that needs to remain secret.
I took Kavanaugh’s remark to mean the students at his school did things that it would be best not to talk about. What do you think he meant?
The following explanation of “what happens in vegas stays in vegas†is from the Free Dictionary:
“Any scandalous activities that happen when one travels in a group are not to be discussed with other people afterward. The phrase alludes to Las Vegas, Nevada, a popular vacation destination with a reputation as a city of hedonism (due to its casinos and clubs). The phrase can also be used simply to emphasize that something needs to be kept secret. Primarily heard in US. A: “Guys, please don’t tell my wife what happened while we were on vacation.” B: “Sure, man—what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas!” I really want this party to be a surprise, so please don’t share the details we discussed here with anyone else—what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, OK?”
BTW, I used to live in Las Vegas.
Will evil and stupid in the US Senate rule, or will law rule? It is a sorry question, but one that needs to be asked, and one where the answer is not at all clear. If Kavanaugh is defeated based on tripe: a no-date-no-location-no-corroboration claimed offense from 35+ years ago, then democracy under the rule of law is lost. Thank goodness for the second amendment; that will at least give the leftist crazies pause.
Max,
Your interpretation of the expression is correct as far as I know. I have personally known people to use the expression. To the best of my knowledge, none of the people I have personally known to have used the expression were referring to attempted rape.
I’d hope this goes without saying, but to take the use of this expression as evidence against Kavanaugh is downright shameful in my view.
OK_Max (Comment #170690): “I took Kavanaugh’s remark to mean the students at his school did things that it would be best not to talk about. What do you think he meant?”
————-
I would think he meant that when they were teenagers they sometimes behaved like teenagers.
OK_Max, Mike M.
I thought the same thing Mike M. thought. Often parents don’t want to talk about their teenage behavior when their kids are around. This can include things as innocuous as dancing on tables.
They are perfectly happy reminiscing about the behavior when they get together!
mark bofill (Comment #170692)
Mike M. (Comment #170693)
lucia (Comment #170694)
I don’t believe Kavanaugh was referring to horrible crimes when he said “What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep.” But he may have meant mischievous acts, including wha SteveF in Comment #170688 called “teenage-party-groping.”
While it may not have been Kavanaugh’s intent, the axiom implies don’t snitch on your buds.
mark bofill (Comment #170692)
Mike M. (Comment #170693)
lucia (Comment #170694)
I don’t believe Kavanaugh was referring to horrible crimes when he said “What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep.” But he may have meant mischievous acts, including wha SteveF in Comment #170688 called “teenage-party-groping.”
While it may not have been Kavanaugh’s intent, the axiom implies don’t snitch on your buds.
In a sane world the burden of proof is on the accuser, OK_Max seems to be wondering into the burden is on the defendant territory. Feel free to correct that.
.
What the level of proof should be for removing Kavanaugh is a personal opinion. For a criminal case this would be tossed out of court in 2 minutes on statute of limitations, and lack of evidence even if the limitations weren’t an issue.
.
Evidence is what matters, anyone can think anything they want without it. There are separate questions of which way the evidence leans, and if the weight of the evidence is strong enough to conclude anything no matter which way it leans.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170697)
September 19th, 2018 at 9:51 pm
“In a sane world the burden of proof is on the accuser, OK_Max seems to be wondering into the burden is on the defendant territory. Feel free to correct that.”
______
Tom, I’m glad you said “wondering” instead of “wandering.” It’s good to know you think I’m curious rather than just aimlessly moving about. Discoveries, however, sometimes are made by aimlessly moving about.
I’m “wondering into” the Ford’s allegation territory. A thorough investigation is needed to get to the truth. I want to know the truth. What’s wrong with my wanting to know the truth?
Of course I know getting to the truth can take time and Democrats want to drag out filling the SC vacancy until after the mid-terms. It reminds me of the Republicans wanting to wait until after the presidential election for the same reason. Both parties either stall or hurry when it helps them.
Re OK_Max (Comment #170696)
Correction: It’s an idiom not an axiom.
Max OK: “A thorough investigation is needed to get to the truth. I want to know the truth. What’s wrong with my wanting to know the truth?”
No investigation will get to the truth because too much time has passed. A reasonable response to an additional query such as: “What is wrong with an investigation — there is some chance it may find something” — is last minute very old accusations are subject to manipulation. If someone can, at the last moment, hold up a Supreme Court nomination with such flimsy allegations, then this will be an endless tactic in this case and other areas.
……
An additional reason why an “investigation” is not warranted is that even if the accuser’s allegations are true, they should not matter. Approximately, 35 years have gone by and Kavanaugh has compiled a very good record in all areas, including his treatment of women. One bad mistake, if in fact it occurred, should not overcome the many other things that Kavanaugh has done since he was 17-years-old.
JD
If other girls talked about what happened at this party at school, then they would have also talked to Ford about it.
Same if it was the boys who talked about it, only then Judge and Kavanaugh would know it is foolish to claim it never happened.
From Ford’s high school yearbook, it sounds like such activities would have been routine talk, and no one could say it 35 years later, yeah it happened with Kavanaugh.
What is surprising is the parents and faculty of Ford’s school were OK with publishing details of this party atmosphere:
https://cultofthe1st.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-christine-blasey-fords-high-school_19.html
I probably should refrain from commenting when I don’t have time to do it properly, but I’m going to anyway.
SteveF,
Max,
Both parties have their objectives, for example in this case appointing [or preventing the appointment of] a conservative SCJ. Of course there is also our structural rule system which can (and often is) gamed by means fair and foul to give one side or the other an advantage in pursuing their ends.
The trouble with ‘dirty tricks’ or means foul as opposed to fair IMV is that employing dirty tricks degrades the degree of civility remaining between the two opposing parties in our political system. Dirty tricks may be analogous to innovation in warfare; they can give one side or the other a transient advantage, but over the long haul what happens is that the other side copies the innovation and uses it, and the advantage is lost.
I think this is why both liberals and conservatives should reconsider using dirty tricks. It would be better for us as a people to informally agree that we won’t use such tactics against each other to settle our political differences.
This won’t happen (agreement not to use dirty tricks). I’m thinking about why, what makes this seem so unlikely. It might have something to do with tribalism and distrust.
MikeN,
Those yearbook pages are, ahem…. a little different from the pages of my high school yearbook. So according to the yearbook, drinking until you pass out at parties was not uncommon among students at this all-girls, private high school, and that kind of drunken party with students from nearby all-boys private schools was common. Wild parties were common when someone’s parents were not at home. Ford probably doesn’t remember who’s house it was because she never knew in the first place.
.
This information makes it easier to understand why Kavanaugh’s accuser is reluctant to testify. I expect she will never testify publicly under oath, where she would face questioning about the drunken-partying culture at her high school. Her risk of perjury would be very real if she claimed to not to be part of the party scene and/or did not drink and former classmates could testified that she was/did.
MIkeN,
Yes. If, as the other girls said, it was widely talked about, someone would almost certainly have talked to Ford about it. Then, presumably she would know everyone knew about it. One would think part of her “trauma” would be having the relive the experience while everyone talked about it.
The other girls story superficially look corroborating. But it’s actually not consistent with the few things Ford tells us about what happened.
SteveF,
If she claims not to be part of the drunken party scene, I will find that utterly unbelievable. The story she does tell has her waiting at the community center because that’s where you find out about parties. She knew someone who gave her a ride.
I have no doubt that some of the girls in my high school sometimes went to drunken parties somewhere. Living far from nearly all my classmates, if they did, I had no idea of it. But I know it wasn’t a “thing” the way it’s described in Ford’s yearbook. And I know girls who haunt locations because that’s where you find out about the parties are girls who regularly go to parties. After all: That’s going to parties is precisely why they learn about and haunt those locations.
There’s nothing really wrong with having been a party girl in high school. But I suspect she doesn’t quite what her children to be aware of that. Most parents want to put limits on their kids partying (for good reason.)
Moreover, as I mentioned before, she evidently was terrified her parents would find out she’d been at a drunken party. My guess is that was because she enjoyed drunking parties, and that not withstanding the “trauma” she says she experienced, she very much wanted to continue to go to drunken parties. (Where, like it or not, she would be at risk of precisely the behavior she claims happened with Kavanaugh. That said, teens and even adults are foolish. So the fact that going to future parties would have put her at risk of a repeat event might not put her off the parties.)
Lucia,
If Ford testified that she did go to parties and did drink, then that testimony would make her memory of the claimed events much less credible; the memories of people who are drinking are generally not very credible. Should there be a former classmate who would testify Ford drank heavily at parties, then her memories would be even less credible.
.
If she testified that that she did not drink, or never to excess, then she would be at real risk of perjury.
.
So, I very much doubt she will ever testify under oath. Refusing to testify maximizes the chance Flake and Collins will vote against Kavanaugh, defeating his nomination. My bet is that Flake will vote against Kavanaugh no matter what… to punish Trump before Flake leaves the Senate. I think this because Flake has acted in their feud almost as much an ass as Trump has… and he is angry that Trump’s supporters made his re-election just about impossible. So it will likely be Collins is who controls the outcome.
mark bofill (Comment #170703): “The trouble with ‘dirty tricks’ or means foul as opposed to fair IMV is that employing dirty tricks degrades the degree of civility remaining between the two opposing parties in our political system.”
————
Excellent point. Ultimately, that is why we have laws and civilization rather than savagery. Make that “rather than the war of all against all”; even savages have rules.
.
Once again, it seems like the Left does not care about the unintended consequences of their actions. I have begun to wonder if that is because the consequences are actually intended. That is, maybe they want to destroy our society. I am pretty sure that is so for an element of the Left and I am certain that it is not so for the average left leaning person. But I do not know how widespread it is.
SteveF,
Yes. It will suggest the possibility that all of the following are possible owning to booze induced memory loss:
(a) Mistaking who. (Very important.)
(b) Misinterpreting “pushed” for “we all stumbled”.
(c) Not really knowing if the door was locked.
(d) Lots of possible memory glitches.
The fact of not knowing where, when, how she got there and etc. will then be seen as natural given that she was drunk.
That yearbook is going to be brought forward. It’s rather remarkable evidence of heavy boozeswilling at her school. In the short term, lots of people are going to suspect lack of candor if she claims she did not drink given the evidence of the school culture and the evidence that she sought out boozie parties and the fact that the claimed incident happened at what must have been a boozie party (albeit with few partiers in attendance).
If she claims she did not drink in highschool, and she did, there will be the potential for perjury charges since (I’m pretty sure) she will be sworn before the Senate. If she drank regularly, evidence is very likely to come forward that she drank.
If her story is true and she’s willing to tell the truth, the “OK_Max” standard says she should testify. 😉
Of course, everyone else’s standard is she should bring a lawyer with her. Or decline to avoid perjury charges. 🙂 She arranged for the lawyer long ago; she already had a well known crack lawyer in place long before she went public with the story.
Testifying to the Senate is not much different from the FBI– it’s just more expeditious and more people are informed of what she said more quickly. Since this is a very important political issue, and voters deserve information, the greater, quicker, transparency is appropriate. Also, since the Senate will allow private testimony, she ought to be able to avoid a complete circus (which I would advise her to do btw.)
While the harassing emails and death threats may be real (and I bet they are), there’s no reason to believe they will stop whether or not she testifies. Refusing to testify will motivate just as many additional death threats as testifying will. So those are no reason not to testify to the Senate in private.
Her life is already disrupted. There is no reason she can’t fly in and out to DC. But my understanding is the committee may have offered to fly out to her which would mean the time out of her schedule would be even smaller. (I’m googling to determine if that rumor is true.)
MikeM
They may.
But to be fair, you need to recognize that to some extent neither party cares about unintended consequences if the intended consequences matter enough. Some of the unintended consequences are unpredictable etc.
Getting rid of filibuster bit Dems in the ass, only because they lost the Senate which they did not anticipate. Now they have this Kavanaugh thing which is almost as “good” for their purposes.
Politics is politics. There will always be “tricks” by both sides.
“Once again, it seems like the Left does not care about the unintended consequences of their actions.”
.
Ending the judicial filibuster. Endorsed by the NYT. Oops. Actually they did support the filibuster in 2005, were against it in 2013, and for it again in 2017. I’m sure who the President was had no impact on their thinking and they would be glad to tell you so with great self righteousness.
SteveF (Comment #170704)
September 20th, 2018 at 6:18 am
MikeN,
Those yearbook pages are, ahem…. a little different from the pages of my high school yearbook. So according to the yearbook, drinking until you pass out at parties was not uncommon among students at this all-girls, private high school,
_________
Mine too. Now I know why my wife, who went to a Catholic girl’s school, has never shown me her school yearbook. She denies even
having one, probably because there are photos of her and her classmates doing things she doesn’t want me to see.
I’ll bet that Catholic girl’s school is were she learned to cuss like a sailor.
If she went to parties and was drinking the real danger IMO is sending the wrong signals to drunken boys. I find it unlikely that an event like this at a party (if it happened) wasn’t preceded by flirting. A girl may very much want to start a relationship with a boy she met, but she may just as likely determine that she does not want rough aggressive treatment when things progress, then everything stops. I’m only blaming the victim because sometimes the victim deserves some of the blame.
.
I don’t really buy the “rich boys from private school attempt to rape girl who they never talked to at a public party”. I find the drinking and flirting escalated too far and things didn’t go well argument much more compelling. Even when drunk the vast majority of men know attacking women against their will is very wrong. Raging hormones, alcohol, and not knowing how to interact with women appropriately can result in awkward encounters.
.
What is missing here is no discrimination between a class 10 sexual assault with intent to rape versus flowers and poetry. This discrimination has been banned from discussion in polite society.
.
I went to lots of drinking parties in high school, and hosted 3 different ones myself when my parents were gone. Couples finding an empty bedroom at a drunken party did happen sometimes, but was not common. I remember several times seeing girls passed out on the floor in my youth. Welcome to WV circa 1980 folks. This was the culture and they were a ton of fun.
Dirty politics are used because dirty politics work. When they become reliably counterproductive then they might stop. We aren’t close to that day yet.
What’s to investigate about this (real question)?
As far as I can tell, we already know everything there is to know at this late date. Since it’s a he said/she said thing, there remains only the credibility of the witnesses. It would be very wrong to have law enforcement, particularly the FBI, opine on witness credibility, as they could do in a criminal investigation, when you have a Senate Committee hearing as the alternative.
But then it’s not clear there is a crime to investigate and certainly not a federal crime. We also don’t need any further politicization of the FBI. The key prosecution witness refusing to testify would certainly result in dismissal or acquittal in a trial. If Ford refuses to testify to the Senate on Monday, the hearing should be cancelled and a vote called.
Lucia,
“..you need to recognize that to some extent neither party cares about unintended consequences if the intended consequences matter enough.”
.
Absolutely. Democrats cared enough about Obama appointing ‘progressive’ judges that they eliminated the filibuster…. which really ticked off Republicans, who were until then blocking many of Obama’s very liberal nominees. The Republicans cared enough about keeping a fifth liberal off the Supreme Court (which would have ensured favorable rulings for progressives for a decade or more) that they refused to even consider Obama’s nominee for the last 9 months of his presidency, which really ticked off Democrats… who are now using any means available (no matter what) to keep a fifth conservative off the Supreme Court. Wash, rinse, repeat.
.
One interesting point is that Garland was the first nominee by a Democrat who was not confirmed since before Roosevelt, whereas four previous nominees by Republicans were rejected, the most famous of which was Bork. In each case, the rejection was based mainly on the nominee being skeptical of an activist, progressive Supreme Court…. the same as the basis for opposition to Kavanaugh. Progressives have used the SC as a super-legislature to advance their policy goals since at least the 1960s, which is why it has become ever more important to both Democrats and Republicans.
.
I do not see a way forward from here: So long as the President and the Senate are controlled by different parties, confirmation of future SC appointments appears nearly impossible. What ought to be an apolitical institution has for several decades been a very political institution, and one often used (IMO) to subvert the meaning of the Constitution in order to avoid the need for amendment (which would not likely succeed!). That is the ‘original sin’ which has damaged the function of both the Court and the Senate.
Whatever happened to (the girl who wrote the stories in the yearbook)? — she shows a lot of promise. Maybe she went on to become a famous novelist, or failing that a not-so famous journalist. Gossip columnist? Or a screen writer — “based on a true story” or “inspired by actual events”. The stories do give a feeling of what it was like back then that more straight, traditional yearbooks do not.
.
I’ve seen countless parents-away-parties in the movies. They come across as believable — in some other universe than mine. I see what I missed out on by being a nerd. The things I never knew! (and the traps I avoided that I didn’t even know were there).
SteveF (Comment #170716): “One interesting point is that Garland was the first nominee by a Democrat who was not confirmed since before Roosevelt”
There was the blocked elevation of Abe Fortas to chief justice.
.
“whereas four previous nominees by Republicans were rejected, the most famous of which was Bork. In each case, the rejection was based mainly on the nominee being skeptical of an activist, progressive Supreme Court”
That would be widely disputed in the cases of Haynsworth and Carswell.
MikeM,
“That would be widely disputed in the cases of Haynsworth and Carswell.”
.
Most everything associated with Supreme Court nominees will be widely disputed. 😉
.
Haynsworth and Carswell were two conservative southerners opposed to judicial activism. Carswell was clearly considered by many to be “less qualified” based on his background and rulings. Haynsworth was very qualified, but was strongly opposed based on his political views.
MikeM,
“There was the blocked elevation of Abe Fortas to chief justice.”
.
All his votes after that counted the same. An insult by conservative Senators? Yes. Meaningful? No. Besides, he had lots of real ethical issues and resigned from the Court shortly afterwards.
JD Ohio (Comment #170700)
“No investigation will get to the truth because too much time has passed.”
JD, you can’t be certain no investigation will get to the truth. It might at least provide more information.
“If someone can, at the last moment, hold up a Supreme Court nomination with such flimsy allegations, then this will be an endless tactic in this case and other areas.”
JD, I don’t know what you mean by ‘if’. Hasn’t Ford already held it up?
What’s wrong with holding it up a little longer? An FBI investigation could be finished before mid-term elections.
OK_Max,
So far investigation by the media, public, social media has revealed:
* Ford identified herself and gave an account with very, very, very few details.
* Mark Judge says he never witnessed any such event.
* The girls school had quite a rip-roarin’ year book suggesting wild parties and drunkenness was rampant at Ford’s high school.
* One woman says the incident was widely discusssed at school, then took down her facebook post and said she has no first hand knowledge.
* A bunch of women sent letters of support for Ford. (This seems to amount to “we’re on your side!” with nothing relevant to the accusation.)
* A bunch of woman say Kavanaugh is a swell guy. (This is only slightly less irrelevant than the above.)
I’m sure we’ll hear more. It’s only Thursday and Monday is several news cycles away!
Tom Scharf (Comment #170713)
“If she went to parties and was drinking the real danger IMO is sending the wrong signals to drunken boys. I find it unlikely that an event like this at a party (if it happened) wasn’t preceded by flirting”
________
Are you suggesting women at parties should like nuns ?
I fondly recall a very attractive girl flirting with me at drunken party. I didn’t interpret her behavior as a signal to jump on top of her. Even as a drunk teenager I had better sense than that. Never saw her again.
Edit not working. First line in reply should be
Are you suggesting women at parties should act like nuns ?
lucia (Comment #170722)
lucia, thanks for the summary.
I believe Mark Judge has said he doesn’t want to testify. I don’t know what he has said, if anything, about an interview with the FBI.
IMO, Ford’s HS year book is being used in a way to damage her character ( associate drunken teenage girls with easy virtue),
and that could backfire. Lot’s of women voters may be offended
by the suggestion that drinking makes them loose women.
OK_Max
I don’t think he’s suggesting that. I think he’s suggesting that even taking Ford’s story at face value, it’s edited to leave out details. FWIW: to some extent those details– like drunkenness– might suggest a higher than normal rate of misinterpretation on everyone’s part and might also suggest less than accurate or complete recall.
One doesn’t need to expect 15 year old girls at parties should act like nuns to also suggest that certain behavior might result in poor recollection and so on.
Perhaps. But that being one of the uses doesn’t preclude it being used in another way: To get an idea of the type of parties that were frequent in her social set, or to get an idea of the type of behavior she was used to witnessing in her social set.
No one here said drinking makes someone a loose woman. They have said:
1) Drinking makes people have poor memories.
2) It makes people be unaware of how their behavior is perceived.
3) It makes them less able to diagnose signals other people are sending.
4) It makes them stumble, and possibly mistake being pushed intentionally with a push due to a stumble.
And a number of other things. But not that it makes someone a loose woman.
In this case, of course, we are discussing girls and boys, not men and women.
If someone is offended by those observations, they are offended by reality. I’m a woman, and I’m offended by the claim that the behavior Ford says happened to her would be particularly traumatic. I could see it being traumatic if she’d been raped or possibly if she’d even been bruised or something. But I’ve experienced similar levels of aggressiveness and I assure you, I was not “traumatized”.
OK_Max
I didn’t say Mark Judge talked to the FBI nor anything about possible Judge-FBI involvement. I said ” Mark Judge says he never witnessed any such event.” Newsreports say he said that.
OK_Max,
The important date isn’t the midterm’s in November, It’s October 1 when the next session of the Supreme Court opens. If Kavanaugh isn’t confirmed by then, the Court would have to hold and re-argue any case that ends up with a 4-4 tie. There don’t appear to be any blockbuster cases on this term’s docket, though.
Having the FBI investigate the allegations, which would likely have to be ordered by Trump to proceed, is just another delaying action. There isn’t anything to investigate since there are no details as to time and place. There has been no complaint filed with local police either. In terms of background checking, the FBI has done about all it can by including the letter in Kavanaugh’s file.
If there were corroborating witnesses for Ford’s allegation, they would have shown up by now. In fact, 65 women, almost all of whom knew Kavanaugh personally, signed a letter backing Kavanaugh. I suspect they didn’t realize how strongly they would be attacked.
Meanwhile, the alumnae of Ford’s school who signed a letter declaring that an investigation is needed were mostly not acquaintances of either Ford or Kavanaugh.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170728)
The important date isn’t the midterm’s in November, It’s October 1 when the next session of the Supreme Court opens.
“In terms of background checking, the FBI has done about all it can by including the letter in Kavanaugh’s file.”
_________
Yes, first, Oct. 1 is important. Then what happens up to the mid-terms is important.
Not sure which letter you mean, but if it included reference to Mr. Judge, did the FBI interview him?
lucia (Comment #170727)
September 20th, 2018 at 1:57 pm
OK_Max
I didn’t say Mark Judge talked to the FBI nor anything about possible Judge-FBI involvement. I said †Mark Judge says he never witnessed any such event.†Newsreports say he said that.
______
Yes, but not under oath. He doesn’t want to testify. Maybe because he would be under oath.
In other news the stock market continues to “never recover from Trump” as it hits an all time high. Trade war, schmade war.
Maybe he doesn’t want to testify under oath because he is not insane.
OK_Max
The letter placed the letter Ford wrote in Kavanaugh’s file. After reading it. Likely after discussing it and seeing there were no details one could follow up on.
OK_Max
Ford and her lawyer are being rather coy. But they sure are doing their best to say they are willing to testify to the Senate (under oath) and simultaneously giving reasons not to accept the invitation.
If you are going to speculate Judge doesn’t want to do it because he’d be under oath, you should equally speculate why Ford doesn’t want to do so.
Ford at least was prepared for this. She wrote a letter. She lawyered up. And so on. This totally blindsides Judge. He might not want to spend money on a lawyer and so on.
The fact is: almost no one should want to testify in this sort of atmosphere. But Ford sent the letter. And she lawyered up in preparation. And she and her lawyer are strongly suggesting investigations of Kavanaugh. She basically kicked this off. Judge has done nothing similar.
And you know, this isn’t even like Anita Hill. Hill didn’t proactively send letters or talk to anyone. She was interviewed because she worked for Thomas. Other than say what she believed was true when her statements were solicited she didn’t do anything to kick things off. That’s not true of Ford. Ford acted to get this rolling. And now she and her lawyer are saying things that at least make it sound like they might refuse to talk to the Senate, or suggesting there should be preconditions and so on.
Ford deserves to be heard. And we the public and the Senate deserve to have her testify, under oath, and be presented questions that the public can evaluate.
I don’t know why people place a lot of weight on testimony in a he said / she said case. In my view a likable and accomplished liar will win a debate without evidence against somebody near the autism spectrum every single time. Every time. Kavanaugh will no doubt declare his innocence robustly and with conviction but the “believe women” crowd aren’t going to care, they demand an unlevel playing field. Testimony will give us more than nothing, but I’m not sure very much more if no further evidence is uncovered and the predictable testimony occurs. They both must be cross examined for it to have any merit. I’m all for testimony, I just don’t think that it is going to help find the actual truth.
Lucia,
I am pretty sure she is not going to testify on open session. If she were to agree to testify in closed session, she would probably do so only if her testimony will not be disclosed to the public. The Republicans will have none of that of course.
.
I read that all her social media was taken down before Feinstein announced the existance of Ford’s letter. Does the wayback machine maintain copies of social media pages?
Tom Scharf (Comment #170731)
September 20th, 2018 at 3:39 pm
In other news the stock market continues to “never recover from Trump†as it hits an all time high. Trade war, schmade war.
______
Glad the market (Dow) finally got back to where it was 9 months ago. Actually about 1% better than it’s peak in late Jan., but trailing
the return from some money markets. I fear the market is overpriced
but I’m not changing my stock/bond allocation. Not a good time for bonds anyway.
OK_Max,
This is a good time to take some profits, sell losers and have some cash on hand. If (when) there is a downturn, you need liquid assets to take advantage.
Tom Scharf,
The stock market is really good at ignoring bad things for an unpredictably long time until it doesn’t. Then it can be really good at ignoring good things.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170738)
September 20th, 2018 at 4:36 pm
OK_Max,
This is a good time to take some profits, sell losers and have some cash on hand. If (when) there is a downturn, you need liquid assets to take advantage.
______
Thank you, DeWiit, that’s good advice. I am holding more in cash than usual.
Mike M,
Great point. I have wondered if this might help, that I imagine many on the Left do not want to destroy our society. A path to common ground. But there’s no common ground to be had with those few who want to burn the whole system to the ground.
SteveF,
I hadn’t thought of it, but your comment made me realize- yup. SCJ serve for so long and can be so influential, it’s probably worth the cost in the eyes of most people who care about politics in the first place to fight regardless of the cost.
Thanks all.
4 words: Buy low, sell high.
.
I’m basically a buy and hold guy so it doesn’t matter to me. I thought the market would correct by now, it hasn’t, but it undoubtedly will eventually. If we knew where the tops and bottoms were we would all be rich.
Google is just begging for govt. intervention.
.
“The email traffic, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, shows that employees proposed ways to “leverage†search functions and take steps to counter what they considered to be “islamophobic, algorithmically biased results from search terms ‘Islam’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Iran’, etc.†and “prejudiced, algorithmically biased search results from search terms ‘Mexico’, ‘Hispanic’, ‘Latino’, etc.—
…
The list of ideas included:
“Actively counter islamophobic, algorithmically biased results from search terms `Islam’, `Muslim’, `Iran’, etc.â€
“Actively counter prejudiced, algorithmically biased search results from search terms `Mexico’, `Hispanic’, `Latino’, etc.â€
“Can we launch an ephemeral experience that includes Highlights, up-to-date info from the US State Dept, DHS, links to donate to ACLU, etc?†the email added.
Several officials responded favorably to the overall idea. “We’re absolutely in…Anything you need,†one wrote.
.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-workers-discussed-tweaking-search-function-to-counter-travel-ban-1537488472
.
Google can do what it wants to do, but what it can’t do is * secretly * alter results as a search * monopoly * for an ideological agenda and avoid big brother stepping in (they claim there was no action taken here). Stop It. Get out of politics or suffer the consequences. This is really getting tiresome.
Tom Scharf,
“Stop It. Get out of politics or suffer the consequences. This is really getting tiresome.”
.
Progressives never stop pursuing their political goals. Google will never agree to be apolitical with their search engine or any of their other endeavors. They do risk political consequences. They don’t care.
Tom Scharf: “Google can do what it wants to do, but what it can’t do is * secretly * alter results as a search * monopoly * for an ideological agenda and avoid big brother stepping in”
Why do you say they’re a monopoly? They have a dominant position, but it’s hardly a monopoly.
It’s not that I approve of biasing their search results to fit a political agenda, but I can’t see anything good coming from having the government interfere.
Steve F: “Progressives never stop pursuing their political goals. Google will never agree to be apolitical with their search engine or any of their other endeavors. They do risk political consequences. They don’t care.”
….
The only solution is for people who disagree with their actions to stop using the service. Also, conservatives need to start up and fund their own tech companies.
I stopped using the Google search engine about 6 years ago. (Bing works fine). I also don’t use Paypal. You can’t reason with the Left. It is too stupid and simple minded in its bubble of self-righteousness to listen to reason. All that gets the Left’s attention is money. (ESPN seems to be partly getting the message)
JD
Ed Whelan said yesterday that he believes within a week Kavanaugh will be exonerated.
Today he follows up with an argument for mistaken identity:
https://twitter.com/EdWhelanEPPC/status/1042893987747713024
I’m not sure whether it is a monopoly by the strict definition, but it has 90% market share in search. If it isn’t an official monopoly it must be very close to one. The barrier to entry into this market is also very high. There used to be a lot of competition in search. Yahoo, Alta Vista ha ha.
.
If I could give them advice today it would be “Stop trying so hard to make me dislike you”. Bill Gates spends a $1B of his money trying to extinguish malaria, Google want to manipulate search results to make me think correct thoughts. I don’t want to pick products by politics, but it’s getting increasingly difficult to separate the two with respect to Google. They are getting just as arrogant as MS did.
Mark Judge’s denial seems carefully worded, as does the ‘Ford passed a polygraph’ statement.
Alternate theory, like Lena Dunham, Ford deliberately inserted Kavanaugh and Judge into a life story to attack them. Dunham’s was publicly in a book, but not explicitly so, using just first name Barry and description that would make him identifiable to people who were there as a campus conservative leader, while Ford’s was in private therapy.
When Kavanaugh’s name came up Ford’s husband pushed her to go public to stop the nomination, and Ford doesn’t want to own up to the lie.
It had been suggested that this is what happened with Anita Hill, first blaming her job loss on sexual harassment, and then they pushed her to go forward.
ESPN has pretty much cleaned up their act. No doubt real financial pressure from cord cutters and an increasingly fragmented market for entertainment means they can’t afford to carelessly annoy their customers. NFL anthem hysterics is pretty much over as well.
JD Ohio (Comment #170746): “The only solution is for people who disagree with their actions to stop using the service.”
.
Exactly.
.
JD Ohio: “I stopped using the Google search engine about 6 years ago. (Bing works fine).”
I use DuckDuckGo. Works fine. And I block all scripts from Google.
She is reportedly refusing to be cross examined by a lawyer and won’t testify with Kavanaugh in the same room. She says Kavanaugh must go first.
.
Hmmmm … no. The defense goes last for obvious reasons, people get to confront their accusers, and she has to defend herself against hard questions if she wants to derail a person’s life with almost no evidence. Show up Monday or this circus is over.
Kavanaugh has already been interviewed about this via phone call. Democrats did not participate.
If Kavanaugh is not to be in the same room, then where would she like the interview to take place? No one has suggested except maybe for Collins’s lawyer cross examinations that they be testifying at the same time.
ESPN fired their head, with the excuse that he was resigning over substance abuse/alcoholism issues. Reality is a combination of poor performance and blackmail over sexual harassment.
MikeN (Comment #170747)
September 20th, 2018 at 8:43 pm
Ed Whelan said yesterday that he believes within a week Kavanaugh will be exonerated.
Today he follows up with an argument for mistaken identity:
https://twitter.com/EdWhelanEPPC/status/1042893987747713024
_______
Whelan suspects Ford may have been sexually assaulted by Chris Garrett, who was a friend of both Kavanaugh and Judge. He thinks Ford could have mistook Garret for Kavanaugh , and has posted high school photos of both as evidence of how much they look alike. He also presented a floor plan of Garrett’s house, a center-hall colonial with a layout he finds consistent with Ford’s description.
I find two problem’s with Whelan’s argument. Garrett and Kavanaugh
in the supplied photos don’t look much alike too me. Center-hall colonials are very common and have similar floor plans.
Unless I missed something, Whelan has no opinion on whether Judge was present during the assault. He did say Judge and Garrett remained friends long after high school. Judge’s thoughts on Whelan’s argument might be interesting.
ucia (Comment #170734)
September 20th, 2018 at 3:55 pm
OK_Max
Yes, but not under oath. He doesn’t want to testify. Maybe because he would be under oath.
Ford and her lawyer are being rather coy. But they sure are doing their best to say they are willing to testify to the Senate (under oath) and simultaneously giving reasons not to accept the invitation.
_____
Yes, they have been coy. At this point, who knows what’s going to happen with the Senate investigation?
I believe Ford is willing to be interviewed by the FBI. I don’t know about the others.
OK Max,
Feinstein long ago sent a copy of the letter to the FBI. There is no possible Federal crime; so I think it unlikely they will interview anyone, and as the committee head notes, the Senate has no authority to instruct the FBI to open an investigation into anything.
.
WRT to testimony: If I were a betting man, I would bet that Ford never testifies publicly under oath, and probably not in closed session either. The decision on Kavanaugh is very likely to be in the hands of Collins and Flake. Flake is looking for vengeance, Collins for re-election in 2 years.
OK_Max
She should be willing to testify to the Senate. And she should be willing to do it with Kavanaugh in the room. In normal legal matters, the acussed (Kavanaugh) has a right to confront his accuser (Ford).
Rape is a normal legal matter; there’s no shielding of the victim unless the DA doesn’t bring the victim in. But in those cases, unless the victim is dead, the defendent is highly likely to be found not-guilty.
Even in Ford’s story, this isn’t rape. It’s groping. Groping 30 years ago. The notion that anyone needs to be overly concerned about her trauma is as silly as if someone decided they’d need to be concerned about SteveF’s trauma because a boy shoved him against the lockers and threatened to punch his lights out back in highschool.
Sure she may have been traumatized. If she was she’s exceptionally emotionally delicate
This looks like a situation where they may keep demanding things until the Senate moves on and then they declare her story was never heard (and they never wanted it heard). Meanwhile the Senate is treating her respectfully on the face, but I suspect they are seething underneath. They are just running the clock because they know every day that passes support is lost, not gained, for Kavanaugh.
OK_Max,
What do you think would happen if Judge testified under oath in this high profile “character assassination at any cost” investigation and told a verifiable material lie? A lie that he believed to be true because 36 year old memories aren’t so great, or maybe because he was protecting his friend.
.
Do you think he should be prosecuted? US Senators will likely call for that to happen. If you even have a pause deciding that question then it should be clear that there is no upside for this testimony, and plenty of possible downside.
The NYT already calling for Kavanaugh to be impeached if he is confirmed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/opinion/kavanaugh-impeachment.html
Happy night Collingwood won a prelim final with a seven foot american playing. Australian Rules.tough for Mr Kavanaugh.
And all men in politics really. Hope he has a tough hide. Seems to be the new Democrat modus operandi. Well. all parties really.
Tom Scharf,
Of course some Senators are seething. Acting respectfully is all people can really expect of others. She may be seething she can’t get what she wants either. She ought to act respectfully to, and to some extent is, even though her “suggestions” about what she wants are in a sense ridiculous. She should just accept the invitation an appear.
That said: it’s political theater on both sides. But make no mistake, Ford and her lawyer who is very well trained in both the theater and the law are well aware of the theater and politics aspect and are playing their role well.
Tom Scharf –
The NYTimes op-ed which you cited contains this:
My free translation: One should find some trivial pretext for removing judges with whose rulings or philosophy one disagrees. Something which can be claimed to constitute a deviation from the Constitutional standard of “good [b]ehavior”.
If Kavanaugh is confirmed and then removed under these circumstances, I think it would signal the end of the independence of the judicial branch.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170760)
September 21st, 2018 at 9:16 am
OK_Max,
What do you think would happen if Judge testified under oath in this high profile “character assassination at any cost†investigation and told a verifiable material lie? A lie that he believed to be true because 36 year old memories aren’t so great, or maybe because he was protecting his friend.
______
I can understand why Judge wouldn’t want to testify. Congress can compel him to testify. Do you think Congress will?
Ed Whelan suspects Judge’s friend Garrett. If Garrett was the groper he could save everyone a lot of trouble by admitting it. Rather than looking like a sex criminal, he could be seen as a hero, sacrificing himself in the interest of justice and for the benefit of his country.
To ice the cake wealthy supporters of Cavanaugh could reward him financially for coming forward.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170760)
September 21st, 2018 at 9:16 am
OK_Max,
What do you think would happen if Judge testified under oath in this high profile “character assassination at any cost†investigation and told a verifiable material lie? A lie that he believed to be true because 36 year old memories aren’t so great, or maybe because he was protecting his friend.
______
I can understand why Judge wouldn’t want to testify. Congress can compel him to testify. Do you think Congress will?
Ed Whelan suspects Judge’s friend Garrett. If Garrett was the groper he could save everyone a lot of trouble by admitting it. Rather than looking like a sex criminal, he could be seen as a hero, sacrificing himself in the interest of justice and for the benefit of his country.
To ice the cake wealthy supporters of Cavanaugh could reward him financially for coming forward.
They can subpoena him to tell them “I can’t remember that ever happening and I would have”. It’s a bit pointless. People routinely take the 5th even when they are innocent in these cases. The more you say during a witch hunt the more dangerous it is. Make no mistake that this is the very definition of a witch hunt. The Whelan thing is pure speculation.
.
Ex-IRS Official Invokes 5th Amendment Again, Then Things Get Hot
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/03/05/286231779/ex-irs-official-invokes-5th-amendment-again-then-things-get-hot
lucia (Comment #170709)
“If her story is true and she’s willing to tell the truth, the “OK_Max†standard says she should testify. 😉”
“Of course, everyone else’s standard is she should bring a lawyer with her. Or decline to avoid perjury charges. 🙂”
____________
By testifying without a lawyer Ford would appear sure of herself. A brave woman alone and struggling to stand her ground against a group of mean old men would impress the public. Congress might be impressed too. I know I would be. But it’s probably too risky.
OK_Max
Only if they Ford first testifies to Congress. Otherwise, there is no conceivable need for Judge’s testimony. Also, since Ford has been given the option of private testimony, Judge should also.
They could have a gofund me campaign. Sort of like those who oppose Kavanaugh and have a gofund me campaing to donate to the campaign of whoever is running against Collins.
Tom Scharf
Absolutely. I do think the two boys looked enough alike that a girl who didn’t know both well could have mistaken one for the other especially if she’s recollecting things. Heck, they could look less alike and the girl could be mistaken.
It’s still rampant speculation.
The fact is: even assuming Ford is telling a story she believes is true, we don’t need to identify who might have assaulted her to suggest she might be mistaken as to who assaulted her. It’s simply a fact that she could be mistaken and that’s true even if she was sober at the time. If she was drunk, that goes double.
Heck, she could be mistaken as to Judge. We don’t know how well she knew anyone at the party.
HaroldW (Comment #170766): “My free translation: One should find some trivial pretext for removing judges with whose rulings or philosophy one disagrees. Something which can be claimed to constitute a deviation from the Constitutional standard of “good [b]ehaviorâ€.
If Kavanaugh is confirmed and then removed under these circumstances, I think it would signal the end of the independence of the judicial branch.”
.
First part, exactly. Second part, no, it has already happened. On one side, we have those who believe the constitution is the foundation. On the other side, we have those who want to have the SC act as the supreme level of law and government, as do the clerics in Iran.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170769)
September 21st, 2018 at 11:17 am
They can subpoena him to tell them “I can’t remember that ever happening and I would haveâ€. It’s a bit pointless. People routinely take the 5th even when they are innocent in these cases.
_______
Congress would not be accusing Judge. They would only be trying to find out what he knows. If he took the 5th it would look like he either fears incriminating himself or knows something he fears will
incriminate someone else. Judge taking the 5th would not be good for Cavanaugh.
OK_Max,
Legally, you can only take the 5th to avoid incriminating yourself, not someone else. I think more likely he will just say he doesn’t remember anything like that. As he was famously alcoholic in his youth, no one will get him for perjury. He’s already written a book about his alcoholism. At worst, he might have to admit he made up some stuff or embellished when writing his book. That would not be a crime.
Testifying would (a) be a pain in the ass (b) cost him $$ he may not have to hire a lawyer (c) might force him to answer questions he’s rather not answer– which is not the same as giving us real information on what occurred and (d) has no real upside for him.
Of course he doesn’t want to testify. He might be compelled to do so. But it would be idiotic to force him to testify if Ford doesn’t. It’s idiotic to force him to testify before Ford. She should get her account out in a forum she does not control first.
She controlled what went in her letter. She almost certainly granted an interview with WAPO and likely could stipulate questions that were off limits. They probably went along with that. In anycase, they make no mention of things like was she drinking and so on. Those sorts of questions would be relevant to whether or not she might be mistaken. That they did not ask these sorts of questoins (or if asked did not report answers) suggests very gentle treatment by WAPO.
That doesn’t mean the story is wrong. But it means we, the public, shouldn’t think that WAPO was through in covering this story. (It’s fine if they weren’t. Journalists know stories evolve. It is evolving. But right now, the main story is the one that has the flavor she and her lawyer choose.)
lucia (Comment #170774)
September 21st, 2018 at 12:37 pm
OK_Max,
Legally, you can only take the 5th to avoid incriminating yourself, not someone else. I think more likely he will just say he doesn’t remember anything like that.
_____
If a person took the 5th, how would you know or find out if he’s doing it to avoid incriminating himself, himself and someone else, or someone else alone?
Yes, a “I don’t remember” answer certainly would look better than taking the 5th if it seems like a reasonable answer and doesn’t conflict with previous or future statements.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170769)
The Whelan thing is pure speculation.
_________
Whelan has now apologized.
“I made an appalling and inexcusable mistake of judgment in posting the tweet thread in a way that identified Kavanaugh’s Georgetown Prep classmate,†wrote Whelan. “I take full responsibility for that mistake, and I deeply apologize for it. I realize that does not undo the mistake.â€
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kavanaugh-friend-stirs-outrage-twitter-152755889.html
Something about this just doesn’t seem right. If Whelan now thinks
his Tweet thread was appalling, I don’t understand why he thought it was a good idea a few days ago. He seems intelligent enough to be
cautious and think about the possible consequences of his actions.
OK_Max,
I’m not sure why you think there is anything “not right” about the Whelan story. At the time he did it, he thought it was a good idea. He probably didn’t consult anyone.
Afterwards people told him he was an idiot. Some have been telling him he could be sued for defamation and possibly lose. Now he knows he was an idiot.
Intelligent or not, from what I understand about his history, he has a history of not being cautious. So I don’t know why anyone would think he’d cautious, particularly as intelligence and caution have little to do with each other.
Ford says she visited Garrett in the possibility and no chance of mistaken identity.
MIkeN,
I’m not sure what you mean about “visited Garrett om the possibility”.
That she feels there is no chance for mistaken identity doesn’t mean there is no chance. She would have to provide details to explain why she is convinced there is no possibility of mistaken identity. She didn’t volunteer any in her interview with WAPO and those reporters don’t seem to have asked her about that possibility.
MIkeN
I found this:
Ok. She didn’t say there is no chance of mistaken identity. She said there is no chance she would mistake Garrett for Kavanaugh, which is an entirely different thing.
She socialized with Garrett, so that would explain why she wouldn’t mistake Garrett for anyone else. It still leaves open her mistaking Kavanaugh for someone else. That’s the only important question. Note she does not say she socialized with Kavanaugh.
We don’t need to identify the someone else to know that she could mistake someone she did not socialize with for someone else she did also did not socialize with.
If she is so sure, they can test that with photo lineups and make her pick out a 17 year old Kavanaugh.
Tom Scharf,
By now I’m sure she can. Even I can pick out a 17 year old Kavanaugh. You probably can too.
Papadopoulos must be out and talking. The Brennan CIA, MI5 and Alexander Downer now centre stage .
I may have underestimated Downer as just being a silly fop.
However his track record of stuffing up everything he touches is nonpareil.
Sad days ahead for Brennan and Rosenstein if actually working with him.
And Rosenstein’s latest revelation.
He must be close to the boot.
lucia (Comment #170777)
September 21st, 2018 at 3:15 pm
OK_Max,
I’m not sure why you think there is anything “not right†about the Whelan story. At the time he did it, he thought it was a good idea. He probably didn’t consult anyone.
Afterwards people told him he was an idiot. Some have been telling him he could be sued for defamation and possibly lose. Now he knows he was an idiot.
____________________
lucia, I guess I’m just surprised a lawyer of Ed Whelan’s stature could be an idiot. A Harvard Law School graduate, he has held high level positions in government, and has helped advise his friend Brett Cavanaugh in the SC nomination effort. Whelan also has contacts
in the White House and Congress.
Whelan has said Cavanaugh and the White House had nothing to do
with developing his “appalling” theory that Garrett could have been Ford’s groper. I don’t know whether he has also denied anyone in Congress was involved. If Garrett sues for defamation we might find who helped Whelan come up with the theory.
@Popehat @RadioFreeTom comments are showing Whelan no mercy. i thought the most humorous was from Jake_Sperling.
@Jake_Sperling
19 hours ago
Replying to @Popehat @RadioFreeTom
“imagine watching the entire RW unite behind “if this accusation can bring down THIS man, it can bring down ANY MAN!?!?!” for 4 days straight and the Whelan’s big play is . . . to accuse a random man!”
https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1042983224320786432
Whelan quickly deleted his other man theory thread but it’s still available here:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/whelan-nutbar-twitter-thread-preserved-for-posterity
OK_Max,
I know highly trained educated people who do idiotic things. So it doesn’t surprise me at all Whelan would.
It seems to me that twitter is an excellent way to make a permanent, publicly accessible record of things one wishes one never said.
Mike M.,
Across the pond, a silly or foolish person is called a twit. Seems fitting.
Mike M. (Comment #170786)
September 22nd, 2018 at 7:41 am
It seems to me that twitter is an excellent way to make a permanent, publicly accessible record of things one wishes one never said.
_________
Good one!
Lucia, yes I meant no chance of mistaken identity with Garrett, and Ford said she visited him in the hospital.
Two weeks to midterm elections. Looks like the polling suggests the dems will win the House and the repubs will hold the Senate, although the Senate outcome seems more in doubt than the House. Looks to me like the Dems have about a 1/4 chance of winning both, which I guess means President Trump has about a 3/4 chance of surviving impeachment, barring some scandal or truly shocking & well substantiated damage from Mueller.
mark bofill,
8 weeks no 2 weeks.
6 weeks until the election, not 2 weeks, and not 8 weeks. The edit function never works now.
Thanks Steve. Lost a month there!
Sack Rosenstein or wait for dobbers to come forward.
Expect a big rise in poll numbers after this revaluation,
Counterbalanced by Kavanaugh, of course.
Sack Rosenstein or wait for dobbers to come forward?
Expect a big rise in poll numbers after this revaluation,
Counterbalanced by Kavanaugh, of course.
On Ford-Kavanaugh: So now, the now adult, former teens identified by Ford as having been at the party say they don’t remember being at any such party. The woman (then girl) not only doesn’t remember being at any such party, but doesn’t remember every being at a party with Kavanaugh, who she doesn’t know. That seems to be in a letter penned by her lawyer to the Senate.
The girl was a good friend of Ford’s says (to the press and not under oath) she believes Ford. But of course, that’s doesn’t count for much given that she can’t remember any such party.
The girl/woman sent a letter written by her attorney, so I assume she limited it to the fewest possible details that answered the question asked.
If the girl doesn’t even remember the party, presumably she doesn’t remember Blaisey-Ford being upset, disheveled and etc. Presumably, if Blaisey-Ford was traumatized (and continues to be sufficiently traumatized to not want to be in the same room as Kavanaugh) Ford ought to have been a somewhat visibly upset at the time of the incident. Upset enough to have told her then good friend who was right there.
While it’s true that people would not have remembered a party where nothing important happened to them, and where they witnessed nothing important, it does seem this is purely Ford’s work (and memory) vs. Kavanaugh’s.
We add to that Ford clearly trying to find people who she’d told– e.g. she is said contacted a her form roommate if she ever mentioned it. Answer: nope.
The conclusion of inaccurate memory looms large here.
Bret Stephens at the NYT probably won’t be comfortable at the next staff meeting, ha ha. This is by the far the most sane take on this circus I have seen.
This I Believe About Blasey v. Kavanaugh
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/opinion/blasey-kavanaugh-assault-allegations-truth.html
.
“I have absolutely no idea what, if anything, happened between Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford at a party in Maryland in the early 1980s.
Unless you were at the party, I believe that you don’t, either.”
.
“I believe women lie just as often as men do. I believe the standard “presumed innocent†must always trump the slogan “Believe Women†if we intend to live in a free and fair society.”
.
“I believe Blasey’s credibility will be tarnished if she can vividly recall the unverifiable parts of her story, but not the ones that can be verified. I believe Kavanaugh deserves to be accused of actions he can potentially disprove, not merely deny.”
.
It’s pretty balanced overall, I just excerpted the pieces that polite society will not say out loud. I disagree with parts of it, but it is better than 99% of everything out there.
A third person identified to have been at the party, one of the accuser’s friends, denies any knowledge of it.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/22/politics/kavanaugh-ford-accuser-nomination/index.html
.
“Simply put,” Walsh said, “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.”
The lawyer acknowledged to CNN that Keyser is a lifelong friend of Ford’s.
.
She also believes Ford’s story curiously enough. The WP was aware of this named friend being at the party, it nevers mentions this. Ford tells the WP: “Before her name became public, Ford told The Post she did not think Keyser would remember the party because nothing remarkable had happened there, as far as Keyser was aware.”. The WP never mentions this in any story, nor does it appear they contact her friend, or at least didn’t report on it if they did. This seems like an important detail to leave out.
Ms. Keyser is identified in Christine’s senior yearbook as throwing a wild party.
“We’ll definitely miss the college bound seniors especially the antics of Leland Ingham’s, Lulu Ward’s, and Evie’s (Andrea Evers’) parties. ”
The guy who got the yearbooks argues that there is racist code throughout:
https://cultofthe1st.blogspot.com/2018/09/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html
That symbol at the end I was told in Da Vinci Code meant sex, and the caption says ‘baby’, yet he argues it is White Holton Yearbook.
He says there will be a part three depicting the women as sexual predators going after younger boys.
The four witnesses all made statements that if false can be punished as a felony.
Ford’s letter is not punishable because she sent it via Congressman Eshoo who has no jurisdiction over the matter.
Possibly testimony next Thursday:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/22/ford-accepts-request-to-testify-about-alleged-kavanaugh-assault-lawyers-request-thursday-hearing.html
“Ford told The Post she did not think Keyser would remember the party…”
.
This is a very strange thing to say. If you are going to accuse a SC nominee of sexual assault and your lifelong friend was one of the few people at the party, you don’t even ask her is she remembers, nor do you tell her she is going to be named in a very high profile accusation, which would then obviously lead to that question? I find the odds of it happening this way to be approx. zero.
.
My reasoned speculation is that she talked to her friend, was aware of no recollection, but she then used the phrase “do not think” in the hope her friend would corroborate her. I would be interested to get to the bottom of that statement.
Sorry for the repeat, I didn’t know lucia had already broke the news on the friend. I guess I could read posts before posting myself.
MikeN (Comment #170803): “Ms. Keyser is identified in Christine’s senior yearbook as throwing a wild party.”
.
It sounds like wild parties were common in that crowd. Someone threw one wild party, maybe more, and probably also attended many others. Evidently with booze. How could anyone remember one particular party out of many? Someone who was groped might remember that but be confused on which party it was.
.
The other thing about having a reputation as a wild partier or a slut (reputation deserved or not) is that others might believe what they hear and take certain things for granted, if you know what I mean.
MikeN (Comment #170803)
September 23rd, 2018 at 10:49 am
The guy who got the yearbooks argues that there is racist code throughout:
https://cultofthe1st.blogspot.com/2018/09/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html
_______
Good Lord, I shudder to think what “the guy” would make of my HS yearbook or even my family photo album.
I’m puzzled by the HA yearbook photo of the Black girl identified as “Nat.” She has a prominent mustache.
Ledite (Comment #170816)
September 23rd, 2018 at 3:08 pm
“The other thing about having a reputation as a wild partier or a slut (reputation deserved or not) is that others might believe what they hear and take certain things for granted, if you know what I mean.”
____
I think I know what you mean. Kav thought Chrissie was a slut and would welcome his groping. If a guy thinks a girl is a slut, even if she isn’t, groping her is just an innocent mistake.
lucia (Comment #170799)
September 23rd, 2018 at 7:16 am
“The girl was a good friend of Ford’s says (to the press and not under oath) she believes Ford. But of course, that’s doesn’t count for much given that she can’t remember any such party.”
“Ford ought to have been a somewhat visibly upset at the time of the incident. Upset enough to have told her then good friend who was right there.”
_______
My wife recalls things I don’t recall. I believe her because I know her.
The friend may believe Ford because the friend knows her.
Ford could have left without talking to her friend or Ford could have
been too embarrassed to talk about the incident.
OK_Max,
Sure. But with respect to your wife: even if you believe her, she could be mistaken. And with respect to Ford and her friend: Her friend my see Ford as truthful, and she may generally be so. But Ford could also be mistaken.
That none of the people Ford named remember the party, and Ford’s friend thinks she never even knew Kavanaugh suggest Ford is mistaken in at least some particulars. One of the ways in which she could be mistaken is she may have misidentified Kavanaugh, who, after all she hardly knew.
If a similar incident occurred, but she is mistaken about the identity of boy that could very well explain why none of the other people she says were there remember a party that fits her description. Yet, in Ford’s mind, she could be entirely truthful– just mistaken.
..or Ford could be making this whole thing up for political purposes, or she has embellished it for the same reason, or she has faulty memory of a 36 year old event. I think the 56th Amendment is speculation equal opportunity. They both have motivation to lie about it. So many people have made up their minds at this point that almost everyone is afraid of the evidence. Perhaps on Thursday a psychologist could be asked about the fallibility of long term memory, but that probably only happens to other people.
.
So we have a rather convenient construction where there isn’t a single thing that Kavanaugh can disprove, not a place, not a time, not an identification of his ummm nether regions, etc. Everyone named has declined all knowledge, does this count for anything? This is exceedingly flimsy. It’s not so much that this couldn’t be true, it is that the power to bring people down on accusation alone is a power that will be abused for people with an agenda.
As another example of how far the insanity has gone, a New York Review of Books editor was forced to step down last week. He allowed an essay to be published by a Canadian who was acquitted of sexual assault charges. the editor says in an interview:
.
“I’m no judge of the rights and wrongs of every allegation. How can I be? All I know is that in a court of law he was acquitted, and there is no proof he committed a crime. The exact nature of his behaviour — how much consent was involved — I have no idea, nor is it really my concern. My concern is what happens to somebody who has not been found guilty in any criminal sense but who perhaps deserves social opprobrium, but how long should that last, what form it should take, etc.”
.
Note that he didn’t write the article in question, but he allowed it to be published. He was forced to resign. No groveling apology was forthcoming, good for him.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/20/metoo-new-york-review-books-editor-ian-buruma-twitter-conviction-claim
.
He ponders the irony: “As editor of the New York Review of Books I published a theme issue about #MeToo-offenders who had not been convicted in a court of law but by social media. And now I myself am publicly pilloried.”
.
This interview is entertaining because it is the woke left against the liberal (in the classic sense of the word) left:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/jian-ghomeshi-new-york-review-of-books-essay.html
There’s another scenario. Ford is just a pawn in the game, in way over her head. She suggested she knew something, others jumped on it and pushed her forward beyond what she actually ‘knew’ and now she can’t back down.
.
The name Ricki Seidman doesn’t mean anything to me, but the resumé is impressive, as a hit man:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxlMS1Tra9I
.
Note, this is a video without any video. You can read the transcript which is posted along with the video.
lucia (Comment #170820)
September 23rd, 2018 at 4:07 pm
OK_Max,
“Sure. But with respect to your wife: even if you believe her, she could be mistaken.”
“That none of the people Ford named remember the party, and Ford’s friend thinks she never even knew Kavanaugh suggest Ford is mistaken in at least some particulars.”
___________
Just for the record, my wife does not make mistakes. I have lost every argument we have had on that subject.
Ford has more reason to remember the party than the two guests who weren’t involved in the incident as well as the two she accuses of being involved. Of the later, Kav would be more credible if he said he doesn’t remember the incident rather than denying it happened, given his reputation for excessive drinking.
I don’t recall all social events I attended, nor all the details of those I do recall attending. I would, however, remember having a traumatic experience.
Kavanaugh is accused by a second women. Strikingly similar. Accusation made, other people were there, they all deny any knowledge of it.
.
“Two of the men who Ramirez said were involved in the incident said they had no recollection of Kavanaugh exposing himself. Several college friends of Kavanaugh and Ramirez also said they never heard of the incident happening at the time. However, another classmate told the New Yorker he was “100 percent sure†someone told him about the incident at the time, and he corroborated some details of Ramirez’s story.”
.
“Ramirez, according to the New Yorker, was reluctant to come forward with allegations because she had been drinking at the time and knows there are holes in her memory. She has called for the FBI to launch an independent investigation into her allegations.”
I wondered why there weren’t more accusers. It’s the obvious thing to do to stop [K]avanaugh[‘]s confirmation. Most will consider the subsequent accusations as collaboration of the original and of each other. The accusations don[`]t have to be borne out in the long run.
Mark Bofill (Comment #170826)
Re Kavanaugh and the plastic penis prank, Ford has to be cautious about that one. Republicans could be behind it. Remember when someone attempted a phony story about Moore.
That said, the mag isn’t the National Enquirer.
Ok_Max
Uhm…. yeah…. 🙂
Max,
Thanks. I actually hadn’t heard that story. I guess you are referring to this: https://www.vox.com/2017/11/27/16707410/conservative-group-fake-roy-moore-allegation-washington-post
It might be that the Party of Stupid will have to work a little harder to overcome their learning curve to catch up to the Party of Evil’s lead in dirty tricks. But maybe this story indicates they’re working on it.
I have been reading about the 2nd allegation.
This is getting a big tiresome.
If I were Grassley I might be inclined to simply cancel the Thursday hearing and hold the vote on Monday.
Or else a new allegation will come out each week to further delay the vote.
But they got Kavanaugh on this one. I know, I was drunk at a party where Kavanaugh was drugging women who were subsequently getting gang raped. This was followed by acts of cannibalism and satan worship. I don’t remember exactly which parties this happened on, on which dates, but I definitely remember the gang rape, cannibalism, and satan worship. I distinctly remember Kavanaugh eating one of the victims.
Share your drunken recollections of the horrors perpetrated upon womankind by the teenage monster Kavanaugh. Join the #MeThree movement today.
Night all.
[https://twitter.com/hashtag/methree?lang=en]
I think the accusations of politically orchestrated and timed smear job are going to get a little more credibility now.
There are reports of a check written by Brett Kavanaugh a decade ago saying, “PAYOFF FORD”.
Letter has been released by Grassley. It says there were five total at the party.
Washington Post published a story that said therapist notes identify an attack by four boys, Ford explains this as an error because there were four boys at the party. However, Post did not report that her letter said just three boys. Nor did they ask Ford about it.
Kavanaugh has calendars from 1982 of where he was every day.
MikeN,
Calendars from every day back in 1982? Really?!?! Wow. Just wow.
MikeN,
The Post probably wouldn’t have asked because they didn’t have the psychologists notes. (I’m assuming WAPO didn’t have that and that they just talked to Ford.)
MikeN (Comment #170840)
September 24th, 2018 at 12:24 pm
“Kavanaugh has calendars from 1982 of where he was every day.”
___________
Yes, but according to the quote below from an article in today’s NYTimes, Kavanaugh’s team say the calendars neither corroborate or disprove Blasey’s (Ford’s) allegations.
“The calendars do not disprove Dr. Blasey’s allegations, Judge Kavanaugh’s team acknowledged. He could have attended a party that he did not list. But his team will argue to the senators that the calendars provide no corroboration for her account of a small gathering at a house where he allegedly pinned her to a bed and tried to remove her clothing.”
Thirty-six years seems like a long time to keep calendars, but I have no reason to believe they are not authentic. Kavanaugh may be a hoarder.
This is not, or at least is not supposed to be, an Obama era Title IX kangaroo court at a university with no due process or legal representation and a preponderance of the evidence standard. Kavanaugh does not have to disprove Dr. Blasey’s allegations. She has to prove hers beyond a reasonable doubt.
If there is a check, it might just be a Ford car, ha ha.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170844)
“Kavanaugh does not have to disprove Dr. Blasey’s allegations. She has to prove hers beyond a reasonable doubt.”
______
True, if this were a criminal trial, but it’s not. It’s Senators voting.
The Senators get to make up whatever standard they like since it is an up / down vote based on lots of things. I’m sure the Democrats will give all the due process Republicans want, as long as it lasts a minimum of 4 months. The unverifiable claims and late notice give anybody who wants it cover to vote for him.
.
I think that most people have a great distaste for the MeToo witch hunt where it has gone off the rails with things like “Believe Women”. It’s another thing where it’s hard to gauge, even in a poll, because people feel politically constrained by the behavior police. I doubt people are going to lose many votes by confirming him, but they may see it differently. It’s entirely possible the voters will punish someone voting against him even more.
OK_Max,
I agree they neither disprove nor prove Blaisley-Ford contention. I’m just amazed he has them. I don’t have a complete daily calendar and if I had one, I wouldn’t keep it for decades.
Too bad Blaisley-Ford didn’t keep a calendar. If she had, she might know whose how she went to and when the party took place!
Lucia, Post article says they saw the therapist’s notes that Ford gave them. Same article says Ford gave names of two other teens at the party, and that Ford read her letter to them.
Three reporters, and apparently none bothered to ask or report this, even after covering four boys discrepancy.
Daily calendar or diary?
.
Back in the beginnings of “Believe Womenâ€, was it supposed to be believe women that there is something to investigate? Or was it always believe women, no investigation or trial necessary? This case might harm that cause.
.
More on Ricki Seidman:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/09/24/ben-shapiro-kavanaugh-allegations-are-business-as-usual-for-democrats-have-long-history-smears.html
I keep thinking about Kavanaugh having boxes filled with calendars going back to 1982 and maybe even earlier. Hoarding can be a sign of an obsessive-compulsive disorder(OCD).
One of my aunts had tall stacks of newspapers in every room in her house because just couldn’t throw newspapers away. She also had other OCD symptoms, and the disorder interfered with her life. If
Kavanaugh has an OCD problem, his would be very mild compared to
my aunt’s or he wouldn’t be where he is today.
The opposite of hoarding is obsessive decluttering, another OCD. My wife has a mild case. She throws stuff away that I later need. Then I have to go out and buy the items again. Of course, eventually she throws them away again.
OK_Max
Sure. But there are people who keep diaries. Most people don’t consider that hoarding. I know people who used to keep letters. It used to be “a thing”.
lucia, keeping a diary doesn’t seem like hoarding or any other OCD
behavior. I don’t keep a diary. I wish I had.
I keep some old personal letters and have letter collections from deceased grandparents. Old letters are part of family history.
Keeping all letters, including junk mail, would be hoarding.
Max, the calendars would not fill boxes. It is one ream of paper.
MikeN, yes, lots of calendars would fit in one storage box. I haven’t seen info on the type of Cavanaugh’s calendar(desk, pocket, wall ?).
OK_Max,
“obsessive decluttering”, ha ha. Can you send your wife over to my garage?
This second accusation is backfiring I think. This is the WSJ today:
.
“Say this for Deborah Ramirez. The second woman to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of committing sexual assault more than 30 years ago may not clearly recall what happened, but her story does clarify the ugly politics at play. Democrats are using the #MeToo movement as a weapon of political destruction to defeat a Supreme Court nominee and retake Congress.”
…
“Even the sympathetic New Yorker writers concede that Ms. Ramirez was at first reluctant to talk about the incident. But after six days of “assessing her memories,†and after consulting with a Democratic lawyer, she felt confident enough to speak up. Even so, Ms. Ramirez concedes that she was drunk at the time to the point of being “on the floor, foggy and slurring her words.—
…
“Meanwhile, the New York Times reported Monday that it “had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate†Ms. Ramirez’s story, “and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.â€
Tom
In fact, her story is that only several weeks ago she did not recall the details, (because she was stupendously drunk) but they came back to her. This is typical of false memories that have been created by suggestion.
That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. But, unfortunately, it’s precisely what you expect from false memories.
It is telling that after the NYT did a full court press with their own reporters they decided to not run the story (until it was outed by others). Crazily enough this accusation serves to discredit the first accusation, not enhance it, although there should be no logical connection. It exposes a corrupt political process and tabloid media mentality for what they are. Imagine all the media outlets running the Clinton Pizza Parlor insanity like it was real, but not verifiable. Believe Pizza People.
.
So everyone investigated this, but nobody can corroborate it at all, and the accuser isn’t even really sure? Print it! What is this, the Trump / Russia investigation, ha ha. There was a time when no media outlet would touch a story like this, it would be on an Alex Jones conspiracy type outlet and that is it. Politics was always war, now it is scorched earth.
lucia (Comment #170863)
That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. But, unfortunately, it’s precisely what you expect from false memories.
_______
Yes, it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Kavanaugh’s freshman roommate James Roche believes Ramirez, even though he didn’t witness the alleged offensive sexual behavior.
The following quotes are from https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/25/san-mateo-ceo-and-former-kavanaugh-roommate-at-yale-supports-second-accuser/
In a statement released to a handful of reporters Monday night, Roche writes that “although Brett was normally reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time, and that he became belligerent and aggressive when he was very drunk.â€
In his statement, Roche said that “based on my time with Debbie, I believe her to be unusually honest and straightforward and I cannot imagine her making this up. Based on my time with Brett, I believe that he and his social circle were capable of the actions Debbie described.â€
OK_Max
Since he didn’t witness anything, this means precisely nothing.
Notice, he didn’t say she told him at the time. Notice he doesn’t say he ever saw them do what he claims they were “capable” of doing. He also doesn’t describe horrible things they did do– other than getting drunk. He doesn’t describe aggressive behaviors he witnessed.
Her believing what she says is not necessarily being dishonest. She could have false memories.
Anyone who thinks honest people can’t have false memories is mistaken. And in this, Ramirez was very drunk.
I can also tell you the specific thing in her “recollection” that makes me seriously believe “false memories”. She claims she remembers someone saying “Bret Kavanaugh” (full name) ” just did X”.
It is extremely unnatural for American’s to use “first name, last name” constructions at parties. Extremely. I could possibly believe the rest of the story but not that trivial sounding bit.
Given she says that not long ago, she didn’t remember the story herself, I think the likelihood of at least partially false memory is very, very, very high.
Compared to her (a) not having remembered not less than a week ago which suggest this is a (b) false memory that may be a partially true one filled in by recent news stories and (c) the entirely unlikely claim of the “full first name last name” statement by one of the other drunks at the party, what Brett’s roommate thinks of her honesty is such a drop in a bucket, it really counts for nothing.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170859)
September 25th, 2018 at 7:53 am
OK_Max,
“obsessive declutteringâ€, ha ha. Can you send your wife over to my garage?
_______
She actually does volunteer to help our friends declutter. Loves doing it.
We are opposites. She’s neat, I’m messy. But surprisingly, this is rarely a source of conflict.
lucia (Comment #170869)
lucia, I tend to agree with you, except for two things:
(1) “It is extremely unnatural for American’s to use “first name, last name†constructions at parties. Extremely. I could possibly believe the rest of the story but not that trivial sounding bit.
lucia, when I lived in a dorm, I sometimes heard people called by their first and last names. Usually, it was one or the other, but not always.
(2) “Anyone who thinks honest people can’t have false memories is mistaken.”
lucia, I doubt the significant elements of any of my memories are false. My life has not been part fiction.
OK_Max,
I didn’t hear people get called by both names. People get called by first name, last name or nick name.
I think almost all people, including both you and me, have some mistaken memories. I also think almost all people, including you and me, think most their memories are correct. So the fact that you doubt significant elements of your memory are false doesn’t mean that’s so. Some could be.
I also think the fact that in the particular case of Ramirez, not too long ago she did not remember this incident and only came to remember it as the story came into the news means this memory is of the sort that has a very high likelyhood of being ‘filled in’ and so partially false. I think the “first name” last thing is almost certainly false.
Evidently, the judiciary committee is open to Ramirez appearing on Thursday, but Ramirez is not. Her lawyer hasn’t supplied Ramirez’s statements under oath.
So far the correlation between which side of the aisle you are on and which side of the Kavanaugh debate you are on is 0.999999. This is easily explainable by the lack of evidence so everyone just defaults to their preferred answer. The liberal media has taken the week off for lecturing everyone on facts, or lack thereof. There are uncountable numbers of media articles based on the theme of Trump says “without evidence” … This coverage of the Kavanaugh accuser is the logic fallacy of isolated demand of non-rigor.
>She claims she remembers someone saying “Bret Kavanaugh†(full name) †just did Xâ€.
Not just Brett Kavanaugh, the actual ‘X’ also doesn’t sound like something someone would say. But then I’ve never heard anyone say anything similar to that to begin with.
A former Congressional staffer has pointed out that Ford’s letter is written very poorly for someone of her education level.
Tom,
.
I’ll say this. I’ve little doubt that when Kavanaugh was a child, he made a set of mistakes that are not uncommon for children to make. I expect he did the same as a teen and as an adult. If he didn’t do the things he’s accused of, well fine. Doubtless he did other things. Maybe he told a dirty joke once that was demeaning towards women. Whatever.
.
I don’t think that only those who have been immaculate since birth are qualified to sit the Supreme Court. I think the accusations against Kavanaugh should not disqualify him even if they were true. If anybody disagrees, I invite them to make their case.
Tom Scharf
Yep. Not surprising, this is going along partisan lines.
lucia (Comment #170872)
September 25th, 2018 at 5:14 pm
OK_Max,
” I also think almost all people, including you and me, think most their memories are correct. So the fact that you doubt significant elements of your memory are false doesn’t mean that’s so.”
lucia, I easily remember significant things that have happened to me, just not all the little details. I would be astounded to find my memory of any big thing in my life was mostly wrong or, even worse, just a product of my imagination.
mark bofill (Comment #170878)
“Maybe he told a dirty joke once that was demeaning towards women.”
______
Kavanaugh and some of his friends were demeaning to a high school girl named Renate Schroeder (now Renate Dolphin).
“The word “Renate†appears at least 14 times in Georgetown Preparatory School’s 1983 yearbook, on individuals’ pages and in a group photo of nine football players, including Judge Kavanaugh, who were described as the “Renate Alumni.†It is a reference to Renate Schroeder, then a student at a nearby Catholic girls’ school.â€
“Two of Judge Kavanaugh’s classmates say the mentions of Renate were part of the football players’ unsubstantiated boasting about their conquests.â€
“I learned about these yearbook pages only a few days ago,†Ms. Dolphin said in a statement to The New York Times. “I don’t know what ‘Renate Alumnus’ actually means. I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way. I will have no further comment.â€
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/business/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-renate.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
__________
mark, also said “I don’t think that only those who have been immaculate since birth are qualified to sit the Supreme Court.”
Well, not that long, but Kavanuaugh did say he was a virgin until several years after high school. If that’s true, he can’t be accused of successfully raping anyone while in high school.
“Two of Judge Kavanaugh’s classmates say the mentions of Renate were part of the football players’ unsubstantiated boasting about their conquests.â€
A site that tracks changes to New York Times articles figured out that one of these two sources was an anti-Trump Democratic candidate for governor of Maryland, Maldonado.
If this had the meaning people are attributing to it, I think there would have been many more boys saying it.
Re Renate, sure. I bet if we dig we will discover Kavanaugh also had pimples at some point. Perhaps he failed some test in junior high. It’s conceivable at some point he didn’t do or turn in his homework. Going back further, it may be that he threw his pacifier at his mother in a violent and aggressive way as a toddler. I suspect he may have belched loudly at table a time or two. Anonymous sources may report that when he exhibits flatulence or voids his bowel in a restroom, it doesn’t smell fantastic.
I think he could have excessive back hair. That should be enough for any reasonable progressive to condemn him, I’d think.
OK_Max:
Sure. But Ramirez previously forgot massive number of details surrounding incident (and possibly the whole thing). Then she re-remembers these. Are there big significant things you totally forgot, but now re-remember? If yes, have you checked to find out of these re-remembered things are true memories? Because what you seem to say is you never forgot those and think the significant things you never forgot are mostly true.
If that’s what you are saying about your memories, that has nothing to do with evaluating Ramirez’s story which is an entirely different situation.
OK_Max
He hasn’t been accused of raping anyone in high school.
Like Mark, I’m not convinced the Renate story suggests much of anything. And no, not even if two kids from Kavanaugh’s high school think many on the football team claimed to have lots of conquests.
Uhmmm…. She (a) doesn’t know what it means and (b) has no idea what the kids meant when the say it. So far: this is not a bad thing by Kavanaugh.
As far as I can see, the insinuations are being made now by people who are not Kavanaugh. I wouldn’t be at all surprised that the people who want Kavanaugh out are creating nasty, cruel hurtful insinuations out of whatever they can, and they don’t give a darn if it is hurtful to Renate. But that’s not on Kavanaugh as far as I can see. It’s on the people who are trying to turn anything stated into something that destroys Kavanaugh if they can, and they don’t care if it hurts some random woman.
If the “Renate” references has really meant something bad about her behavior back when the book was published, she almost certainly would have known about them and figured it out. Lots of people had that yearbook, lots of them are in the same circle. Bad stuff about reputations gets around and she almost certainly would have heard about it.
” I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things”
.
Really? Can’t begin to understand? This faux Puritanism is getting hilarious. These boys … voice quivers … they want …. gulp … SEX! … tears falling. In my high school you would rather have an arm lopped off then be a known virgin. If you hadn’t engaged in such “things” then you lied about it.
“I don’t think that only those who have been immaculate since birth are qualified to sit the Supreme Court.”
.
This is basically the way I feel, and I would venture to guess another 64M people who voted for Trump who rumor has it wasn’t immaculate. However it is only the opposing side that needs to be immaculate, fellow tribe members are to be forgiven if they show proper penance. Life experience is a good quality for fellow tribe members.
.
I can understand that people want a moral threshold for one of the highest offices and people set lines differently. One way to look at it is letting someone who has been accused of molesting children without evidence teach your kids. You probably aren’t going to want to risk that if there is any reasonable chance it is true. Now in this case what is the actual threat to the SC if these allegations are true? He will be anti-women in cases? He will grope Ginsberg, ha ha? That’s pretty thin. If it is OK to be overtly pro-women, pro-Hispnaic, etc. then there is nothing wrong with being overtly pro-men. I don’t want any activists or purity tests of any kind on the court, especially those that are fleeting moral panics of the current time for a lifetime appointment.
.
I guess there is one absolute certainty now, if Title IX comes before the SC on the basis of no due process for the accused in academia, we know how Kavanaugh is going to rule.
If Renate “got around” then she likely did it voluntarily and likely enjoyed it just as much as the alumni did. I’m sorry to bring up an impossibility to the Puritans that women have sex drives too and willfully engage in mutually beneficial contact, sometimes with multiple partners. One girl in my high school who was like this had a horrible home life and no father (a rarity back then). Looking back there is probably psychological reasons why this happened, reaching out for affection that was missing elsewhere, etc. 17 year old boys aren’t wondering about the psychological implications of others in high school when they can barely maintain a veneer of sanity themselves.
lucia (Comment #170884)
September 26th, 2018 at 6:05 am
OK_Max:
Sure. But Ramirez previously forgot massive number of details surrounding incident (and possibly the whole thing). Then she re-remembers these. Are there big significant things you totally forgot, but now re-remember?
______
No, but I’m not Ramirez. I am skeptical about recovered memories, but not so skeptical I would dismiss Ramirez. She wants to be interviewed by the FBI as a part of an investigation. Why not ?
lucia (Comment #170885)
“If the “Renate†references has really meant something bad about her behavior back when the book was published, she almost certainly would have known about them and figured it out. Lots of people had that yearbook, lots of them are in the same circle. Bad stuff about reputations gets around and she almost certainly would have heard about it.”
_______
lucia, if Renate knew about the references to her in GP yearbook back in the 1980’s, and recently signed a letter in support of Kavanaugh, it seems odd she then a few weeks later would say regarding the references ” the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way. I will have no further comment.†?
My guess is she didn’t know Kavanaugh had included himself in the “Renate Alums” when she signed the letter supporting him.
I wouldn’t blame her for thinking he betrayed her.
OK_Max,
I’m fine with the FBI investigating in parallel to the confirmation process.
I just don’t think there is enough there for the Senate to need to wait until they finish. They can continue after the vote. Then report if they find anything. If they do, Congress can decide whether they need to impeach.
So yeah, if she wants to be interviewed, fine. Send an agent. Meantime, if she wants to provide information in a timely manner, she should request to appear before the Senate Judiciary committe, which evidently has invited her. (But evidently she’s declined.)
This doesn’t need to be either or. But timelyness matters in this process and there just isn’t enough there to post-pone and change things that can be decided.
OK_Max
No. She didn’t know because it wasn’t meaningful to her or anyone. Had it been, the thing would have been circulated and she would have. Only now that people are trying to whip it into some sort of insinuation did she learn about it and it’s only hurtful because of that.
Of course she can feel however she can feel. But her feelings bout this now has no objective relevance to evaluating Kavanaugh’s character now, and very little even back then.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170888)
September 26th, 2018 at 8:11 am
If Renate “got around†then she likely did it voluntarily and likely enjoyed it just as much as the alumni did.
______
Kavanaugh’s lawyers said he once kissed Renate, nothing more. Renate denies he kissed her.
Tom, you know what this means. Kav lied to gain admission to the Renate Alumnus, and betrayed Renate.
OK_Max,
If Kav lied about a kiss at the age of 17, that’s hardly a reason to not be appointed to SCOTUS. And speaking as a 59 year old former teenage girl: if Renate is upset about this, she’s a pretty delicate snowflake. I mean… come on.
But beyond that: the evidence doesn’t mean Kav must be lying. Perhaps this will be indicated on his calendar. . .
(Or it could have been a New Years thing under the mistletoe which was so trivial Renate doesn’t remember and neither is intentionally lying.)
Tom Scharf (Comment #170874)
September 25th, 2018 at 6:32 pm
“So far the correlation between which side of the aisle you are on and which side of the Kavanaugh debate you are on is 0.999999.”
_____
Tom, I wouldn’t be sure of three GOP Senators (Alaska, Maine, and Arizona).
lucia (Comment #170894)
September 26th, 2018 at 1:18 pm
OK_Max,
If Kav lied about a kiss at the age of 17, that’s hardly a reason to not be appointed to SCOTUS. And speaking as a 59 year old former teenage girl: if Renate is upset about this, she’s a pretty delicate snowflake. I mean… come on.
_____
lucia, I don’t think Renate was upset about the kiss claim. She was asked about it after Kav’s lawyers said he once kissed her goodnight. She just said no he didn’t. What upset Renate was the derogatory reference to her in the GP yearbook.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170888)
If Renate “got around†then she likely did it voluntarily and likely enjoyed it just as much as the alumni did. I’m sorry to bring up an impossibility to the Puritans that women have sex drives too and willfully engage in mutually beneficial contact, sometimes with multiple partners. One girl in my high school who was like this had a horrible home life and no father (a rarity back then).
_________
Tom, that happened in my HS too, which is why I can believe Swetnick’s statement which was released today.
“In an explosive statement released by Avenatti, Swetnick claimed that in the 1980s, she witnessed efforts by Kavanaugh and his classmate, Mark Judge, to get teenage girls “inebriated and disoriented so they could then be ‘gang raped’ in a side room or bedroom by a ‘train’ of numerous boys.”
“I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their ‘turn’ with a girl inside the room. These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh,” she alleged in the statement, naming Kavanaugh’s high school classmate.â€
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/26/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-michael-avenatti-julie-swetnick/1431133002/
“She wants to be interviewed by the FBI as a part of an investigation. Why not ?”
.
Because they waited too long and have forfeited that. The price for political motivated and timed accusations is politically motivated responses. It is likely they want the Republicans to not do an investigation just to tar them with it. I have zero sympathy for demands for full investigations on new accusations a week after the hearings finished. This is transparently political. I don’t give either of them the benefit of the doubt here.
The third accusation gives even less credibility to the first two. This is why people hate DC. Politics of personal destruction at any cost. It’s not even worth reading about any further.
Tom:
The first (Ford) accusation struck me as the sort of thing that *could* conceivably happen in high school, college or even later in life. However, Ford remembers so little, and everyone placed at the party says they were never at any such party. Given the drunkenness, the likelihood of Ford having no idea who did whatever is extremely high. I’d guess something once happened to Ford, it just wasn’t done by Kavanaugh, and in fact, she doesn’t remember when or where the party was, who was there nor who did it. I’m betting she had drunk enough of the fluid my bothers-in-law call “memory wipe”, that her memory was practically wiped.
The second accusation struck me as also the sort of thing that *could* conceivably happen (though it’s weirder.) But Ramirez somehow didn’t remember it until recently. Once again: huge amounts of “memory wipe” are involved. Ramirez admits her own memory was wiped. Something odd happened while she was woozy and nearly passed out– who was involved… Dunno.
No matter how innocent, naive and so on people say she was as a Freshman, it’s clear from her own story that she decided to drink lots of alcohol herself, went to alcohol parties and underwent memory wipe.
On the Michael Avanatti stuff: Sounds totally made up. Doesn’t mean it was.
She claims she has witnesses to corroborate. Ideally, she should have included their names in her affidavit. So I guess we’ll see who the witnesses are and what they have to say.
It would be interesting to hear more details on the what happened when she got home from the party where she was so shitfaced drunk or drugged by Qualudes that she couldn’t fight off guys from a gang rape. I totally believe someone might not want to report this. But this is supposed to be a gang rape by a train of guys.
We are talking about a minor here. She can’t just go back to her apartment and hole up. Who drove her home after the party? Other girls who, for some reason, said nothing to anyone? How did she sneak by her parents so they couldn’t learn of the incident? Or did they learn but say, “Serves you right!”
At least she seems willing to talk to the judiciary committee. They ought to invite her. Then invite the witnesses.
I find it interesting she kept attending multiple gang rape parties, ha ha. It’s so ridiculous it’s not even worth debating. The DC clown show has hit a new low, the media breathlessly headlines outrageous and unsubstantiated claims from a porn star lawyer who wants to run for President. What a disgrace, I think I’ll vote for a dog next election.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170888)
September 26th, 2018 at 8:11 am
“I’m sorry to bring up an impossibility to the Puritans that women have sex drives too and willfully engage in mutually beneficial contact, sometimes with multiple partners. One girl in my high school who was like this…”
Tom Scharf (Comment #170901)
September 26th, 2018 at 3:15 pm
“I find it interesting she kept attending multiple gang rape parties, ha ha. It’s so ridiculous it’s not even worth debating.”
_____
Memory, Tom, memory.
lucia (Comment #170900)
“We are talking about a minor here. She can’t just go back to her apartment and hole up. Who drove her home after the party?”
_______
Julie Sweatnick may have been age 18 or older at the time.
Breitbart questions Sweatnick’s accusation, claiming she graduated from high school three years before Kavanaugh graduated.
Apparently, Breitbart believes young people only socialize within a 2-year age range.
Renate was aware at the time about a poem of need a date call Renate(From the yearbook I thought it might be Re Nah Tay), but she was still hanging out with these guys.
NYT then told her it meant sexual conquest, so now she is upset about it. Others are denying this meaning, and are angry with NYT for breaking friendships.
After seeing Holton Arms yearbook I’m not sure, but I’m surprised they would advertise this in a yearbook.
OK Max.
You’re right. She is reporting stuff from 1981-82
Swetnick is 55. Kavanaugh is 53. So in 1982, she could have been as old as 19. So, in this story, she was going to parties attended by high school students who were getting drunk. And it means she an adult was witnessing this stuff being done, and did nothing to help these younger girls. That’s an even weirder story, and I’d have to ask her
(a) why she was frequently partying with underage kids who were getting drunk as skunks and
(b) why she, an adult, did nothing to protect the other girls (like, for example, call their parents.)
This isn’t to pick on her, but to understand just what was going on if she — an adult– saw all this and did nothing. After all, she supposedly saw multiple instances of this before anything happened to her. And she was an adult!!!!
Wow.
OK_Max
Or perhaps they know that adults being present at parties where minors are illegally consuming alcohol are subject to serious criminal penalties for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Being present where the inebriated kids are raping others would ramp this up seriously.
I mean: if her story is true, I’m pretty sure she is technically a felon!!!
Gaithersburg High School is over ten miles away, outside the beltway, and I suspect it’s very unlikely they would be socializing with Holton Arms and Georgetown Prep(which is not in Georgetown). University of Maryland is even farther.
lucia (Comment #170906)
September 26th, 2018 at 4:12 pm
OK_Max
Apparently, Breitbart believes young people only socialize within a 2-year age range.
Or perhaps they know that adults being present at parties where minors are illegally consuming alcohol are subject to serious criminal penalties for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Being present where the inebriated kids are raping others would ramp this up seriously.
I mean: if her story is true, I’m pretty sure she is technically a felon!!!
________
lucia, I thought you might be on to something, but after checking Maryland law, I’m not sure.
Age of majority is 18 in Maryland, but legal drinking age is 21. So legally, Sweatnick wasn’t old enough to drink. If she can’t legally drink, would she be responsible for others who can’t. And what if ages were the same (e.g. age 19)? I
imagine her lawyer looked into the possibility of an age issue, and found none. If it’s relevant, age of consent starts at 14, with qualifications.
While we are on the subject, remember Ramirez said Kav waved his willy in her face and she pushed him away touching it in the process. Technically, you could say she sexually assaulted him. He didn’t touch her privates, she touched his without his permission.
OK Max
In Iowa a person 18 yo and 1 day would be leggaly responsible as an adult for someone 18 yo-1 day for alcohol related issues. A student of mine got in a jam over this. (A bad thing happened. The story was in the paper.)
The weren’t.
Not for gang rape under the influence of alcohol and quaaludes. Which is what she seems to claim she was aware was happening to others.
MikeN (Comment #170907)
September 26th, 2018 at 4:47 pm
Gaithersburg High School is over ten miles away, outside the beltway, and I suspect it’s very unlikely they would be socializing with Holton Arms and Georgetown Prep(which is not in Georgetown). University of Maryland is even farther.
______
Mike, check a map. Georgetown Prep is not in Georgetown.
Mike, saw my mistake, but delete didn’t work. At first glance, I thought you said Georgetown Prep is in Georgetown, which is a part of D.C. But you said it isn’t, which is correct. Prep is in Maryland.
OK_Max
Well…. Ramirez is not likely to be charged with touching Kavanaugh’s willie because
(a) He says it didn’t happen and
(b) there are no witnesses to this incident which only Ramirez seems to remember.
So I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
Maryland changed it’s drinking laws in 1982, presumably to avoid losing federal highway funds. Swetnick would have been grandfathered in, and legally allowed to drink at age 20 in 1983, while some 19 year old college classmates could not.
OK_Max,
The lawyer could have looked into the risk of her describing what happened and found (a) there was a statute of limitations or (b) have her be just vague enough to not be charged with any specific crime.
People can only be charged with specific crimes — meaning who got raped, when and where. That doesn’t mean they aren’t guilty of a crime just because no one can pin anything specific on them.
If she was at a party where she knew or believed women were being gang raped under the influence of mickey and did nothing, she was an appalling woman at the very least. Perhaps she’s redeemed herself, but I for one want to know more about what she claimed was going on. Given her public accusation, I think I — a member of the public– has a right to hear more. I’d like to have her answer other questions about precisely what was going on, but to assess whether I believe her and to figure out just how appalling her own behavior was.
lucia (Comment #170909)
Sweatnick didn’t say she furnished alcohol to anyone. She wasn’t responsible for checking the ID’s of all the guest who were drinking at the party, nor was she responsible for asking other girls whether they gave consent. She didn’t have a legal responsibility to do any of that, and if she had tried, would have been asked to leave or thrown out.
Text of statement to retired FBI agent running lie detector says four boys and two girls at the party. Letter to Feinstein says 3 boys.
I’ve only seen a lie detector test on TV, but I hope a real test would run different from what Ford had to answer. Here is the list of questions she was asked:
1) Is any part of your statement false?
2) Did you make up any part of your statement?
3) In the year 1982 or around that year, were you assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge in an upstairs bedroom of a house in suburban Montgomery County Maryland, during a party attended by four boys and two girls?
4) Just kidding. The only questions asked were 1 & 2.
>nor was she responsible for asking other girls whether they gave consent.
Then why is she describing it as a gang rape?
Correction, letter to Feinstein says party was her and four others. Statement to committee says four boys and two girls, leaving open possibility of more.
She told Washington Post three boys and one girl, and her.
About ten years ago, Swetnick sued over sexual harassment, represented by the firm of Ford’s lawyer.
Mercifully, this crazy nightmare of PC idiocy will very soon come to an end. The Senate vote on Kavanaugh will likely happen mid next week. Not nearly soon enough.
What constitutes ‘late teens’?
OK_Max,
I didn’t say she said she was responsible for handing out liquor, nor that she needed to check IDS.
However, she supposedly knew at least Kavanaugh and Judge who she knew were under age. She didn’t need to check their IDs. Presumably, if there were “many” of these parties, and these were attended by her “crowd”, she already knew the ages of everyone. So she didn’t need to check IDs to know they were minors: she already knew.
Her report of what was going on at those parties– at which, evidently, she believed young, vulnerable women were being plied with liquor and being gang raped by guys — including guys who were drunk minors– waiting in the hall is enough for use to know that if she’s telling the truth, she behaved appallingly. She reports she went to at least 10 of these. She didn’t get dragged to these there unwillingly, not knowing what was happening. So presumably, she sought these parties out.
She was an adult. Based on her belief gang rapes were going on, she ought to have been watching out for these young girls — and she uses the word girls not women, she ought to have been intervening.
So: Swetnick is at the very minimum appalling.
FWIW: At Iowa State a student in my fluids class was charged with alcoholic related offenses, and no one said he’d given alcohol out, no one said he’d brought it, and it was agreed he didn’t know the ages of the girls who’d been brought to a dorm floor party by other guys on the floor. He was merely at the party, and oddly, happened to be they only guy who stayed when one of the girls passed out from excess alcohol. He called 411– and stayed. And he was charged.
The illegal thing was basically being at the party with underage kids drinking. (At least as far as I recall. I don’t know what ultimately happened with the charges. I allowed him to make up a lab he had to miss for his court date. He was very embarrassed. I told him I’d read the paper, and as far as I was concerned, despite the legal issues, his family should be proud he stayed and prevented the girl from dying.)
So the facts that you are stating don’t necessarily matter.
MikeN
She not only uses the term “gang rape”, but also that she witnessed efforts to get the girls inebriated, and then saw boys lined up in the hall to take their turn raping the girl.
So, her belief was that the girls were being gang raped. And, moreover, she describes herself as being aware that was the boys plan and specifically took measures to avoid getting inebriated– by not drinking the punch. And bear in mind at the time of these parties she was an adult but the at least some others — who she calls boys and girls — appear to have been just that. Boys and girls– not adults.
So, according to her affidavit, she had a strong belief girls were being gang raped, and she not only did nothing to report or stop this, she continued to attend these parties. Fun gal!
This behavior would be horrible in juveniles, but worse in adults. But according to her story she did nothing to (a) help any of the people she calls girls— that is not adults (b) stop or report any of this behavior the the parents of these minors. And she knewsome were minors!
Will wait to see if any other witnesses appear to support her story.
Obviously, if it turns out to be true, Kavanaugh is not fit to be on SCOTUS. He can be impeached if we find out after confirmation. I should think it would be difficult to do if he is proven to have set girls up for gang rape.
But I, for one, want to first hear who her witnesses are and hear them support her story. I want to hear her report her story in the judiciary committee where people can ask her questions in public.
Lucia: “At Iowa State a student in my fluids class was charged with alcoholic related offenses, and no one said he’d given alcohol out, no one said he’d brought it, and it was agreed he didn’t know the ages of the girls”
…..
What you are probably describing is the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
……
“Contributing to the delinquency of a minor is a crime governed by state laws, which vary by state. Generally, the crime consists of someone knowingly persuading, inducing, enticing or encouraging such a child or youth to engage in actions that would constitute a violation of federal or state law or a municipal or local ordinance. Local laws should be consulted for applicability in your area.” https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/contributing-to-the-delinquency-of-a-minor/
Very good chance that Swetnick (1980 High School graduate — Kavanaugh 1983 graduate) was guilty of this although I don’t know Maryland law.
JD
Tweet above: Sounds like “mistaken identity” theory may have legs. Two guys believe they may be “the” guys involved in “the groping”.
lucia (Comment #170926): “Tweet above: Sounds like “mistaken identity†theory may have legs. Two guys believe they may be “the†guys involved in “the gropingâ€.”
.
Amazing. So it looks like it might be possible to prove Kavanaugh innocent. I am not sure that is a good thing. It is surely good for Kavanaugh, but it might set a bad precedent for the process.
Mike M: “So it looks like it might be possible to prove Kavanaugh innocent.”
…..
Unless they have a tape or pictures, she will stand by her story. Otherwise, she would be letting the Left down.
Mike M. (Comment #170928)
September 26th, 2018 at 9:38 pm
lucia (Comment #170926): “Tweet above: Sounds like “mistaken identity†theory may have legs. Two guys believe they may be “the†guys involved in “the gropingâ€.â€
.
Amazing. So it looks like it might be possible to prove Kavanaugh innocent.
_______________
Amazing would be doppelgangers for both Kavanaugh and Judge. Ed would be vindicated.
Info on this is sketchy, but it may be only a Kavanaugh doppelganger. Or it may be someone who feels a need to confess to something he didn’t do.
lucia (Comment #170909)
In Iowa a person 18 yo and 1 day would be leggaly responsible as an adult for someone 18 yo-1 day for alcohol related issues. A student of mine got in a jam over this. (A bad thing happened. The story was in the paper.)
_________
lucia, this looks interesting. Do you have a link or words I could use to Google it?
_____________________________________________________
lucia (Comment #170912)
OK_Max
Technically, you could say she sexually assaulted him. He didn’t touch her privates, she touched his without his permission.
“So I have no idea what point you are trying to make.”
_____
lucia, I wasn’t being serious. I should have used a mojie. Sorry.
______________________________________________________
lucia (Comment #170914)
The lawyer could have looked into the risk of her describing what happened and found (a) there was a statute of limitations or (b) have her be just vague enough to not be charged with any specific crime.
__________
If he didn’t, he’s a very bad lawyer. Sweatnick had the sense to get a lawyer before going public with statements. I don’t know if that means she was concerned about a legal liability, but it may. She sure
has had a lot of government jobs. I wonder what that’s about.
Correction to my Comment #170931
The Staff may have interviewed two men, each claiming it was he, not Kavanaugh, who sexually assaulted Ford. Obviously, at least one would be mistaken.
Both could be wrong, though not necessarily lying. They could have assaulted a girl or girls they incorrectly believed to be Ford.
I’m puzzled why a man not under suspicion for sexual assault would come forward and confess unless there is something to be gained.
Plus I’ve read that there is no statute of limitations in Maryland for this.
It wouldn’t surprise me if lots of guys groped party girl Christine. They may be describing something completely different.
OK_Max
Sure. And it could be that Ford wanted to claim something that didn’t happen. Or Ford who didn’t name who the guys were until very recently misremembers. Or….
We’ll wait to hear more about this guy or guys.
OK_Max
He’s not under any legal jeopardy. After all: He didn’t rape her. He didn’t tear her clothes, bruise her and etc. His description may match Ford’s somewhat and differ somewhat. His description of motive may differ from hers. This isn’t such a mystery.
It’s less mysterious than Swetlick coming forward and basically describing herself as likely repeatedly contributing to the delinquency of minors by participating in drunken parties where gang rapes were accurring and doing nothing. And she was an adult. With supposedly “nothing to gain” from stepping forward.
I don’t know why anyone (like you) who isn’t surprised by Ramirez covering her own reputation in crap would be surprised that someone else might step forward to correct a story where an innocent person is accused of assault.
OK_Max,
Now all of sudden you start suspecting people might be lying, ha ha? Your partisanship is showing.
.
They guys might be lying, although this lie would be a bit risky without much upside, and I find it hard to believe this didn’t leak earlier. It might even be a false flag operation to test and confuse Ford.
Tom Scharf,
The two men certainly might be lying. They could have all sorts of reasons to lie– just as Ford may. Like Ford, they may be telling the truth as they know it– but be mistaken. The groped some you pretty blonde high school who they didn’t know well back in the day, at a party similar to the one Ford described. Maybe one will be named Brett. Or Rhett. Or Bart. Or Bert Kavendish. Heh.
The record available doesn’t tell us, but presumably the men contacted the judiciary committee but, (mysteriously!!) didn’t contact the press. It hasn’t been in the interest of Democrats to leak a story were guys are coming forward to suggest they were Ford’s groper because even a story that lacks credibility has legs and will affect public opinion. (The Dem’s have definitely been playing the public opinion game.)
It also has not been in the interest of Republicans to leak it early since they really need to know if the story is holier than a Swiss cheese or it can bite them in the end. They also wouldn’t want to give too much time for the press to get ahead of them on things. Also, the GOP would have wanted Ford on record as agreeing to appear to speak to the committe and perhaps already have landed in DC to make her appointment. Then if she withdraws it will look like the motivation would have potentially been the counter evidence. So for them, revealing this late is a better move. Last night may have been late enough, though this morning might not have been bad.
Of course the GOP is also playing a public opinion game. In fact: lots of people are playing that. Some had more prep time. (Ford, her lawyer, Feinstein and so on has loads of prep time to decide on the basics of their strategy.)
I’m not going to watch the livestream. I was at my dance class and I’m going to tutor magnetism soon….
Early reports have Ford being sympathetic in court room. Not surprising. She’s a polished woman telling a sympathetic story being handled with kid gloves. Always a potential problem.
Obviously, this is political theater. We’ll see how the vote goes in the end. Or if there is a vote.
One of the guys was described as “crazy as a loon” by a Republican Senator so we can pretty much write that one off. It is unknown whether the other is credible, but I think the Republicans would have leaked it if it was. It would be best strategically to blindside everyone with this at the last moment, but I’m not giving anyone credit for being this smart at the moment. As far as I know this is another evidence free assertion from someone motivated to make it. This process has zero integrity at this point, but at least there is a process.
.
If the Democrats had this info, then Ford already does as well. There is zero chance they wouldn’t be warned about this.
.
I never watch political dramas or debates. I find them to be a distortion of reality by people who are really good at distorting reality. We will see if any new evidence shows up, I give zero credence to a judgement on who “seems more credible” in testimony. There is way too much emotional investment by almost everyone for that to be a fair judgment. The stories by the left and right media about the testimony will be very predictable. Evidence free assertion against respectable man vs. brave compelling testimony by an attempted rape survivor.
Tom:
I’m interested in what questions get asked, what answers are supplied. But yeah… this is political theater.
Ford may be a brave attempted rape survivor. (In which case, I too am a rape survivor. See story above!) But unless I hear more about that party, I don’t believe anyone can be confident she can identify her assailant with certainty. That’s true even if she thinks she can.
If people fail to ask relevant questions, I will continue to think we can’t be sure there is no mistaken identity. That doesn’t mean she is mistaken, it just means we can’t be sure she is not.
I still sort of feel for her– this can’t be fun. But that pain caused by the hearing is not something to lay at Kavanaugh’s feet.
Given the way things were sprung by Feinstein, there was never any chance the process would have integrity.
>I find it hard to believe this didn’t leak earlier.
What is the timeline of receiving this info? Could this be why Ed Whelan was so confident Kavanaugh would be cleared(by yesterday)?
Plausible motive for a person to confess when there is no suspicion on them is to prevent a guilty party from being convicted.
A plausible reason for Whelan to be confident is Whelan was talking out of his uhmm… not mouth. Partisan people often claim victory before votes, battles and so on and so on. That’s practically the full time job of a pundit.
Partisans often can’t see things from the other side. So, for example, instead of merely seeing flaws in Ford’s story, they decree no one could believe it at all.
But of course lots of people could believe it both for partisan reasons and because it contains elements that have the ring of truth. For example: I can certainly believe something similar to what Ford claimed to happen to her did happen to her. I can believe Ford believes it entirely. I can believe Ford is confident she is not misidentifying.
The problem is confidence is a mix feeling and thinking. Feelings tell us nothing about accuracy and even the thought that one must be correct doesn’t mean one is. For a 3rd party to decide whether they think her recollection is accurate, the 3rd party needs to know more. I haven’t watched the testimony (or read transcripts) so I don’t know if info in testimony would convince me her feeling of confidence is warranted. Maybe it is. Maybe not.
At this point, I’m also interested in learning if these other men show up at the hearing….
Kavanaugh claimed he didn’t socialize with Ford’s school much at all. Was not expecting that. I noticed yesterday while talking about Swetnick at Gaithersburg High that the schools were about 5 miles apart, but didn’t think that was much for private schools near DC.
He said.
She said.
My takes on the hearing
Grassley and Feinstein are over the hill and should retire.
Ford was pretty composed. Only choked up once. I thought she was going to cry, but she recovered. She didn’t dodge questions.
Kavanaugh’s speech was tiring and over emotional. He choked up several times. He was combative and dodged lots of questions.
Entertaining, but I didn’t learn anything I didn’t already know.
OK Max,
“Entertaining, but I didn’t learn anything I didn’t already know.”
.
Wow. Perhaps you would find public whipping or stoning in Saudi Arabia also entertaining. Entertaining is not the adjective that comes to my mind. Revolting. Demeaning. Grotesque. Absurd. Those all seem accurate descriptions to me.
If Kavanaugh gets the 50 votes he needs (betting markets say this is currently >50% chance), and goes to the SC, he is not going to forget how the Senate Democrats held back the Ford accusations for 7 weeks, until after the formal hearings were over (while at the same time Sen. Feinstein’s office was helping her line up lawyers). Clarence Thomas was treated well by comparison, and he was obviously angry for a long time. I have to believe Kavanaugh is not going to be able to let this one go for a very long time.
Steve,
Interesting about the betting markets. I’ve been trying to estimate the odds but I haven’t gotten a handle on it. He [Kavanaugh] can withstand one Republican defection, assuming no Democrats vote for him. I can think of three or four Republicans who might vote against him, but I can’t figure out the approximate odds of any of them doing it. [Any of the individual odds, so I can’t estimate the overall odds]
.
[Edit: I’m behind on the news. I read remarks from Flake and Corker that seem [to me] to lean towards supporting Kavanaugh this evening. Collins and Murkowksi would both have to oppose. … I still don’t feel comfortable estimating the probability]
I should have clarified, I’m talking about the full Senate vote, not the committee vote.
marck bofill,
If you assume the rest of the caucus will support Kavanaugh, and the odds are 50:50 on both Collins and Murkowski, then his chance of getting to 50 or 51 (with Pence breaking the tie with 50) is:
Collins Murkowski confirmed
yea yea Yes
nay nay No
yea nay Yes
nay yea Yes
So, in that case, a 75% chance of confirmation. If Flake supports Kavanaugh (as some news reports now suggest), that will be something I would not have guessed.
Steve, true, but that assumes Collins and Murkowski each have a 50% chance of yea or nay. … Of course, lacking a better estimate of the individual probabilities, I guess that’s as good as anyone can do.
But there are several Democrats whose reelection bids might be harmed by a no vote. Manchin and Hietkamp are the most often mentioned, but there are others facing tough challenges in Trump states.
SteveF (Comment #170954)
September 27th, 2018 at 6:10 pm
OK Max,
“Entertaining, but I didn’t learn anything I didn’t already know.â€
Wow. Perhaps you would find public whipping or stoning in Saudi Arabia also entertaining. Entertaining is not the adjective that comes to my mind. Revolting. Demeaning. Grotesque. Absurd. Those all seem accurate descriptions to me.
___________
Then, why did you watch it ?
You are assuming the votes are independent. Murkowski voting opposite to Collins here is unlikely, despite the different voter profiles of their states.
I’m reading reports that Manchin, Donnelly will likely vote with those two as well.
Corker is a yes, along with Sasse.
Flake may vote no if he is not the 51st no to get some liberal bonafides and help with his job prospects with CNN or MSNBC.
24 hours and we will know.
Gut feeling a bit like Obama care likely to get shafted by one or 2 republicans.
Meanwhile release those files.
“Finally, there are those two nervous allies, Australia and Great Britain. Their continued collaboration undoubtedly remains important to the United States. But, in this case, the American public deserves to know why two foreign countries — no matter how friendly or well intentioned — were involved in an American domestic matter such as a democratic election.”
OK Max,
I watched the live feed only briefly (too revolting to tolerate). I read their statements, and I saw several ‘highlight’ video clips of 5-10 minutes each. It was not at all entertaining… it was an obscene abomination… and a waste of time.
angech,
“But, in this case, the American public deserves to know why two foreign countries — no matter how friendly or well intentioned — were involved in an American domestic matter such as a democratic election.â€
.
They were trying to make sure Trump was not elected. I can see no other explanation. Sort of like Obama going to the UK to campaign against Brexit. The second backfired. The first likely will as well. Here is a good rule of thumb: don’t ever get involved in legitimate elections outside your own country.
And now for something completely different:
Arctic Sea ice has passed the minimum and is increasing again. The seven day moving average was almost identical to 2017, ~4.6Mm², which puts it close to the middle of the last ten years.
The only important thing that happened is no new evidence. I find it unfair that a person’s decades long career can be ruined with accusations with no corroborating evidence, on a single person’s word. He is forever tarnished, regardless of how the vote goes. The character smear was successful, that is undeniable. National politicians have to power to ruin any individual’s life and they need to use that power sparingly.
.
As politicians wantonly ruin people’s lives to further their own desperate agendas the only feeling I have is disgust, disgust for what the national media and national politics have become. There is zero to be proud about here. The elevation of an in-tribe accusation as fact, the assumption of guilt for the out of tribe regardless of a lifetime history. The only thing the media cares about is “historic” drama, they don’t care if they fairly represent the accused, and constantly run around telling us how every identity group feels as if these are monolithic. The politicians are only deciding based on which way will hurt them more politically, not surprising.
.
The only thing I believe is there is no way to know the truth, the same thing we knew two weeks ago.
If Kavanaugh fails to be confirmed, I would nominate a new justice the next day and schedule a full senate vote 7 days later, ha ha. The long interview and hearing process has become meaningless.
Tom Scharf,
It’s not just national politicians. This sort of thing has been going on at universities since the Obama administration sent out the Title IX “Dear Colleague” memo. Being expelled from a University for an alleged sexual offense with little to no due process can be just as damaging to one’s life.
Al Franken also gets some of the blame for resigning from the Senate rather than trying to defend himself from what he claimed was a false allegation.
I have heard that where I used to work it is now possible to submit an anonymous accusation to HR that can get someone fired without their being able to defend themselves.
The country was founded on equal rights and due process for individuals, and one of the reasons I want a more conservative SC is as a firewall against the excesses of social mobs and moral panics. Academia and over zealous HR departments will eventually be successfully sued for their excesses. The MeToo movement can be a force of good and bad simultaneously. Never grant an activist group immunity from criticism, or the results are predictably that partisans will exploit them.
Looks like they are planning to vote at 1:30 pm est. If they do, the Kavanaugh thing will at least be over. (Which, even though this has been a circus, is better than if there had been a long potentially unending FBI investigation. )
Ok… I’m seeing a variety of different times given for the scheduled time.
The judiciary committee voted to hold full vote? (I think?)
Lucia,
Flake voted Kavanaugh out of committee, but will not vote for him on the floor unless the vote is delayed a week to “give the FBI additional time”. Flake probably realized only after saying he would vote for Kavanaugh that his future as a well compensated RINO on CNN or MSNBC depends on him not voting for Kavanaugh. The guy is a quintessential worm.
BTW, the requested “week” is only the starting point. The FBI can’t wipe their… err….. noses… in a week. If the floor vote is delayed a week, it won’t happen until after the Nov. election, which was always the goal. If vulnerable Senate Democrats don’t have to register a vote before the election, then they can vote against Kavanaugh with no political blowback after they get re-elected.
SteveF,
‘Additional’ time? For what? The FBI isn’t doing anything, or planning to do anything, now, as far as I can tell. That’s because there isn’t anything to do without access to a time machine. Everybody that knows, or thinks they know, anything has already spoken so there are no new leads to investigate and there isn’t any physical evidence. Assuming that there is something new to be found, if only the FBI would investigate, is a classic example of magical thinking. I blame television, particularly the various iterations of CSI.
I thought I saw “up to a week” with a very specific but undisclosed request of what to investigate. If there is a well defined question or three that ought to be readily answerable by a certain deadline, it makes sense to delay by a few says so as to get the answers before the final vote. Otherwise, a delay would be just pernicious mischief.
Flake may have just said this to spare himself a weekend of harassment. He knew Grassley’s commitment was meaningless. End result is he has voted yes on Kavanaugh to get it out of committee. He could have insisted on investigation at this stage if he wanted to.
Mike N,
“. He could have insisted on investigation at this stage if he wanted to.”
.
Sure, but he had already said he would vote Kavanaugh out of committee. He doesn’t want an investigation, he wants a juicy gig with CNN. He is a worm
SteveF (Comment #170965)
September 28th, 2018 at 5:16 am
OK Max,
I watched the live feed only briefly (too revolting to tolerate). I read their statements, and I saw several ‘highlight’ video clips of 5-10 minutes each. It was not at all entertaining… it was an obscene abomination… and a waste of time.
______
Then you may have missed the Louisiana Senator’s lie detector test.
DeWitt,
“I blame television, particularly the various iterations of CSI.”
.
I blame those who watch such rubbish…. I never watch TV save for news and sports… amd not much of those.
.
The FBI has nothing to investigate They will dutifully delay the Senate vote on Kavanaugh until after the election, as is their want. The swamp never quits, never stops, never cares.
Mike M,
“Otherwise, a delay would be just pernicious mischief.”
.
Bingo! The whole objective is a delay until after the election, then it’s an easy no vote for all the nervous senators who want to be re-elected. That IS pernicious mischief.
OK Max,
“Then you may have missed the Louisiana Senator’s lie detector test.”
.
You already told me there was nothing new, and that is clearly the case. You finding the spectacle “entertaining” is something I still find very sad.
I presume Trump will order the FBI to investigate, but I don’t know the scope of the investigation.
OK Max,
If Trump asks for an investigation, he will ask for a week…. they will take 6. This is transparent nonsense designed to prolong the process.
Here:
Don’t know what anybody believes the FBI is going to accomplish in this regard in less than a week, but if that’s what it takes to make the peace and put this farce to an end, alright.
So how does this play out?
.
I think: the FBI protests that that’s not enough time to do much of anything. Trump says tough noogies, go investigate. The FBI is swamped by lefty kooks and some dirty tricks operatives who supply them ‘promising leads’. The nightly news makes sure everyone is aware that the FBI would get Kavanaugh if only they had enough time and independence from Trump. The stink is enough to scare two or more of the RINO’s into voting against.
I’m just thinking out loud, but at a glance I think the Dems just won this one.
Mueller’s investigation was “limited in scope”, ha ha. I predict Kavanaugh will be on death row by the time this thing finishes. Realistically it is some Senators calling for cover to vote for Kavanaugh, not against. They would vote against him now if they were inclined. Probably good news. I really don’t see how anything material is going to come up. It’s not like the media didn’t put a 100 reporters on it already.
… time to beat a dead dog … if I was Mike Judge, I would not talk to the FBI, they will have the knives out.
Go ice (thanks DeWill)
Go ICE (Trump)
On ice (Kavanaugh) thin ice too.
Iced over FBI DOJ files.
On the rocks Rosenstein next Thursday.
Feels like I’m watching someone play a high speed pinball game.
Is Trump Tommy in disguise?
Real Clear Investigations cites Ford’s heavy drinking and active sexual life when she was young that has been revealed by her yearbook. https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/09/27/blasey_ford_yearbooks.html Wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if she has memory problems from blackouts and if there weren’t additional claimed sexual assaults. She dodged the issue of what other issues contributed to her anxiety and PTSD at the hearing (Giving an answer as to what generally caused anxiety or PTSD and not what other additional contributors, she in fact had), and her medical records should be quite interesting.
Of course, there is a 50-50 chance at least that she and her lawyers will have them destroyed or altered.
JD
JD Ohio (Comment #170993)
September 28th, 2018 at 7:37 pm
“Real Clear Investigations cites Ford’s heavy drinking and active sexual life when she was young that has been revealed by her yearbook.”
_____________
I would have to see pages from Ford’s HA yearbook before believing RCI. None were presented. I haven’t seen any online. Yearbooks to photograph should be available at the HA library.
Why is this relevant anyway?
Max “Why is this relevant anyway?” Heavy drinking could cause memory loss. Many sexual encounters could cause confusion.
JD
Tom Scharf (Comment #170991)
September 28th, 2018 at 5:38 pm
… time to beat a dead dog … if I was Mike Judge, I would not talk to the FBI, they will have the knives out.
__________
I doubt Judge would be charged with a crime for changing what he said about Kav in his letter.
Although Judge concluded his letter by saying “I am knowingly submitting this letter under penalty of felony,†I don’t know whether that really means anything.
https://twitter.com/edhenry/status/1045516903119298560
JD Ohio (Comment #170995)
September 28th, 2018 at 10:09 pm
Max “Why is this relevant anyway?†Heavy drinking could cause memory loss. Many sexual encounters could cause confusion.
_______
Rachel Mitchell didn’t question Ford about her drinking and sex life in high school. I believe Mitchell would have addressed these subjects had there been a basis from HA Yearbooks or other sources for doing so. If you believe there was a basis, why do you think Mitchell avoided the subjects?
Max: “If you believe there was a basis, why do you think Mitchell avoided the subjects?”
My understanding is that with all of the focus on K’s yearbook, someone decided to look at Ford’s. I also understand they were just retrieved before someone took them offline. During the hearing Mitchell was trying to appear conciliatory and kind, and was not looking for this kind of info. Everyone realizes that all sorts of nasty stuff is going to come up now, and someone took the initiative to get these in order to distract some of the attention from K’s yearbook.
JD
JD Ohio (Comment #170998)
“My understanding is that with all of the focus on K’s yearbook, someone decided to look at Ford’s. I also understand they were just retrieved before someone took them offline.”
_________
I have seen pages from Kav’s yearbooks posted online, but none from Ford’s. Do you have a link to pages from Ford’s so I can decide whether I agree with RCI’s take?
The guy who posted the pictures had his site removed by blogspot.
The text, both the yearbooks and his first column at least, has been reprinted elsewhere.
Christine Blasley’s high school yearbook does not describe her as a promiscuous girl who drank until she passed out.
Even if it did, sexually assaulting her still would be a crime.
OK_Max,
Of course. But you are rebutting a strawman. No one claimed her drinking and being promiscuous would mean sexually assaulting her was not a crime.
You asked JD why it would matter and he already told you why
To repeat: Heavy drinking can cause memory loss. Sexual encounters– especially while drinking– could result in confusion over who, what, where, when.
Both of these are relevant to the question of whether Christine Blasely is correct that Kavanaugh assaulted her.
Honestly, I suspect she drank a lot in high school. My suspicion is based on the generalization that kids who seek out parties in empty houses (especially those of people they don’t even know) generally drink. Evidently– and according to her– she was hanging out a community center because that’s where you find the parties. This suggest she probably drank, and quite possibly a lot.
I also think she was afraid her parents would discover she was at a party where alcohol was served because she liked to go to lots of these, sought them out, and didn’t want to be prevented from doing so. She likely went frequently and did not want her social life ended.
Mitchell didn’t ask about alcohol. I don’t know why. I would have wanted to know.
Mitchell was not acting as a courtroom attorney. Her job was to ask certain questions so Senators could evaluate the accusations. A fierce attack might have cost them the votes of Collins and Murkowski and others(as Arlen Specter’s questioning of Anita Hill is credited with helping female Senators get elected in 1992). She was recommended by Flake, perhaps by name.
So she gently asked questions and found holes in her responses. Not only could Ford not remember details from 36 years ago, she was having trouble remembering details from the last few months. Mitchell told the Republicans in conference that she couldn’t even get a search warrant on the details provided.
Lucia,
Republicans were terrified of appearing “mean” to Ford, so no tough questions were raised:
“How often did you go to parties?”
“When you did not have a driver’s license, how did you normally go to and return from the parties?”
“How many times did you meet Kavanaugh at parties or other social events?”
“Did you ever drink more than 3 or 4 drinks at these parties?”
Etc.
These questions will never be asked publicly. I saw the yearbook pages before they were “disappeared”; based on the yearbook, Ford went to a school where parties with heavy drinking were apparently quite common.
It seems there is almost a religious disavowal of attacking an alleged sexual assault victim during a trial, which is the exact opposite of what people seem to think. Perhaps this only applies to high profile cases. It creates more sympathy by attacking an alleged victim, especially if it is not just alleged, but real. People are inclined to be sympathetic to victims, especially women, and especially sexual assault. If you are in an evidence sparse trial, then winning the sympathy war is a primary goal.
.
This is why the left media has dropped fact finding and has been trafficking in non-stop appeals to emotion. If Kavanaugh was accused of strangling kittens, we would be seeing stories on the plights of abused kittens by those willing his guilt in the absence of evidence.
.
Other people’s stories have no bearing on whether the individual Kavanaugh committed this unique crime. If Ford was a level 10 drunken sl** it has no bearing on whether Kavanaugh committed this crime. Nobody deserves to be assaulted, and level 10 sl**s are more likely to be attacked.
.
So … for the debate on whether it is more likely Kavanaugh is guilty or Ford is misremembering it or lying herself these background items tilt the field a little one way or the other. Interesting debate, but irrelevant on whether one is charged with a crime or gets their life ruined. I don’t like “who is the most sympathetic” being a factor in life altering decisions.
.
Imagine you are an unsympathetic man, have anger control issues, don’t deal with people well, and are driving barely over the alcohol limit on a deserted road, you pass under a green light at an intersection and t-bone a stone sober church going mother of cheerleaders who ran the red light. She dies. No witnesses. Want to wager how that one is going to turn out?
.
If I was betting I would bet Kavanaugh didn’t do this, but that is more based on my own biases than evidence, because I don’t have evidence. No corroboration, waiting 36 years, and political timing and motivation tilt it toward Kavanaugh, but plenty of crimes occur without corroboration. This seems like a drunken groping as opposed to a sexual assault as it was defined ten years ago.
.
I find who was a bigger drinker in HS to be meaningless. I drank plenty in high school, but the chances of me sexually assaulting someone were zero. Alcohol lowers inhibitions, it doesn’t turn people into raging violent lunatics unless that tendency was already there.
USA Today:
“The U.S. Senate may yet confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, but he should stay off basketball courts for now when kids are around.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/erik-brady/2018/09/28/brett-kavanaugh-right-he-can-no-longer-coach-girls-basketball/1459496002/
.
I think we are pretty close to the bottom of journalistic integrity now.
Tom, nah. It’s like a bottomless pit. It can always get worse.
Tom,
I don’t disagree with your larger point.
I don’t even disagree with this actually. However – as you say, alcohol lowers inhibitions. It also (IMO) increases the probabilities of misjudgment. It is not at all incredible to me to suppose a perfectly decent guy who would never sexually assault anybody might be more likely to misjudge the interest or lack thereof of a potential partner if sufficiently drunk. Could misjudge actions as an invitation. Sexual encounters are like that – (IMO) few young people at a party before hooking up are going to take the time to explicitly discuss and negotiate the details of an encounter. I think it kills the mood or something.
So – mistakes can happen. I don’t know where that leaves us, but I hope it doesn’t leave us in a situation where anytime a guy misjudges a situation and doesn’t explicitly negotiate the prospective encounter verbally that he is guilty of sexual assault. I think that’s a dark place for men and women to be – both.
Mark Bofill (Comment #171008) “It’s like a bottomless pit. It can always get worse.”
Sad. But true.
Mark wrote: “I don’t know where that leaves us, but I hope it doesn’t leave us in a situation where anytime a guy misjudges a situation and doesn’t explicitly negotiate the prospective encounter verbally that he is guilty of sexual assault. I think that’s a dark place for men and women to be – both.”
.
That ship sailed back in 2011.
Some branches of the BDSM community solve [attempt to mitigate] this problem with the use of safewords.
But I think it’s the youth and the alcohol that’s the root of the problem, and that there’s no good way around that. It’s like stupidity; nothing fixes stupidity, there’s no systematic way to get around that. Inexperienced people deliberately impairing their judgement. What can anyone expect other than mistakes will happen. We have laws against minors drinking and having sex already.
I think this is part of why we as a society have a notion of minors and that minors should not be judged or punished as harshly as adults.
Dave,
Why do you say 2011 specifically?
mark bofill
Misjudgement is also possible when you are sober. You don’t even have to be entirely clueless.
I mean, consider my story above, with the guy X who from my point of view, I may have only escaped because his roommate came back to get a tool he forgot.
From my point of view, I came to his floor intending to socialize with a long time friend, Mario. (Have pictures of Mario at my 5 year birthay party.) Was wearing cute tank top and shorts because it was hot and hell out (July or August), the dorms were not air conditioned. I like shorts and tank top. Mario not there. See guys I knew. Conversation starts in hall where there is no where to sit. We go into room– with roommate and guy X both present. Talk.
From my POV, I hadn’t gone out on anything I considered a date with guy X, I had gone to a large party with a car full of people — and gone because guy X invited me (and another girl.) I’d also gone to a baseball game with four guys and me — included guy X (bought my own ticket and beers.) Other similar things.
So, maybe from his point of view some of these were “dates” or … something.
So, now perhaps from his point of view, I’d come to the floor specifically to see him. (I didn’t know his roommate at all until that day.) I’m wearing cute clothes that are sort of attractive and he might think I specifically picked “bare” clothes not because it was something like 90+F out, but to be “super-mega-hot” looking. Then, I am in his room.
I don’t get up an leave the second his roommate leaves, so he things this is his chance. Then he thinks (for some mysterious reason) that getting up and freaking locking the door is a reasonable thing to do. ( LESSON FOR GUYS, getting up and suddenly locking door is SUPER SCARY!!!!! )
Episode ensues– I’m scared as shit as he’s grabbing me, pawing aggressively… I’m looking at window…
This does not last long because roommate comes back because he forgot his wrench. (Seriously, it was about the time necessary for roommate to walk down hall, go down 3 flights of stairs, open tool back, realize mistake, climb back up and arrive. )
So from my view: I decided the guy was a rapey creep. Too scary to hang out with. Never was going to be in his presence alone again. I wasn’t even going to be in groups where the number present might whittle down to 2.
From his…. well… actually, I know he was puzzled because a while later his guy X’s brother told me guy X wondered why I never had anything to do with him anymore. So I’m pretty sure guy X did not see this the same way as I did. If someone told him my story, he’d say he never assaulted me, and from his POV, that would be totally true.
Now if things had gone on longer, either things would have gone very badly for me, or he would have given up. But the fact is I have no idea. (But guys who get up and lock a door for no reason at all are scary…. scary… not going to give benefit of doubt going forward.)
Thanks Lucia. Your story illustrates what I’m saying well.
.
Regarding locking the door – I’ve locked the door before. At risk of TMI – my wife and I still do lock the door occasionally. The purpose in my view is to keep people from walking in. (Kids sometimes wake up and wander in at the darndest times…) Never occurred to me that it might be construed ominously by my partner.
Mark–
Context for locking door is different. In the case of my story, this is a guy I’d never so much as held hands with. His roommate gets up with toolbox go leave, 6′ something guys jumps up follows him and locks the door. From the POV of 5’4″ 120 lbs woman in room, he’s just locked her in and potential rescuers out.
Had the guy made a move, and I’d responded positively, locking the door afterwards would not be scary. (I wasn’t going to respond positively… but whatever. If I had then locking door would be normal.)
Lucia,
.
There’s no question that the guy (at best) made a mistake in your case, since you definitely were not up for that. That he wondered why you were never around him after that does seem to support the idea that he was just badly mistaken.
.
Some guys are creepy rapey, no doubt. Some are out and out rapists. I don’t mean to imply that guys should get a free pass. I do mean to say that there can be circumstances where there is an ambiguous region where parties without evil intentions can make mistakes. And I do also stand by the idea that kids make mistakes just by virtue of inexperience, and some mistakes are just part of the learning process.
.
We draw practical lines in a somewhat arbitrary way. I think a boy ‘putting the moves’ on a girl and getting shut down by the girl is routine enough in teenage encounters that it shouldn’t be construed the same way that rape is. I think that rape – sexual intercourse against one of the party’s will, crosses the line regardless of age. Why do I draw the lines this way? No fantastic principled reason. It seems to me to be a practical way of deciding. Maybe I am horribly wrong in this.
I think we need a new Emmy award category: Best Performance Before a Senate Committee. Anyone who thinks that either Kavanaugh’s or Ford’s testimony wasn’t scripted and rehearsed probably believes that professional wrestling, much less the rest of ‘reality’ TV, isn’t scripted either.
Maybe this isn’t the same thing, what do you guys think:
.
Nobody finds it astonishing that boys get into fist fights when they are children. Its generally not lauded as good behavior, quite the contrary- boys usually get disciplined for getting into physical fights. However, it happens. That it happens (I THINK) isn’t considered evidence that the boy is some sort of monster. It’s just part of growing up.
.
Adults – different matter. Some other adult begins punching me, that’s assault. Different standard.
.
Same thing, not the same thing? Similar in any way? Totally different? (Same as what? Oh. As a boy embracing, kissing or attempting to kiss, fondling or attempting to fondle a girl who doesn’t actually want to do that — and where the boy voluntarily stops when the girl makes her refusal unmistakable. Is this different from adult sexual assault?)
lucia (Comment #171003)
“To repeat: Heavy drinking can cause memory loss. Sexual encounters– especially while drinking– could result in confusion over who, what, where, when..”
______
lucia, if there is evidence high school teen Christine Blasely did what you are suggesting, I haven’t seen it.
“Mitchell didn’t ask about alcohol. I don’t know why. I would have wanted to know.”
lucia, maybe one reason Mithcell didn’t ask Blasley about drinking is she had no evidence teen Blasley drank much. Another reason is it’s a crime to sexually assault even drunk girls.
I think these are the same reasons Mitchell didn’t ask Beasley about her teen sex life. She had no evidence Blasley was promiscuous, and even if she did, it’s a crime to sexually assault promiscuous girls.
MikeN (Comment #171004)
So she gently asked questions and found holes in her responses. Not only could Ford not remember details from 36 years ago, she was having trouble remembering details from the last few months.
_________
What holes ?
Tom Scharf (Comment #171007)
September 29th, 2018 at 9:30 am
USA Today:
“The U.S. Senate may yet confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, but he should stay off basketball courts for now when kids are around.â€
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/erik-brady/2018/09/28/brett-kavanaugh-right-he-can-no-longer-coach-girls-basketball/1459496002/
____________
Men who coach girl teams arouse suspicion. Too bad, but that’s the way it is.
Funny. I don’t remember anybody worrying about Coach Obama.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/02/obama_talks_about_playing_basketball_coaching_his_daughters_team_at_ncaa_halftime.html
[Edit: Here is a better link:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120743/Obama-coaches-daughter-Sashas-basketball-games-Washington-school.html
President Obama’s take was,
Just what dads are supposed to do.
]
mark bofill (Comment #171019)
As a boy embracing, kissing or attempting to kiss, fondling or attempting to fondle a girl who doesn’t actually want to do that — and where the boy voluntarily stops when the girl makes her refusal unmistakable. Is this different from adult sexual assault?)
________
Depends on the law, school rules, setting, etc. I don’t know how laws and rules for the incident you describe differ by age of defendant. Seems like the offense would be less serious for a 8-year old boy than a 16-year old. The 8-year old’s behavior , however, may be a bad sign. I would be very concerned if I had a kid like that, and would not accept as an excuse “well the President did it.”
Max,
Thanks. I should have clarified, (as usual) I wasn’t talking so much about what is currently legal as much as what we think is right, or proper, or should be.
After thinking about it, I think I was wrong in my example. One reason sexual shenanigans should (quite properly) be taken more seriously in children than fist fights is that the consequences are much more far reaching. Sex can produce children. Having children has lifetime range reach in effects. Fist fights don’t. So – yes. Maybe should be viewed categorically differently.
[Edit: Now, I know in my example the boy backed off. But still – the category seems to be different to me because of the long reaching implications. If two boys almost got into a fight that would have left one of them affected for life, maybe that would have been a more similar example.]
Max, I gotta run but I’ll get back to you on this. I’m curious about your position on some related items.
Max
I didn’t say there was. You previously seem to be trying to avoid admitting that if one drinks heavily, that can lead to memory loss. You asked why such evidence would matter if it existed, and JD Ohio told you why it would matter if it existed.
Whether or not it existed is a separate question. The answer to that other question doesn’t change the answer to the previous one.
The former might be a good reason not to ask, but it would not be in context. Mitchell was supposed to be asking questions whose answers give listeners insight. Had the answer been no, we would have learned something we do not know.
The latter would absolutely not be a good reason not to ask. If the purpose was a rape trial, asking her if she was drinking would be important both
(a) to find out whether she could even give consent. (She can’t if she was drinking.) and
(b) to find out whether we believe her memory might be impaired as to who.
If there is any good reason not to ask, you have not supplied it.
mark bofill (Comment #171009)
So – mistakes can happen. I don’t know where that leaves us, but I hope it doesn’t leave us in a situation where anytime a guy misjudges a situation and doesn’t explicitly negotiate the prospective encounter verbally that he is guilty of sexual assault. I think that’s a dark place for men and women to be – both.
________
Intoxication does not make it ok to misjudge a situation. People who can’t handle their liquor shouldn’t drink. There are plenty of women who would like to have sex, but not with uncouth drunks slobbering all over them.
Mark, 2011 is when Obama wrote his mail to colleges “reminding“ them to use the lowest standards of guilt in sexual cases and discouraging cross-examination of the “victimâ€. I believe he launched the ship that day.
OK_Max
No. But there are a range of issues relative to drunkenness. Remember: Women get drunk too. When drunk,
(a) They may misread signals.
(b) They may send out misleading signals. Heck, they might even say something they don’t mean!!!
(c) They may misinterpret things that happen. (This is related to misreading signals. But in any case, some actions are ambiguous if looked at objectively. Each person brings their own knowledge — and lack of knowledge– to the situation when interpreting what happens or what is said.)
(d) They may not remember what happened.
None of a-d are suggesting the woman “deserves” to be raped or somehow “owes” the guy sex. Nevertheless, if we are trying to interpret stories, all can sort of matter.
Dave,
Thanks! Fun fact. I didn’t know it.
Max,
.
Be careful in thinking you know what women want sexually. A substantial percentage of the population fantasizes about rape or of being subject to sex against their will. This is borne out by the popularity of romance novels and books and movies like ‘Fifty Shades of Grey”.
.
This gets closer to the heart of the matter I raised earlier. I’m virtually certain that very few women, if any, want to be genuinely raped. However, I’m equally certain that what turns people on (male, female, makes no matter) has very little to do with what they rationally decide.
I should have added: I doubt any significant number of women genuinely want to be raped. But I expect a reasonable number of women don’t want to have all of the fantasy taken out of the situation by an overly cautious partner who needs to get explicit and unambiguous permission ahead of time for each detail. YET – it would seem that this is the only safe course MeToo leaves us all. And it hurts women as well as men.
.
Personally, I think the answer is to know and understand one’s partner well, but that’s really neither here nor there.
Public-School Girls
A Kavanaugh’s classmate, referring to Julie Sweatnick, implied Georgetown Prep boys had more class than to associate with a common public=school girls.
“At least one of Kavanaugh’s classmates scoffed at the notion that Swetnick would have been a regular at parties with Georgetown Prep students.â€
“Never heard of her,†said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because members of the class have agreed not to speak on the record to reporters. “I don’t remember anyone from Prep hanging out with public school girls, especially from Gaithersburg.â€
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/who-is-julie-swetnick-the-third-kavanaugh-accuser/2018/09/26/91e16ed8-c1bc-11e8-97a5-ab1e46bb3bc7_story.html?utm_term=.fdb3913202e6
Public-School Girls
A Kavanaugh classmate, referring to Julie Sweatnick, implied Georgetown Prep boys had more class than to associate with a common public school girl.
“At least one of Kavanaugh’s classmates scoffed at the notion that Sweatnick would have been a regular at parties with Georgetown Prep students.â€
“Never heard of her,†said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because members of the class have agreed not to speak on the record to reporters. “I don’t remember anyone from Prep hanging out with public school girls, especially from Gaithersburg.â€
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/who-is-julie-swetnick-the-third-kavanaugh-accuser/2018/09/26/91e16ed8-c1bc-11e8-97a5-ab1e46bb3bc7_story.html?utm_term=.fdb3913202e6
mark bofill (Comment #171031)
Max,
Be careful in thinking you know what women want sexually. A substantial percentage of the population fantasizes about rape or of being subject to sex against their will. This is borne out by the popularity of romance novels and books and movies like ‘Fifty Shades of Greyâ€.
.
This gets closer to the heart of the matter I raised earlier. I’m virtually certain that very few women, if any, want to be genuinely raped. However, I’m equally certain that what turns people on (male, female, makes no matter) has very little to do with what they rationally decide.
______
mark, you can find out what women want simply by “touch and go” or “trial and error.” If in doubt, you can always suggest or ask.
Webster’s defintion of “touch and go” explains what I mean:
“an airplane landing followed immediately by application of power and a takeoff and usually executed as one of a series for practice …”
Max,
.
Sure. But in the ‘touch and go’ scenario its not inconceivable that you’ll … land … briefly, someplace she doesn’t want you to. Mistakes can happen, pilots and lovers alike sometimes misjudge situations. Doesn’t make them evil scum rapists, that’s all I’m saying. Well, some of what I’m saying I guess.
[Edit: I think radical misunderstandings are still possible too even using this approach.]
“But guys who get up and lock a door for no reason at all are scary”
.
Why would a guy lock a door for no reason? It could be a habit, perhaps founded on a previous incident or some obnoxious crazy’s habit of barging in.
.
Nobody except real pervs have doors that prevent leaving when locked, so whatever the reason is, it is to keep others out.
Assuming of course he just closed the door; how would you know he actually locked it?
.
In ye olde days, just having a women in a guy’s room was indecent.
In the old days, having a women in the room was okay during certain hours, but not with the door closed.
In modern days, everything goes.
In the post-modern days, or is that post-metoo, if locking the doors means you are a rapist, I am afraid we will have to go back to In Loco Parentis. Or blame it on the loco parents.
.
I see Ford wanted two front doors in order to run a business from her house. Building permits, 2008.
.
I also see Ford had CIA involvement. So many things to believe! But we no longer need to establish truth, only plausibility and someone will run with it from there.
OK_Max (Comment #171035): “you can find out what women want simply by “touch and go—
.
Playing with fire there. The airplane landing metaphor is not the one you want. A touch and go is a true landing, full contact is made, not just a “touch”. But instead of then standing on the brakes, power is applied and a takeoff is done. It saves a lot of time taxiing and waiting to take off again.
lucia (Comment #171030)
“But there are a range of issues relative to drunkenness. Remember: Women get drunk too. When drunk,
(a) They may misread signals.
(b) They may send out misleading signals. Heck, they might even say something they don’t mean!!!”
______
lucia, men and women who lose control of their behavior when drinking make me uncomfortable. I feel embarrassed for them.
At parties I am particularly wary of drunk women who make suggestive remarks and/or are physically aggressive. I don’t think they know what they are doing. I politely avoid them. What I am describing rarely happens.
I’m not referring to slight intoxication that just makes people a little less inhibited and more talkative. I mean embarrassing behavior.
Uhmmm… I’m not deaf and I can hear the sound when a lock is closed.
Maybe some people are deaf and don’t realize that a lock clicking into place makes a noise. But I’m not deaf. Not even now. Not then.
I don’t know what era you think the “olde days” were. This was the very late 70s. Summer of 1978.
OK_Max
That people getting drunk makes you uncomfortable doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. When evaluating testimony or just evauluating peoples’ stories, I like to consider what could actually happen, not just those thing that might happen that also fail to make me uncomfortable. Excluding things that happen that make me uncomfortable makes it impossible to actually evaluate what might have happened in an balanced way.
In the present case, Blaisley may have been under the influence of alcohol when whatever assault (or just aggressive pass) took place. Or maybe she wasn’t and the assault (or pass) was as she recounts.
No one has established the issues surrounding alcohol. So I still can’t say. However. Blaisley-Ford’s story is consistent with a teen who went to parties and drank. That doesn’t mean she was plastered, but she may have been. No one asked. She didn’t volunteer either way.
I see that what I wrote was confusing. Since I used Lucia’s text, Lucia assumed it was about her. Not really, it was a more general question, applying to Ford especially. I should have used the pedantic ‘one’ instead of ‘you’. Or at least ‘you-all’. I wasn’t there, so I don’t know what kind of door lock it was or whether it makes a distinctive click not to be confused with other clicks a door latch makes. But if I was doing the FBI investigation, I would want to know. Little push button, little twist thing, push and turn, deadbolt, chain, …?
.
“having a women in a guy’s room was indecent” and not only that, it reflected badly on the woman. When that was depends on where that was. It sounds like Dickens era stuff, but it lingered into modern times, even post WW2. Maybe it’s still there somewhere. It’s hard to search for that history without getting unwanted hits.
.
Similarly, there were schools and colleges which were all boys. There were golf courses which were all male. There were things ladies didn’t do; there were thing ladies weren’t allowed to do. Ladies being respectable women, and gentlemen being respectable men.
.
mark bofill (Comment #171036)
Sure. But in the ‘touch and go’ scenario its not inconceivable that you’ll … land … briefly, someplace she doesn’t want you to
________
I said touch, not grab. Touch and wait for feedback.
Ledite,
I have good hearing. I think it’s not so much that i can hear more than other people, but I recognize patterns. (BTW: I find 4 leaf clovers. I wear bifocals. But they stand out from the other leaves….)
I often hear things and tell my husband, “X happened”. He knows I’ll be right and I am– he won’t have heard it. It’s not the actual volume, it’s the “type” of sound I recognize.
(I can also recognize people in dim hallways by the “way they walk”. Not making this up. I am better at this than most people. It is a nearly useless “super power” of mine.)
Anyway, things make sounds. Most deadbolts make sounds. Push in locks make sounds. It’s not loud, but in a dorm room, if there isn’t a huge party going on and music playing I can definitely hear a lock. I know when a door was locked. Not if Deaf Leopard is played loudly, but if there isn’t a huge amount of noise, yeah, I can hear a lock turn.
Perhaps.
But I wasn’t going to let “guy X” have his way with me. I was contemplating jumping out the window even though given the height, I might have hurt myself. Had I broken a leg or more, that certainly would have been a news story. I could have lived with the horror or that ‘reflecting badly” on me! (I really didn’t think of how things might reflect on me.)
Even in the era where being in the guys room was supposed to reflect badly on the woman, the guys weren’t actually expected to just rape woman. (Mind you, it might be difficult for a woman to press charges. But guys were supposed to not take advantage of these things. Which is not to say some didn’t.)
Ledite (Comment #171038)
September 29th, 2018 at 6:25 pm
OK_Max (Comment #171035): “you can find out what women want simply by “touch and goâ€â€
.
“Playing with fire there.”
____________
Never got me into trouble. Easy to discourage.
Max,
.
Touch & go, don’t grab … that’s all very well and good. If you think that somehow that’s a formula that covers all the cases and prevents [all] mistakes, well, good for you I guess.
lucia (Comment #171041)
September 29th, 2018 at 8:18 pm
OK_Max
“No one has established the issues surrounding alcohol. So I still can’t say. However. Blaisley-Ford’s story is consistent with a teen who went to parties and drank. That doesn’t mean she was plastered, but she may have been. No one asked. She didn’t volunteer either way.”
______
Hasn’t Blaisley said she drank one beer at the party?
Is it possible she could have drank more, enough to alter her behavior in a way that encouraged sexual advances? Yes, but
her resistance in the bedroom should have put a stop to advances.
Is it possible she could have drank enough to impair her ability to recognize faces? Maybe, but based on my personal experience, I doubt it.
Is it possible she could have drank enough to make her believe she was sexually assaulted when she wasn’t? Anything is possible, but that seems highly unlikely.
mark bofill (Comment #171046)
September 29th, 2018 at 10:17 pm
Max,
.
Touch & go, don’t grab … that’s all very well and good. If you think that somehow that’s a formula that covers all the cases and prevents [all] mistakes, well, good for you I guess.
______
mark, I don’t know what you mean by “[all] mistakes.” Will you give me examples?
I believe a sane and sober boy should be able to tell when his advances are not welcomed. Even a drunk boy should eventually get the message. The problem is boys who get the message but don’t care, because they are psychopaths.
Max,
.
Look, be clear on this if nothing else: I don’t disagree that boys ought to eventually get the message. I’m not a rape apologist. My problem is that I think the notion of sexual assault has been generalized out to cover cases where people make honest mistakes before things reach that point. I don’t see how saying ‘well, I didn’t grab, I touched’ or ‘I was just trying to figure out if she was OK with that’ is a defense against an accusation of sexual assault. I’d be pleased to be mistaken on this point though, so if you think I am, do explain.
.
I don’t think your idea of ‘touch and go’ is unreasonable at all, but I don’t think it’s a silver bullet either though. So sure, to elaborate:
1. Let’s start by noting that intelligence is distributed along a curve. I get different numbers depending on the search I do and the site I end up with, but for the sake of argument how about we use this. So something like 22% of the population is ‘low intelligence’, and something like a quarter of those are ‘cognitively impaired’. Still people in the game though, with all the same drives and lusts, just dumber than most.
2. Let’s look at the teen population. There’s about 40 million of those I read. Inexperienced participants. Everybody who participates is a first time participant at some point, with zero prior experience. Maybe 8-9 million of these teens are going to be low intelligence, maybe 2-3 million of those are going to be cognitively impaired.
3. Add into the mix that lust doesn’t necessarily line up with reason. Boys and girls both — and in the subset we’re looking at, inexperienced, low intelligence boys and girls are trying to reconcile their physical urges with higher order constraints; the rules, the consequences, what their parents have told them not to do, what society says, what their peer groups tell them, so on. I think that’s a lot to handle. It’s a pretty full plate for anyone, but it’s a particularly difficult burden for somebody who doesn’t have the mental equipment required for heavy lifting to begin with.
4. Now, add into the mix that it’s not unlikely that at least the girl doesn’t really know what she’s decided. Perhaps she has not decided how far she wants things to go. She may feel some degree of lust. In some cases she won’t have figured out how far she wants things to go. In some cases she may change her mind as things progress. She may change her mind either way. She may change her mind multiple times.
5. Finally – the way people feel about sex during is not always consistent with the way people feel about sex after. It’s very easy to convince oneself that, even though one was not ‘forced’, one was ‘pressured’. It’s going to happen that some people are going to regret their decisions and seek to transfer the responsibility to their partner.
.
This was all staying in the shallow end of the pool. Heterosexual plain vanilla encounters between inexperienced dumb people. Things can get a lot more complicated than this. Add in different orientations. Add in different fantasies / fetishes: Add in multiple [simultaneous] partners (because I read that’s the most widely held fantasy), and add in BDSM, because I read that’s the second most widely held fantasy), and add in same sex encounters, because I read that’s the third most widely held fantasy). Add in people with emotional problems. Add in alcohol.
.
Touch and go isn’t a bad idea. Mistakes are still going to happen. People will misunderstand the feedback their partner is giving. People will give inconsistent feedback because they haven’t made up their minds. People will change their minds. People will retroactively change their minds.
.
Mistakes will happen. Mistake does not equal sexual predator.
OK_Max,
We don’t know what she actually did.
The advances did stop and she got out of the room. She supplies a reason for them stopping as Judge jumping on the bed and jouncing things around. But two big football players could have easily grabbed a teenage girl again if they were really intent of rape. So, in fact, the let her leave.
She wouldn’t need to “mistake” a face if she hardly knew someone. All she needed was to barely know the person in the first place. They both agree they weren’t well acquainted.
If you don’t think lots of people, male and female, don’t like to be “safely” tied up occasionally then I suggest you haven’t tried it or talked to people who have. I think I will now drop this subject forever, ha ha. The US culture has a lot of hangups about sex that don’t exist in places like say, France.
.
Teenage boys aren’t well versed in how to properly initiate sexual contact to a girl. They literally have never seen how to do it in most cases. Their friends don’t do in front of them, their parents don’t do it in front of them (thankfully), their parents don’t teach them how to do (just don’t do it!), and their only guidance would be movies, TV, and porn magazines which tend to be very unrealistic. I don’t know about other people, buy my bro’s never talked about this. It’s extremely awkward and confusing the first few times, and boys in the 1980’s are pretty much expected to be the initiators. Sex education, if it existed at all back then, was limited to biology.
.
If you want people to learn how to do this to avoid bad encounters then they need to be taught how to do it. This comes into direct conflict with dysfunctional US culture.
I just want to point out that while unwanted sexual contact and alcohol are often seen together, the ratio of (# of sexaual assaults) / (# of alcohol use) is small.
.
DOJ says the rate of sexual assault is 2.1 per 1,000 in 2010. It’s about 5:1 female to male.
.
The average US citizen has 556 drinks / year (no doubt not an even distribution).
.
Not a perfect statistic, but 2.1 sexaul assaults / 556,000 drinks.
mark bofill (Comment #171049). That’s a very good analysis. Add in thirty year memories and the fact that the girl (or guy) might sing a very different tune if it ever became public. consent? rape? Even the facts may change.
.
The problem with teens is that they haven’t yet learned how to make the approach so attempts may be clumsy and awkward. The worst thing is surprise. Don’t do anything that is not expected. Learn to flirt, use eye contact, assume nothing. Be friends first.
.
Here’s a story (I don’t remember who wrote it) about American soldiers in England during the war. I don’t know how accurate it is, even as a stereotype, and I’m sure I tell it poorly.
.
American guys had a bold try and see approach; American girls were used to that and learned how to say no. English guys were too polite to ask, so English girls did not know how to say no. The problem came when the American guys met the English girls. (The guys didn’t see it as a problem). The story could be bogus.
.
For some reason, talking is not the preferred communication method. Sending signals, unintentional and misinterpreted as they can be, is dangerous. They should teach this in sex-ed. There’s more to sex than sex.
Tom, Ledite, thanks.
I’d agree that there are things our society could do to help lessen the problems / reduce the probability and so the frequency of mistakes and misunderstandings.
But more simply, just because somebody made a mistake and someone got terrified shouldn’t mean there was a sexual assault and moral turpitude involved automatically.
Most sexual encounters in teenage years progress to unwanted contact (the … ummmm …. bases). The way you get past these bases is to keep going to the plate and taking your swings and determining if the rules of engagement have changed. Maybe it works differently for the rest of the world, but that is how it seems to work in my perception of reality. The great reality distortion and confounder is not alcohol but the compassion and animal drive that is built into our DNA to go forth and procreate. We are rewarded by biology to engage in this behavior, and it is a powerful force. People want to continue because it feels good. There, I said it. Burn me at the stake.
.
It’s a lot different on a first encounter than on a repeated encounter where signaling is much clearer. Boys need to be taught to be conservative on first encounters. Even with a repeated encounter it is common for there to be scouting missions to explore new territory. People go further based on pretty complicated mutual signaling without signed contracts and words exchanged, however going “all the way” the first time does tend to be a verbal contract in my experience.
.
If society wants to change the rules of sexual engagement that is the right of society to do so. I only ask that they not do so retroactively and that they do so in a manner that is testable and falsifiable to avoid the mass confusion that currently exists.
Tom wrote: “People want to continue because it feels good. There, I said it. Burn me at the stake.”
.
It’s like the 60s and 70s never happened, and it’s not the religious right pushing puritanism mainstream. Peace and love have gone militant!
mark bofill (Comment #171049)
September 30th, 2018 at 7:06 am
Touch and go isn’t a bad idea. Mistakes are still going to happen. People will misunderstand the feedback their partner is giving. People will give inconsistent feedback because they haven’t made up their minds. People will change their minds. People will retroactively change their minds.
________
Yes, buyer’s remorse happens, but in this case I doubt most buyer want their remorse known. If a girl is remorseful because she is ashamed and/or feels diminished, she likely would keep that to herself. If she does takes the gamble of filing charges and loses, she will be even more damaged. A reputation for making questionable rape charges will discourage future suitors and employers.
btw, by “touch and go” I mean only in romantic situations (e.g. on a couch and kissing). I do not mean just touching any appealing girl to see what happens. That could get a boy slapped and or charged with assault.
lucia (Comment #171050)
September 30th, 2018 at 7:07 am
OK_Max,
We don’t know what she actually did.
The advances did stop and she got out of the room. She supplies a reason for them stopping as Judge jumping on the bed and jouncing things around. But two big football players could have easily grabbed a teenage girl again if they were really intent of rape. So, in fact, the let her leave.
She wouldn’t need to “mistake†a face if she hardly knew someone. All she needed was to barely know the person in the first place. They both agree they weren’t well acquainted.
_____
Boys intent on rape can change their minds. I imagine many attempted rapes have been aborted because of resistance or
interference.
She seems sure it was Kav and Judge. Remembering two is more convincing to me than remembering one. As mentioned previously, adding a second person is not a good idea when making a false allegation.
Max,
I don’t see what that has to do with anything we were talking about.
Ok. Still don’t see how that addresses anything I said.
Oh – I see. You are suggesting that a boy in that situation won’t be accused of sexual assault because the girl will keep it to herself.
.
Maybe. Maybe not. Which means it will happen sometimes, in my view. [Which means it will happen…]
OK_Max
Which means very little since we’ve learned nothing to let us judge whether her certainty is warranted or not.
Not to me. It would be more convincing if Judge remembered this happening. But he remembers nothing of the sort.
Nor do any of the other people who she “remembers” being at the party.
Even if this claim were true, it wouldn’t mean the story naming 2 people is less likely to be made up.
Beyond that, it’s not clear it’s a bad idea to add a person. If someone knows that X and Y were nearly always together– and everyone reports Judge and Kavanaugh were– a person naming both is likely to have created a story that matched the detail that both were at the party.
Also: Judge wrote a story. Lots of people know the two were nearly always together. So this isn’t uncommon knowledge.
lucia (Comment #171061)
Even if this claim were true, it wouldn’t mean the story naming 2 people is less likely to be made up.
______
lucia, I disagree. Adding a witness to a lie can increases the risk the lie will be exposed. I will give you an example.
If Ford were lying or just mistaken, claiming Judge witnessed Kavanaugh attacking her in the Summer of !982 increases the risk of the lie or mistake being uncovered. That’s because she has to know that both Judge and Kavanuagh were in the area at the same times and which times those were. If she doesn’t she’s taking a gamble. If unbeknown to her, Judge was away from the area for the entire summer vacation, or he was in the area only at times Kav was at the beach, her credibility is destroyed.
mark bofill (Comment #171060)
September 30th, 2018 at 4:32 pm
“Oh – I see. You are suggesting that a boy in that situation won’t be accused of sexual assault because the girl will keep it to herself.”
______
Actually, I was referring to a girl charging rape because of her remorse after consensual sex, a girl unwilling to accept responsibility for her decision. She would be putting herself at risk because the accusation might be difficult to prove, and if she lost, prospective suitors and employers might not trust her.
In the case of an actual rape, there would be less risk to the accuser because she probably would have bruises, torn clothing, and other evidence the consensual girl would not have. Still, if the accused were not found guilty, suitors and employers might be wary of her.
Aside from the risk of losing at a trial, both the remorseful consensual girl and the girl who actually was raped may be feel diminished by what happened and too embarrassed to tell about it.
All that may be so. I don’t understand why you are telling me this. Have we moved on to discussion of some other point?
OK_Max
Yes. For example, Judge might say he was never at a party like that described by Ford. That happened.
But your rule seems to be that since she risked her claim being shown false, it must be true. If that’s the rule, then the reality would be naming a 2nd party is not remotely risky because
(a) the 2nd party might have been there: looks like story sort of supported.
(b) the 2nd party was not there: OK_Max decides that the story is credible because of the risk that the party would discomfirm the story.
So: zero risk to the claim, and so it would not be a bad idea to make the claim. It would be a perfect thing to do. Since merely making the claim makes OK_Max decide the story is true no matter what.
But lets continue, assuming you don’t basically decide the mere claim that two people were present means the story is true and look at the rest:
No. She doesn’t need to know this.
In fact, it’s not even close to true. I could make up a story that says my brother Robert and David were both at a party in high school. The two are twins. They went nearly everywhere together. I don’t need to know they were in any particular area at the same time. I can guess that at nearly all parties that Robert attended, David was also there.
If Kavananaugh and Judge were best friends, one can guess that if one was there, so was the other. If you were to concoct a story in which K was present at a party, it would be stupendously odd not to put Judge in it because the event was rare.
Uhmmm… She never named the time of the party. all she needs to remember is Judge was in the area at least sometime in ‘the summer’. She might have know this based on other parties from that summer. She might have know this because she read his book.
Your theory that it was risky to name Judge being there is full of holes.
Mark Bofill (Comment #171064)
September 30th, 2018 at 6:07 pm
“All that may be so. I don’t understand why you are telling me this. Have we moved on to discussion of some other point?”
_______
Mark, I’m sorry if I misunderstood you in your Comment #171049 when you said “People will retroactively change their minds.”
I thought you were referring to a girl being so remorseful
after having consensual sex that she was in denial about it being consensual. If she convinced herself it was not consensual she might
report it to authorities (her school or the police) or she might choose to keep it to herself.
The “this” I was telling you about is why the girl might keep it to herself rather than file a report even though in her mind she was raped.
lucia (Comment #171065)
September 30th, 2018 at 6:51 pm
OK_Max
Adding a witness to a lie can increases the risk the lie will be exposed.
“Yes. For example, Judge might say he was never at a party like that described by Ford. That happened.
But your rule seems to be that since she risked her claim being shown false, it must be true.”
_______
lucia, I didn’t say because Ford risked her claim being shown false, it must be true. My point was adding witnesses to a lie can increase the risk of the lie being exposed.
As you said, adding Judge as a witness to the alleged assault is a risk because he can deny knowledge of the incident. Of course that risk is mitigated by Judge having more motivation to deny than admit he knows anything.
If Ford was lying, there also is risk in her not knowing when it was impossible for these boys and others she identified at the party to be in the same place at the same times during the summer of 1982.
I suspect a drunken Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Ford in the presence of Judge because she has been talking about it for years, they weren’t strangers to her, they were buddies, and they were heavy drinkers.
I doubt anything will come out of a one week FBI investigation that will make me suspect Kavanaugh more or suspect him less than I do now. But I could be surprised. I wouldn’t bet on the confirmation vote either way at this point.
If he is confirmed, and it hurts the GOP in the mid-term elections, well that’s the price the Party will pay for picking a Supreme Court Justice who will always be suspected of sexual assault. There must have been better choices.
Long time lurker, first time poster.
I have a hard time understanding why Judge would be “having more motivation to deny than admit he knows anything.” If Ford’s account were correct and Judge remembered the incident, he would know there were two witnesses that could put him upstairs with Ford at the party, one of which is her friend, not his. Why commit a felony?
It’s been noted before that Judge’s initial letter does not actually deny being a witness to a Ford groping. Instead he does not recall “this alleged incident” or “the party described in Dr. Ford’s letter”. The only positive claim he actually makes is that he never saw Kavanaugh act in such a fashion. The post-hearing letter says “I do not recall the events described by Dr. Ford in her testimony before the US Senate Judiciary Committee today”, but again reiterates that he never saw Kavanaugh in such a fashion.
Speaking of Judge, I know someone who is a survivor, and she was flabbergasted by Ford’s account of running into Judge at the supermarket. According to the Washington Post transcription:
‘So I chose the wrong door, because the door I chose was the one where Mark Judge was — looked like he was working there and arranging the shopping carts. And I said “Hello†to him. And his face was white and very uncomfortable saying “Hello†back.
And we had previously been friendly at the times that we saw each other over the previous two years. Albeit not very many times, we had always been friendly with one another.
I wouldn’t characterize him as not friendly. He was just nervous and not really wanting to speak with me.’
This was, by Ford’s account, six to eight weeks after the alleged assault. She said Hello? He didn’t want to speak to her? Ford lost all credibility to the woman I know when she said that.
OK Max,
“I suspect a drunken Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Ford in the presence of Judge because she has been talking about it for years, they weren’t strangers to her, they were buddies, and they were heavy drinkers.”
.
Of course you do. Not a shred of evidence nor corroboration needed. With equal confidence anyone can claim Dr. Ford was a hussy who was so blind drunk so often at parties that she can’t possibly remember the identity of her assailant nor of her many consensual partners, never mind the dates and places. It seems evidence-free speculation is the standard by which you judge people.
OK Max,
“There must have been better choices.”
.
Nonsense. Kavanaugh had been through multiple background checks, previously confirmed by the Senate for the Appeals Court, and spent 30+ years in multiple positions without a single accusation made against him. How exactly would one have known there was a better choice? (Not rhetorical.)
OK_Max
And I’m not saying you are claiming it must be true. What you are advocating is that we treat it as evidence it is true. And, moreover, you seem to be advocating that we continue to treat it as evidence the story is true even when the person named was not actually there. That is: the story has been exposed as having a substantive error.
If anyone adopts that (and you seem to have) then adding the name reduces the risk that the story will be seen as false. So it would be good strategy for the liars. Which, then, ironically mean the exact opposite of what you propose.
I in contrast advocate treating her naming someone as neutral. But if it is confirmed the person was there it makes her more believable. If that person was not there, less so. In this case the person named denies being at any such event. So I’m not going to treat her naming judge as a factor in favor of her being correct. I take it as a factor strongly against it.
This is total nonesense. In the following since your argument is an “If she lied” then she “would or wouldn’t do X”, let’s stipulate that we are talking in context of assuming she made it up.
(A) In her lie, she doesn’t know the time or location of the party. So she’s not guessing they were not together at one time on a particular day. She’s got an entire summer. The likelihood that boys who went to the same school were all away from home every single day of the summer is so low as to be nearly impossible.
(B) She knows the boys were good friends. She could guess with high probability they were at at least one party together during the entire summer.
(C)All lies are risky. So the question: how to create that is less risky. If she lied, she has to make up something, she can’t make up nothing. So, it would be wise to pick something plausible and high probability.
(D) She gave her self a huge window of time and location.
(E) She also is vague about who exactly she named in some regard
(F) She’s perfectly willing to change the story in minor regards. She changed the number of people and “admits” she’s not sure about the identity of the people other than Judge and Kavanaugh. So there is little risk if it turns out that, say “PJ” was not there. If absence from the party is low risk to the story, being in Istanbul all summer also low risk. The only thing that matters is whether he was at the party.
So if she made it up, she (a) made a high probability guess of attendees which sounds plausible, then she gave herself a huge time window which makes it nearly impossible for all four boys to not have been to at least one party at the same time during the entire freakin summer. Then, she puts few other witnesses there. In fact: her story has just about the lowest conceivable risk for a lie.
Given she cant make up nothing she concocted one that has a low probability of being shown false. Even doing so, the named parties say there were not at a party with the party list named.
So, whatever “risk” there was in the story being shown false, that happened. But despite that you are trying to use the evidence she named people as evidence in favor of being true. Because it’s a “risky” story that could be exposed.
But, I think as I’ve described it’s a less risky story than most lies and there is evidence those details are false.
On the lighter side, “old coots” dispensing advice under the banner: “It’s probably bad advice, but it’s free.”
.
And on a more serious note — but not the topic du jour — a few months ago there was discussion at this site about the Janus decision, allowing public employees not to pay dues to unions. “It will destroy unions!” was the cri de coeur.* Here’s an update from Reason magazine.
.
*I seem to be in a French mood today.
It’s worth noting that even the large frame of “Summer 1982” is a considerable narrowing from her initial claims. Drawing from Mitchell’s memo:
July 6 text to Post — “Mid 1980s”
July 30 letter to Feinstein — “early 1980s”
Aug 7 statement to polygrapher — “high school summer in early 80s” with the word “early” subsequently crossed out.
Sep 16 article in Post — “summer of 1982”, but therapist notes from 2013 revealed in article have her saying it was in her “late teens”.
Mitchell writes: “While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and a particular year.”
Max, re 171068,
Thanks. Yes. She might keep it to herself.
OK_Max,
You are kind of twisting yourself into a logic pretzel here to get where you want to go.
If somebody names witnesses that deny the event, it hurts their credibility. Full stop. There is no path to increasing credibility here. An argument can be made that it is not fatal to the accusation but it in no way enhances it.
It would be “risky” to do so if one was lying, and that risk may have been taken and it did not pay off. That is a valid scenario. Judge might have a motivation to protect his friend, but Ford’s friend does not and who knows what they talked about in private. The friends both say the same thing. That does not help her credibility.
She told nobody for decades. That reduces her credibility, or raises the bar for evidence, basically the same thing.
She decided to bring this up during a SC nomination, this reduces her credibility due to suspected political motivations.
She told a Democratic Senator about it, further evidence of political motivation.
She waited until after the hearings to “bravely” come forward and gave an interview to a left leaning newspaper (which never reported her friend’s denials), further evidence of political motivation and an iron clad case of cynical political timing.
She used well known Democratic lawyers recommended by a Democratic Senator. These lawyers were scheduled to appear at a Democratic fundraiser in CA before they wisely cancelled, further evidence of political motivation.
She has donated (small amounts) to Democratic politicians, further evidence of political motivation.
She works in academia social sciences, which is virulently anti-conservative. Further evidence of political motivation.
There is nothing beyond her words to backup her assertions. Nothing. She is politically motivated to make them, or to overstate what actually happened.
It’s not impossible that it happened, but it’s not impossible this was politically motivated from the start. It has all the hallmarks of a politically motivated smear job. We would all like to know what did or did not happen, but I’m guessing if we did you probably would be disappointed.
As far as the midterms go it would be more than worth it to get a lifetime appointment to the SC that will fight against free speech and equal protection abuses. Setting a precedent where anyone from a neighboring high school can tank somebody’s career decades later with allegations based on their word alone is not a system of justice I want to live under.
The usual suspects are already saying the FBI investigation of undefined scope is not a large enough scope and … blah … blah … blahblahblah. Snore.
Tom,
I’m watching with great interest. Of course I don’t really know, but I suspect we are going to hear some sensational new claims this week. But – the clock is ticking pretty quickly, a week isn’t much time.
.
To be clear, I don’t think we may hear sensational new claims because Kavanaugh has done anything to justify them. I think we may hear new claims because this is an opportunity (maybe one of the last) for whatever minority percentage of people who are strongly enough motivated by their political convictions to try to help derail Kavanaugh by making stuff up that can never been proven or disproven. It takes balls to lie to the FBI and it’s a tight window of time, so maybe it won’t happen. But my money is on the idea that somebody comes to the FBI with new allegations.
… ahem …
Revised NAFTA deal reached.
.
This deal includes several changes that are beneficial to the US. Increased dairy exports to Canada, higher % of car manufactured in North America for zero tariffs, at a minimum wage of $16/hr.
.
What is this? Using tariff leverage can result in better trade deals? I thought this was impossible, at least that is what I read. I’m no fan of trade wars, but the propaganda that they can never have good results is just another brick in the wall of distrusting elite expertise.
.
NYT:
“The deal represents a win for President Trump, who has derided Nafta for years and threatened to pull the United States from the pact if it was not rewritten in America’s favor. Overhauling trade deals has been one of Mr. Trump’s top priorities as president and he has used tariffs and other threats to try and force trading partners to rewrite agreements in America’s favor.”
mark bofill,
The good news (depending on which side you are on) is that the FBI investigation is apparently legally directed from the WH, and they cannot expand it beyond what the WH told them to do and cannot reach conclusions. I would also say the FBI is under immense pressure to not make this look like a partisan hit job. If I was the FBI it would be a transcript of the interviews and barely anything more, and make the interview with Ford not so merciful.
.
Thank God Comey and McCabe are no longer there. This is the guy that used to run the FBI. * Note the disgusting attack on the electorate. *
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/opinion/james-comey-fbi-kavanaugh-investigation.html
.
“We live in a world where the president routinely attacks the F.B.I. because he fears its work. He calls for his enemies to be prosecuted and his friends freed. We also live in a world where a sitting federal judge channels the president by shouting attacks at the Senate committee considering his nomination and demanding to know if a respected senator has ever passed out from drinking. We live in a world where the president is an accused serial abuser of women, who was caught on tape bragging about his ability to assault women and now likens the accusations against his nominee to the many “false†accusations against him.
Most disturbingly, we live in a world where millions of Republicans and their representatives think nearly everything in the previous paragraph is O.K.”
Dale S (Comment #171071)
She was evidently 15 in 1982. The teens run from 13-19; 15 is “early” or “mid” teens.
As an adult, it can be hard to remember specific years of far off unimportant events. But nearly always I know what year things happened up to when I graduated from college. There are so many events that define times. For example: first year in high school. Last year in high school (about to escape, Yay!!) The summer I too driver’s ed and before I got my driver’s license vs. after. After I got my first job, vs before. Years my older sister went to high school with me (fresh/soph), year my younger sister did (junior).
There are just too many events to place time to not be able to place a time. College has a bunch too.
It’s rather hard to believe a 15 year old girl would have any trouble at all remember the exact year something important happened. That it’s moved around a bit makes the story odd.
FYI: The USA Today added an editor’s note, relabeled it an opinion, and rewrote the most offending parts of their Kavanaugh is a pedophile article.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/erik-brady/2018/09/28/brett-kavanaugh-right-he-can-no-longer-coach-girls-basketball/1459496002/
.
USA Today: Fixing our Brett Kavanaugh column: Why context matters
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/09/30/fixing-our-brett-kavanaugh-column-why-context-matters-column/1483606002/
“However, the story and social media post connected to it could be construed as implying more.”
Half of the people in prison are innocent of the crimes they were convicted for. I don’t have a reference for that, but it’s plausible. One reason it’s plausible is the jury system. Imagine if OK_Max were on the jury. Nothing personal Max, most people are like you and are quite willing to jump to conclusions not based on evidence. All they need is a plausible story.
.
In this case the story of the attempted sexual assault is plausible. The percentage of women who have had a similar or related experience is something approaching 100%. So it is easy to believe that something happened to Ford. Yet it is a leap too far to believe that this proves that K did it.
.
It’s plausible that young boys drink. That doesn’t mean that all young boys drink.
.
It’s plausible to believe that the Ford accusations (and others) are smears from people who intensely dislike K and Trump and anybody to the right of Obama. It’s plausible to believe in the deep state. Is this paranoia or what the left would called a right-wing conspiracy theory?
.
Lacking facts, we used to have presumption of innocence. We used to act in good faith.
Reports are circulating on the Internet about Kavanaugh accuser Ford’s high school yearbook having been ‘disappeared’ off the net recently. Now there is a report that Google has taken down the website of the individual who reported on this mysterious disappearance. Indeed, the site has vanished.
The yearbook (if real) specifically claims that Ford engaged in binge drinking to the point of blacking out and that her schoolmates were sexually promiscuous.
This story is either an ‘evil right wing conspiracy’ or a ‘massive left wing coverup.’ I have no idea which!
One theory is that the FBI is investigating her background and will report this to the Senate. If true, it’ll be interesting. The Republicans couldn’t address her credibility directly without appearing sexist, but the FBI theoretically is not constrained by politics.
Five page memo from prosecutor who questioned Ford.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/rachel-mitchells-analysis/3221/
.
“In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A “he said, she said†case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”
Here’s the site referred to in my previous post.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3691945/posts?page=23
Political Junkie,
I saw the yearbook when it was up but only skimmed. The site I saw only posted excerpts and commented on them.
I don’t think it said Ford specifically binge drank. But I only skimmed …. and obviously I can’t check. It did suggest lots of drinking and sex was going on at her all girl Catholic school
It’s a bit of a mystery why it’s down. Perhaps there was a DMAC takedown request and the poster didn’t want to go to the trouble to assert the posting was fair use (or doesn’t know enough about copyright to explain it’s fair use.)
Lucia,
The claim about binge drinking appears to be somewhat justified because it appears as a caption to a rather unflattering photo of Dr. Ford with two classmates.
“Lastly one cannot fail to mention the climax of the junior social scene, the party. Striving to extend our educational experience beyond the confines of the classroom, we played such intellectually stimulating games as Quarters, Mexican Dice and everyone’s favorite, Pass-Out, which usually resulted from the aforementioned two.â€
Fuzzy memories of time and place are consistent with heavy drinking to the ‘brownout’ stage of alcohol intoxication as opposed to blackout, where memories are not formed at all because the hippocampus essentially shuts down. Multiple blackouts are generally considered to be a symptom of an alcohol abuse syndrome of some sort.
Lucia,
“It’s a bit of a mystery why it’s down.”
.
No mystery to me. Ford took down all web-based information about herself (Facebook, etc) prior to the public release of accusations against Kavanaugh. The cynic in me says this was orchestrated by Democratic political operatives.
Ledite,
“We used to act in good faith.”
.
Is that the royal ‘we’? I have watched decades of people acting in perfectly bad faith in Congress, and especially in the US Senate, where 6 year terms and mostly very ‘safe’ state elections insulate Senators from any need to act in good faith. The Senate is a cesspit of dishonesty.
For a woman who wanted to handle this all privately, she was extremely well prepared for this all to be done publicly. Or her lawyers could have done that while ignoring her wishes completely, since they didn’t see fit to inform her that a private hearing was an option — in fact, all their well-publicized demands prior to her testifying were all geared towards having the most public testimony possible with the worst possible optics. I’ve not worked with lawyers myself, so I have no idea how typical this behavior was. Certainly she was a trusting soul, given that she hired a law firm recommended by Senator Feinstein without inquiring about how much it would cost or who would pay for it.
Dale S,
“Certainly she was a trusting soul, given that she hired a law firm recommended by Senator Feinstein without inquiring about how much it would cost or who would pay for it.”
.
Ummm… Ford will not be paying for the lawyers; it will be either pro-bono, or directly funded by Democrats. Heck, she won’t be paying for anything. ‘Take it to the bank’ as minority leader Pilosi is fond of saying.
:> Dale, if that be sarcasm it might be a shade dry. At least until we get a measure of your commenting style.
Surely a well educated woman would not engage multiple lawyers, undergo polygraph tests and fly around the country without knowing who would pick up the tab?
SteveF, I know the lawyers are working pro bono, because they said it during the hearing. My point was that Ford herself, during the hearing, testified that she was not sure if she was supposed to pay for the polygraph and was unsure if all the lawyer work would be pro bono. She was “aware” of GoFundMe accounts but had not accessed them and was unsure how to do so.
Later she said (on the subject of whether besides GoFundMe she had any expenses):
“It’s my understanding that some of my team is working on a pro bono basis, but I don’t know the exact details. And there are members of the community in Palo Alto that have the means to contribute to help me with the security detail, et cetera.”
Now like you I am sure that she won’t be paying anything out of pocket — the GoFundMe benefactors should put her safely in the black even if the lawyers weren’t working for free. But when she contracted with Katz (somewhere between July 30th and August 7th) and when she took the polygraph (August 7th according to Mitchell’s timeline) there *was* no GoFundMe account. If her stated desire to handle this all confidentially had been met, there would be no GoFundMe at all. Yet there would still be a polygraph to pay for and high powered lawyers collecting lots of billable hours. And as late as the actual hearing, *she* didn’t know if she was going to pay for them or not. I guess when she was “interviewing” lawyers, the question of price just never came up.
It’s almost like her lawyers aren’t actually working for her.
I am impressed that she was internet savvy enough to scrub her online presence entirely, yet so unschooled with google that she had to contact Eshoo because “I had a sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the president as soon as possible, before a nominee was selected. I did not know how, specifically, to do this.”
SteveF (Comment #171072)
October 1st, 2018 at 6:31 am
OK Max,
“I suspect a drunken Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Ford in the presence of Judge because she has been talking about it for years, they weren’t strangers to her, they were buddies, and they were heavy drinkers.â€
Of course you do. Not a shred of evidence nor corroboration needed.
_________
This isn’t a trial in a court of law. It’s the court of public opinion. You have your opinion (he didn’t do it), I have mine (he did do it).
Dale S (Comment #171071)
“The post-hearing letter says “I do not recall the events described by Dr. Ford in her testimony before the US Senate Judiciary Committee todayâ€, but again reiterates that he never saw Kavanaugh in such a fashion.”
___
Dale, if he doesn’t recall the event he wouldn’t recall how Kav may have acted during the event. Obviously, this rules out “never saw.”
To be consistent he should have said “can’t recall seeing, not “never saw.”
____________________________
I wouldn’t characterize him as not friendly. He was just nervous and not really wanting to speak with me.’
This was, by Ford’s account, six to eight weeks after the alleged assault. She said Hello? He didn’t want to speak to her? Ford lost all credibility to the woman I know when she said that.
_____
Given Ford didn’t say Judge attacked her, but interrupted Kav’s attack, why does your woman friend think Ford should not have
acknowledged knowing Judge when running into him weeks later
at a Safeway?
SteveF (Comment #171073)
How exactly would one have known there was a better choice? (Not rhetorical.)
_________
Maybe not then, but you know now.
Max,
.
1. What convinced you that Ford’s story is true?
2. Do you believe Kavanaugh and Judge are lying, or that they are mistaken, or something entirely different?
OK Max,
Any conservative who was not a woman would have been subjected to some similar slime job. It has nothing to do with Kavanaugh having suitable education, experience, or general qualification, and has nothing to do with his judicial record (which is substantial, with many of his cases reviewed by the Supreme Court). It is 100% about keeping him off the Supreme Court…. by any means available.
.
The whole “he is an attempted rapist” excuse is just dishonest. If Senate Democrats object to Kavanaugh because they disagree with his politics, that is fine. The issue is the blatant character assassination designed to keep him off the Court.
lucia (Comment #171075)
October 1st, 2018 at 7:09 am
OK_Max
“(C)All lies are risky. So the question: how to create that is less risky. If she lied, she has to make up something, she can’t make up nothing. So, it would be wise to pick something plausible and high probability.”
Well, at least we can agree that all lies are risky. I think It would be wise to pick something that’s impossible to refute, rather than just plausible or highly probable.
You said “But, I think as I’ve described it’s a less risky story than most lies and there is evidence those details are false.”
lucia, sorry if I’m not following you, but what is the evidence?
OK_Max,
.
Remember this from the hearing?
.
LEAHY: Well, then, let’s go back to the incident.
.
What is the strongest memory you have, the strongest memory of the incident, something that you cannot forget? Take whatever time you need.
.
FORD: Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the laugh — the uproarious laughter between the two, and their having fun at my expense.
.
LEAHY: You’ve never forgotten that laughter. You’ve never forgotten them laughing at you.
.
FORD: They were laughing with each other.
.
LEAHY: And you were the object of the laughter?
.
FORD: I was, you know, underneath one of them while the two laughed, two friend — two friends having a really good time with one another.
.
and elsewhere:
.
FORD: Both Brett and Mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. They seemed to be having a very good time.
.
Mark seemed ambivalent, at times urging Brett on and at times telling him to stop. A couple of times, I made eye contact with Mark and thought he might try to help me, but he did not.
.
In her testimony she assigns joint guilt to being pushed in the bedroom, the door being locked, and the music being turned up to drown out her screams. In her initial tip to the Washington Post (July 6th) she identifies “Brett Kavanaugh with Mark Judge” as attackers.
.
Her testimony was very emotional on this point. If it was sincere and not just acting, there is no possible way that she sees Judge as her savior for accidentally interrupting the attack, not a lowlife enabling his friend’s attempted assault while laughing at her during her deepest distress. And yet *she* said “Hello” while *he* acted abashed. Given your interpretation, why should he feel guilty?
.
Judge’s statement that he “never saw” Kavanaugh behave in such a manner requires only that he remember the time he spent *with* Kavanaugh. It does not require that he remember what happened at parties at which Kavanaugh was not present. (It also doesn’t exclude guilty knowledge of something happening to Ford at a party that was *not* as described by Ford, but I’m not going to follow Whelan’s detective work on this point.)
mark bofill (Comment #171110)
October 1st, 2018 at 5:02 pm
Max,
.
1. What convinced you that Ford’s story is true?
2. Do you believe Kavanaugh and Judge are lying, or that they are mistaken, or something entirely different?
______
1. Mostly because she started talking about it years ago.
2. I don’t know whether they are lying or were to drunk to remember.
Thanks Max.
I will go out on a limb and make a prediction: no Supreme Court nominee will be confirmed in the next 25 years if the Senate and White House are controlled by different parties. The Kavanaugh process has made that impossible. The Supreme Court may cease to be relevant if it is politically impossible to replace justices who die in office….. and I think this is a very real possibility. Come to think of it, having the Federal Courts become politically irrelevant would probably be a good thing for the country. They have been far too politically relevant for many more decades than they should have been.
SteveF (Comment #171111)
October 1st, 2018 at 5:05 pm
OK Max,
“Any conservative who was not a woman would have been subjected to some similar slime job.”
________
I don’t recall that happening to the one before Kav.
OK Max,
“I don’t recall that happening to the one before Kav.”
.
Either your memory is failing you or you are not old enough to have seen the Anita Hill accusations against Clarence Thomas, who was, like Kavanaugh, replacing a more liberal justice. Similar circus (somewhat lower key, for sure), but the objective was identical: keep ANY conservative off the Court, by any means available. Looking back on it, the shocking thing (really SHOCKING!) is that Clarence Thomas has not been regularly accused of harassing his female law clerks, nor been arrested for a sex crime. Really, it was so obvious to the left at his confirmation hearing what a scoundrel he was, it is hard to comprehend how he managed to reform himself once seated on the Court. If also seated, I suspect this shocking reformation will be repeated by Kavanaugh.
Personally I can’t ever remember blacking out, ha ha.
An obstinate Senate might result in a re-evaluation of the advice and consent clause. The President will simply appoint the nominee and it’s over.
.
Curiously here is the WP arguing that a Senate up/down vote is not really necessary, of course that was at a time when this argument was more convenient for their tribe.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/17/the-constitution-does-not-require-the-senate-to-give-judicial-nominees-an-up-or-down-vote
Tom Scharf,
“An obstinate Senate might result in a re-evaluation of the advice and consent clause. The President will simply appoint the nominee and it’s over.”
.
No, not possible. Advice and consent is part of the Constitution. Of course, if it were a leftist nominee, and a leftist Supreme Court , they would almost certainly find a new ‘interpretation’ of the constitution which would avoid the need for “advice and consent”.
OK_Max
It’s generally impossible to pick something impossible to refute. Doing the impossible may be wiser than doing the possible. But generally the wisest (if you can call it that) possible option is creating a lie that is (a) plausible and (b) difficult to refute because the details are too vague to refute. Ford did that.
Her story may be true, or it may be a lie. But as lies it strikes me as the craftiest possible lie. Not the opposite which you suggest.
The people she named as being at the party say they were never at a party that matches the description she gaves. Surely you’ve heard this several times now. Perhaps you keep forgetting it.
It’s either that or you don’t know the definition of evidence. (Note that evidence can be conclusive or inconclusive. But even inconclusive evidence is still evidence. And this evidence points in a particular direction: that is that her story is inaccurate at best.)
In anycase, Ford contracticted her own story several times. Also, the people she says was there say they never attended that sort of party. So it’s come pretty close to refutatoin.
SteveF (Comment #171124)
October 1st, 2018 at 5:48 pm
I was referring to Gorsuch.
SteveF (Comment #171101): “Ledite, “We used to act in good faith.†Is that the royal ‘we’?”
.
Touché.
.
“Someone must have been telling lies about Josef K., he knew he had done nothing wrong but, one morning, he was arrested.”
The Trial, Kafka
Dale S (Comment #171113)
And yet *she* said “Hello†while *he* acted abashed. Given your interpretation, why should he feel guilty?
____________
Perhaps because he knows something she doesn’t. He knows what he was thinking during the incident. She didn’t know what was in his mind at that time.
lucia (Comment #171128)
lucia, you said “there is evidence those details are false.â€
That evidence being people she said were at the party said they were not at the party. Didn’t any say they didn’t remember? Might any change to saying they didn’t remember if questioned by the FBI?
OK_Max,
I haven’t been enforcing my rhetorical question rule. But perhaps you can provide answer to your questions. That way I’ll have a clue what you think the answers to your questions might be or what point you think you are trying to make with those questions.
The people didn’t say they weren’t at the party. That would imply they said the party occurred. None said that. Depending on which they either (a) don’t remember being at any party that meets the description she gave or (b) were never at any such party.
The Keyser girl Ford placed at the party says she never went to any party where Kavanaugh was present.
But however the evidence the provided might change if questioned by the FBI, it still is the evidence we currently have. So: like it or not, the actual evidence we have disconfirms Ford’s story.
As we know, Ford’s version of the story has both (a) evolved and (b) changed. It’s quite likely it would change again when told to the FBI as it seems to change each time she is questioned or each time she writes up a letter describing it.
lucia, I wasn’t aware of your rhetorical question rule, but I think I can understand the reason behind it, and agree it’s a good rule.
My questions were rhetorical in that I knew the answers or thought I had run across them, but things changed so I checked the statements available online from the three. All were some form of “I don’t remember or I have no knowledge.â€
While Keyser said she doesn’t know Kavanaugh, her attorney also said “However, the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question,”
Keyser also believes Ford is telling the truth about Kavanaugh. Apparently, she believes she does not need to know him to believe her.
I disagree with you that the evidence we have disconfirms Ford’s story. I think it neither confirms or disconfirms it.
OK_Max (Comment #171311)
.
Assuming she was not committing perjury, we know what was going through her mind when Judge was allegedly laughing at her. Again, why would she say “Hello?” Why would she think it noteworthy that he appeared uncomfortable when she’s testified that he was a contributor to her Most Traumatic Experience Ever?
.
Of course, what Ford thinks about how others react is not always intuitive to me. Take the curious case of her friend. There are two girls at a party with (as of the last account) four guys. Leland doesn’t know Brett, and the other guys are his friends, not Chrissy’s friends. Two of the guys are “extremely inebriated” while the others are not, and it wasn’t really a “party”, the four sober kids and the two drunk kids just talking in the living room without any television, radio, or any external things going on besides some music coming from a bedroom upstairs. Chrissy leaves to go upstairs, both drunk boys immediately follow her (she testified she was pushed in the back at the top of the stars), and very shortly afterwards the music is turned *way* up. Shortly afterwards the two drunk guys turn down the music, go downstairs hitting the walls, and engage the three in the living room in conversation from the stairs. And Chrissy *never returns* to the living room. At some point she leaves the bathroom, runs out of the house, and goes home by means unknown. So Leland in the living room either sees her friend run out of the house or never return at all, leaving her the only girl in the presence of four boys, two of which are extremely drunk.
.
Leland doesn’t remember this gathering, but Dr. Ford isn’t surprised that she and PJ don’t remember the evening at all since “It was a very unremarkable party. It was not one of their more notorious parties, because nothing remarkable happened to them that evening. They were downstairs.” Having her friend go upstairs and disappear for the evening isn’t remarkable? What the heck happened at the more notorious parties that would make one of the only two girls there disappearing “very unremarkable”? *Half* the party leaves to go upstairs at the same time, the girl never comes back, and that’s very unremarkable?
.
I’m also confused by the discontinuity between her stated objectives and her actions in coming forward. She states of her July 30th letter:
—
The letter included my name, but also a request that it be kept confidential. My hope was that providing the information confidentially would be sufficient to allow the Senate to consider Mr. Kavanaugh’s serious misconduct without having to make myself, my family or anyone’s family vulnerable to the personal attacks and invasions of privacy that we have faced since my name became public.
.
In a letter dated August 31st, Senator Feinstein wrote that she would not share the letter without my explicit consent, and I appreciated this commitment. Sexual assault victims should be able to decide for themselves when and whether their private experience is made public.
—
In fact, since Senator Feinstein was the ranking minority member, it would have been *easy* for her to allow the Senate committee to “consider the serious misconduct” without making it public. And over a month elapsed between the delivery of the letter and Feinstein’s promise, a month in which Ford hired a firm recommended by Feinstein and had a polygraph test done and in which Feinstein both had personal interviews with Kavanaugh and had her staff in a confidential background information call. Why is she taking advice from Senator Feinstein to lawyer up if Feinstein has no plan to use the information she wants her to (confidentially) use? But to no avail:
—
As the hearing date got closer, I struggled with a terrible choice: Do I share the facts with the Senate and put myself and my family in the public spotlight, or do I preserve our privacy and allow the Senate to make its decision without knowing the full truth of his past behaviors?
—
She has *already* shared the “facts” with the ranking minority member in the Senate committee. There is no actual requirement to “put myself and my family in the public spotlight”, all she needs to do is authorize Feinstein to share the allegation *confidentially* with the committee. But according to her, she opts for preserving privacy:
—
During August 2018, the press reported that Mr. Kavanaugh’s confirmation was virtually certain. Persons painted him as a champion of women’s rights and empowerment. And I believed that if I came forward, my single voice would be drowned out by a chorus of powerful supporters.
.
By the time of the confirmation hearings, I had resigned myself to remaining quiet and letting the committee and the Senate make their decision without knowing what Mr. Kavanaugh had done to me.
—-
During August, Feinstein *hadn’t* promised yet to keep her letter confidential, and was a member of the committee. She was in a perfect position to let the Senate know “what Mr. Kavanaugh had done to [Ford]” without exposing her to the public — or giving a “chorus of powerful supporters” a chance to comment at all.
.
She seems concerned that “Persons painted him as a champion of women’s rights and empowerment.” This seems odd to me. Yes, Kavanaugh was very proud of his record in mentoring and promoting female law clerks, but large segments of the population were and still are painting him as the mortal *enemy* of “women’s rights”, a.k.a. abortion. Did she truly not realize her single voice, *if public*, would be lauded by a chorus of powerful supporters treating it as manna from heaven?
—
Once the press started reporting on the existence of the letter I had sent to Senator Feinstein, I faced mounting pressure. Reporters appeared at my home and at my workplace, demanding information about the letter in the presence of my graduate students. They called my bosses and co-workers, and left me many messages, making it clear that my name would inevitably be released to the media.
.
I decided to speak out publicly to a journalist who had originally responded to the tip I had sent to the Washington Post and who had gained my trust. It was important for me to describe the details of the assault in my own words.
—-
Timeline here — the first leak is September 12th in the intercept and does not name her. September 13th Feinstein sends the letter to the FBI — but does not share it with the committee. September 14th her account is in the New Yorker, but not her name. September 16th her account is in the Post, with her name. Remember, her motivation was to notify the *committee* of Kavanaugh’s youthful misdeeds but avoid publicity. Instead we find her besieged by reporters immediately after the leak, and her responding by *going public*. But what about letting the committee know what sort of man was being considered? She’s the only potential witness at the party who declined to “speak to the investigators under criminal penalty”. The actions seem to be exactly the opposite of the claimed motivation.
.
I can’t help be struck by the fact that this particular’s allegation holds such force only *because* Kavanaugh denies it so strongly and so publicly. In a hypothetical world where Kavanaugh admits groping but challenges some of the details, converting it into an actual he said/she said situation, it’s unlikely to have legs especially if it had been handled privately, as Dr. Ford claims to have desired. Given his exemplary record with regards to treatment of women during his professional career, I’m not sure drunken groping as a minor would flip votes, or even should. Instead Kavanaugh has resorted to much more easily falsifiable claims — there was no such party, he was never alone in a room with Judge and Ford, he never blacked out from drinking. This is beyond reckless as a defense if he knows the allegations to be true.
.
I can’t help but wonder if in the case of a weaponized sexual allegation at the last second if a false allegation might not be more useful to his enemies than a true one.
I take back my comment about how we used to be. It wasn’t that simple.
Candace Owens on Facebook:
And the literary reference to go along with it is
To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee
OK_Max,
So when you wrote this before your rhetorical question, you made an incorrect statement.
People did not say they were not at the party. Had they said that, it would suggest the party happened. That’s not what they said.
Which is what you would expect if the incident did not happen.
The evidence from the four named people supports the theory that the party didn’t happen. That tends to disconfirm the story. It doesn’t prove it wrong. But I’m amazed you won’t admit it disconfirms it.
DaleS
In fact, if we use what appears to be OK_Max’s rule, we should credit it as probably true. After all: If he was at the party, any one of other four named participants could have said he was there and his statement would be proven a lie. This is a much bigger risk of exposure than Ford’s naming some kids who always hung around together as having been at a party during some huge span of time in the summer.
In fact: none of these people have placed Kavanaugh at “the party”. In fact, none are remember every being at any party that fit the description Ford gave.
Yet, despite Kavanaugh statement having a much greater risk of being proven false than Ford, somehow, OK_Max only applies his “rule” for thinking something is too risky a lie to tell to Ford’s much vaguer more difficult to prove false story.
I’m trying to decide what statement from a Democratic Senator in the hearing is most ironic:
.
BOOKER: “…There are dark elements that allow unconscionable levels of — unacceptable levels of sexual assault and harassment that are effecting girls and boys.”
.
BLUMENTHAL: “False in one thing, false in everything.”
.
FEINSTEIN: “Oh, I don’t believe my staff would leak it. I have not asked that question directly, but I do not believe they would.”
Here is an interesting tidbit: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/10/02/records_raise_questions_about_fords_double-door_story__138225.html
.
Seems Dr Ford’s desire for a second front door also may have generated rental income from a stand-alone appartment behind that second front door (along with two added rooms), in a place where zoning does not allow it. Funny how these things turn out. The FBI may want to ask about this, and about any undeclared rental income. The most interesting thing is that the person who sold the house to Dr Ford and her husband in 2007 was a “couples therapist” who apparently moved to Oregon in 2008. Was this the therapist who met with the Fords in 2012? The therapist refused to answer when asked. Was Dr Ford’s claim of claustrophobia (documented by a therapist?) used to secure a building permit for a second front door on a single family house? If so, that would have been in 2008, not 2012. An Oregon based therapist seems odd for a couple living in Palo Alto. Maybe it was a different couples therapist. Or maybe Ford has the year of the therapy sessions completely wrong. Impossible to say. Perhaps the FBI needs to verify the therapist and the dates. It might be wise for the FBI to talk to the Oregon therapist who sold the house.
.
My guess: all involved will refuse to talk with the FBI.
DaleS,
“False in one thing, false in everything.”
.
This only applies to conservatives.
Something may or may not have happened to Ford, and it may or may not have been Kavanaugh, but one thing I am not going to believe is this innocent BS of how the timeline came about. That is not credible. It is about 100% certain Feinstein shared this with her colleagues and they planned an ambush. It’s possible they used Ford and just gave her a full court press (including her “free” lawyers) when the time came for the ambush, or Ford was complicit all along. The timing of the ambush was neither innocent or random.
.
The existence of an ambush doesn’t preclude that the information is true, but I didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday and this was dirty slimy politics.
Tom Scharf,
The story sounds plausible– that is, like something that could happen. Of course this doesn’t mean it did. But I would suspect something similar to this happened to Ford. Something “similar” happens to all girls — especially as viewed from the POV of the young girl — see my story above. (This is not to say that’s ok– just to say the story sounds like something that would happen– and so plausible.)
That said, given her profession, Ford would have the skills (psychology prof.) to make up a plausible sounding story that matches the way people actually behave. Given Judge’s biography, she could potentially have materials to create elements supposedly based on memory that actually are supported by his book. (E.G. he and Kav are fast friends.) Given year books and acquaintances more plausible elements could be inserted.
That doesn’t mean she created the story either on purpose nor accidentally. She seems to believe her story– but that doesn’t exclude the possibility of building up false memories which she then believes.
Or, the story could be true. We can’t tell.
It’s totally uncorroborated. The people who are placed at the scene say they have no memory of any such party. That tends to suggest the tale is inaccurate. Whether that means it’s a lie, a false memory or the others somehow forgot it entirely we can’t know.
“HUGE: Blasey Ford Co-Authored Paper on “Creating Artificial Situations†Via Hypnosis Used To Retrieve Memories”
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/huge-blasey-ford-co-authored-paper-on-creating-artificial-situations-via-hypnosis-used-to-retrieve-memories/
.
Bob Dylan wrote “But to live outside the law, you must be honest” and I can see his point (politicians, not so much). That was before. Now, even being squeaky clean doesn’t help.
.
Things may not have been good before, but I still think they are getting worse.
.
“There’s also a fine line between cynicism and realism.”
http://dilbert.com/strip/2018-09-29
After approximately 36 years it’s no surprise if memory were to fail, fracture, or substitute. It’s less understandable how details of Ford’s story could change in between her July 31st letter and her August 7th polygraph statement. She testified that in regard to the number of witnesses and the identity of the pusher the polygraph, not the letter, was correct. But while the polygraph statement was handwritten and apparently produced on short notice, ten days elapsed between Eshoo recommending Ford write a letter and the date of the letter. Given the gravity of the charge, its inexcusable for her to inaccurately represent her memories in that letter, especially with so very few tangible details to go on. Or did her memories change in that seven day interval?
.
The polygraph statement is interesting in itself, and not just because the word “early” was crossed out before 80s. In the handwritten statement, she identifies “Brett” and “Mark” as the attackers. I would think if you were going to make a big deal out of passing a two question “lie detector” test that referred *only* to the statement, you’d want that statement to actually name the man you were accusing.
DaleS, I’d have to check the transcript, but I think Ford during her hearing identified a second ‘worst part of the incident that is seared in my mind’ not just the laughter. Another contradiction. I’ll see if I can find it.
I am amazed at how much energy is being devoted here to reading tea leaves. But maybe I am mischaracterizing the discussion since I have mostly just skimmed.
.
I have no interest in whether Ford is telling the truth. If she is, she barely knew her attacker and barely knew Kavanaugh, so I see no reason to believe that her decades-after-the-fact recollection is reliable. There is no corroboration, so we will never really know. And I am not sure it is even relevant if it is true. Maybe it is true, maybe Ford is honestly mistaken, maybe she knows it to be false. I don’t see a reason to care.
.
What I do know is that the Democrats are using this shamelessly in a manner that is antithetical to good government. And I know that a person’s good name is being trashed by unverifiable accusations. That is enough for me to feel invested in Kavanaugh getting confirmed and the Democrats getting punished at the polls in November.
Max, the yearbook has been disappeared from Blogspot. Text is still available I think. I remember there being a picture with Ford, and the caption spoke of Leland’s(her friend) wild parties. It also mentioned the best parties were when you can’t remember what happened.
As for Swetnick being too low class for the prep school, Kavanaugh said the opposite, that his group socialized with the area high schools and not Holton. I don’t really see how Gaithersburg students would be socializing with them though.
SteveF, it wasn’t Ford’s social media that got deleted. The school’s yearbooks that were published were taken offline. Someone who downloaded it beforehand blogged about it, and blogspot deleted his blog.
Ford testified that because of Brett Kavanaugh, she needed a second door for her house as an escape route, and dispute over this was the reason for the couples therapy.
Paul Sperry tracked it down. They had a permit for the door years earlier.
They bought the house from a marriage counselor who was working from her home, and installed the second door so they could rent to the marriage counselor to continue her business there.
I’m thinking this FBI investigation is not going to go well for Ford.
Ed Whelan’s post may have prevented Ford’s charges being disproven as he predicted. He went thru what she wrote in her letter, and came up with a theory about a lookalike. With this post, Ford realized problems with her story and ended up changing it when testifying to Congress. The prosecutor came with maps of the area to pinpoint that none of the people she named live near the country club, but now her story changed from the party being nearby. Also the house floorplan has changed slightly, when Whelan made her realize that none of them might have a matching house. Also the number of attendees has increased.
MikeN,
“They had a permit for the door years earlier.
They bought the house from a marriage counselor who was working from her home, and installed the second door so they could rent to the marriage counselor to continue her business there.”
.
The building permit was issued in 2008, and the construction began shortly after (building permits usually expire in a specified time). The counselor sold the house to them in mid 2007, and is claimed to have moved to Oregon by 2008. It is certainly possible that they intended (or did!) rent the stand-alone apartment in violation of local zoning ordinances, but rental to someone living in Oregon seems unlikely. Can you provide a link to information supporting what your wrote?
MikeN,
From the Washinton Post, September 18:
“Meanwhile, Ford has erased any social media presence from the Internet. A spokeswoman for Palo Alto University confirmed she is still employed there, though her name and contact information no longer appear on the school’s website.”
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/10/02/building_documents_undermine_fords_exit_door_account.html
The doctor maintained the address for some time afterwards. It could just be a database not being updated, though the doctor did not volunteer that to Sperry.
It could also be trying to avoid Oregon’s higher state income tax.
Tom Scharf,
But the results aren’t particularly good or different from NAFTA. From a newsletter from a respected source (even copying this much probably technically violates the terms of use).
Now we’ll get a focus on China. Like Trump’s wall on the Mexican border, I don’t think we’ll get much if anything. By pulling out of the TPP, we lost a lot of potential allies and leverage.
> on terms not that different from the old Nafta.
If it’s not that different then how come Trudeau’s main highlight is that he got to maintain the dispute resolution process? If your goal was free trade, the new deal will not be that different from the old NAFTA because tariffs were low to begin with. Now the milk industry is opened up, and the rules on car parts being made in North America to count as no-tariff is beefed up a little. This closes a loophole of countries getting around US tariffs by using Canada or Mexico as an intermediary.
The FBI report won’t be public, but will be released to all the Senators. What an oxymoron.
.
The 3rd accuser went on MSNBC and … well … it didn’t go particularly well. Kavanaugh spiking girl’s drinks: I saw him handing red cups to girls. Lines of boys in the hall for a gang rape: Boys huddled around a door laughing, in hindsight it logically must have been a line for a gang rape. Zero corroboration.
.
There is no surprise here, but the point is how low the media will go. MSNBC said they couldn’t confirm any of her story, but what the he**, let’s run it on national TV anyway. The people need to know the facts!
Year book still available
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3691945/posts?page=23
MikeN,
The milk industry isn’t “opened up”. The changes are minor and will have little effect. The dispute resolution issue, which was a major goal of renegotiation, was a complete victory for Canada. The car export quotas for Canada and Mexico are much higher than current exports. Drug company patent expiration was little different from what Canada was willing to accept under the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The list goes on.
Tom Scharf,
“MSNBC said they couldn’t confirm any of her story, but what the he**, let’s run it on national TV anyway. ”
.
They neither want nor need confirmation….they are broadcasting to their very left viewership. Sort of like Hillary’s pizza shop child sex abuse claims, but now for the left. It doesn’t matter how credible (or incredible!) the claims are, some people will believe anything, no matter how implausible, so long as it reaffirms their political preconceptions.
DeWitt,
“The changes are minor and will have little effect.”
.
Well, good to know that border town cheese sales in the USA won’t suffer too much. 😉
.
I think it is a mixed bag. The USA got some of what Trump wanted, certainly not all. Canadian dairy protection remains obscene and contrary to the interests of Canadian consumers, but is some what reduced. But more important, the agreement has to be reviewed and, if needed, re-negotiated after 6 years. That is a significant change.
lucia (Comment #171138)
“The evidence from the four named people supports the theory that the party didn’t happen. That tends to disconfirm the story. It doesn’t prove it wrong. But I’m amazed you won’t admit it disconfirms it.”
________
I don’t believe “tends to disconfirm the story” does disconfirm the story. I’m not even convinced about the “tends.”
There isn’t a solid four, as two (Kavanaugh and Judge) have motivation to deny the story. Unlike Ford,the two who don’t recall have no reason to recall. Saying you don’t recall something isn’t the same as denying it occurred.
Websters online definition of disconfirm:Â “to deny or refute the validity of”
Some news sources used the wording “denied recalling the party,”
which could be misinterpreted to mean denied the party happened.
OK_Max
Wow.
Yes. Which is what that evidence does.
It could be misinterpreted that they have been accused of recalling a party that happened. No one has accused them of recalling it. They’ve been asked if about it and said they don’t remember any party like the one described. Since four out of four don’t, that tends to refute the claim it ever happened. So yes: it tends to disconfirm it. In fact, he word “tend” isn’t required.
These people made statements under possibility of perjury. And they take a greater risk than Ford, because all that would be required to show they perjured themselves is an instamatic photo by someone who attended. Cameras were already widespread back then– they filled things like yearbooks.
With the woman, a photo showing her with Kavanaugh would be enough.
One would think using your rule about risk in creating a lie that if they had wanted to lie, they would pick a less risky one.
OK_Max (Comment #171166)
.
Judge and Kavanaugh would have a motivation to deny the *assault*, though in both cases it would expose them to felony charges over an offense that holds no criminal liability. But they have a strong motivation NOT to deny the party *if they remember it*. Any one of the supposed other guests remembering the party would expose them to legal jeopardy — and one of the guests is *her* friend, not theirs.
.
As I wrote above, I have difficulty believing that the party was so unremarkable that the others have “no reason to recall”. If I went to a party with four guys and two girls, two of the guys were stinking drunk, the two drunk guys and one of the girls went upstairs at the same time, the music suddenly drastically increased in volume (loud enough apparently to drown out screams and a later slamming door), a short time later the music was turned down to normal levels and the two drunk guys returned laughing and hitting the walls while the girl did *not* return — so far this seems reasonable unusual to me, at least enough to trigger the “hey, something is going on” reaction. Then the kicker — either the girl *never* returns, or I observe her *running* out of the house. No reason to recall? Seriously?
.
Now take all the above and add one element — I am the *other girl*, and she is my best friend, perhaps my only friend, at the party. Is it seriously credible that this chain of events would make no impression on me, and in fact that it is so unremarkable that I have “no reason to recall” because from my point of view “nothing happened”? In fact, I can say under felony charges that I can’t remember *ever* being at *any* party with one of the drunk guys?
.
You may not see this as “disconfirming”, but it’s absolutely, positively evidence and it is evidence against Ford’s account. Like the dog that failed to bark in the night, there are things that should have happened that didn’t happen. And to create a perjury claim on Kavanaugh, it relies on him adopting the most reckless possible approach *before* knowing what evidence Ford holds. This isn’t he said/she said. Kavanaugh makes falsifiable claims. Ford does not.
.
There is, according to Ford (at least as of the hearing, since this individual failed to be referenced in the letter), one additional witness to the existence of the party, and presumably it is the one who lives at the house where the party occurred (since her description, vague as it is, does not fit the other alleged attendee’s homes). I don’t find it plausible that the host of the party would have hosted so many parties in Summer 1982 that he would have no reason to recall this particular one, yet no one has so far been able to identify the house in question (with the exception of the ill-fated Whelan).
OK_Max,
Is this what you want hear?
“I am 100% certain that the vaguely described party during a time period of several years at an unknown house in the local region with a group of people of varying descriptions NEVER OCCURRED, and I’m willing to bet being charged with perjury on it.”
.
Would that be close to what would be illuminating, or would people possibly then turn around and question how a person can be certain they can prove a negative. What (non) witness statement would be convincing?
MikeN (Comment #171147)
I can’t find another Worst Thing Ever from the actual assault, but Dr. Ford was quite emotional about the Worst Thing Now. I think it’s worth revisiting that part of the testimony.
—
At the same time, my greatest fears have been realized and the reality has been far worse than what I expected. My family and I have been the target of constant harassment and death threats, and I have been called the most vile and hateful names imaginable. These messages, while far fewer than the expressions of support, have been terrifying and have rocked me to my core.
People have posted my personal information and that of my parents online on the Internet. This has resulted in additional e-mails, calls and threats.
My family and I were forced to move out of our home. Since September 16th, my family and I have been visiting in various secure locales, at times separated and at times together, with the help of security guards.
This past Tuesday evening, my work e-mail was hacked and messages were sent out trying to recant my description of the sexual assault.
Apart from the assault itself, these past couple of weeks have been the hardest of my life. I’ve had to relive this trauma in front of the world. And I’ve seen my life picked apart by people on television, on Twitter, other social media, other media and in this body, who have never met me or spoken with me.
I have been accused of acting out of partisan political motives. Those who say that do not know me. I’m an independent person and I am no one’s pawn.
My motivation in coming forward was to be helpful and to provide facts about how Mr. Kavanaugh’s actions have damaged my life, so that you could take into a serious consideration as you make your decision about how to proceed.
—
This is sworn testimony under oath. She is very clear that she is not acting out of “partisan political motives”, and is “an independent person and I am no one’s pawn.”
.
It’s also clear that despite taking the precaution of shuttling between “various secure locales” since the 16th (the date she went public — too early for “constant threats” to force her from her home, the necessity to not only move out but keep on the move has to be harassment by media) she is still answering her phone and reading e-mail to receive the vile threats and the far more numerous messages of support. Not only that, she is watching television, twitter, other social media to see her story picked apart. These are all voluntary actions, freely taken, but she does them even though it’s making those two weeks the hardest of her life. In fact, they are forcing her to “relive this trauma in front of the world” despite the fact that between her coming out on the 16th and the hearing all communication to the world has been through her lawyers — and her lawyers have consistently *refused* to have her provide *any* information to the very senators she claims she is trying to get information to, in advance of a very, very public hearing with the worst possible format for actually giving information.
.
But that’s not all, in addition to following television, twitter, and social media, she is following what senators “in this body” are saying about her. And she somehow did this without being aware, according to her sworn testimony, that there was any offer to come to any location she chose.
.
But let’s take her at her sworn word and assume that she is telling the truth at this point. Let’s assume that she has been through the hardest two weeks of her life only because her lawyers unethically decided to conceal from her that it wasn’t actually necessary to come to Washington and testify in front of the world. Given the trauma that has been inflicted on this woman, I would expect outrage and fireworks. Instead we have this:
—
GRASSLEY: Dr. Ford. I’m going to correct the record but it’s not something that I’m saying that you stated wrongly because you may not know the fact that when – when you said that you didn’t think it was possible for us to go to California as a committee or our investigators to go to California to talk to you, we did, in fact, offer that to you and we had the capability of doing it and we would’ve done it anywhere or anytime.
FORD: Thank you.
—
SteveF,
IMO, Trump caved to get an agreement by the deadline. He wanted a five year sunset. He got16 years with a review in six years to extend beyond 16 years. He wanted to eliminate Chapter 19, which allowed countries to challenge anti-dumping and anti-subsidy tariffs. It was preserved intact. That, in fact, was the main sticking point with Canada. Canada won. If NAFTA was bad, USMCA is worse.
Canada won. That’s an interesting perspective. I suppose if they had a choice they would prefer the new agreement then. If you are saying it could have been worse, it could of been of course.
DeWitt,
“If NAFTA was bad, USMCA is worse.”
Why do you think that? There are a number of changes which appear better for the USA than NAFTA was.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #171171): “IMO, Trump caved to get an agreement by the deadline. He wanted …”
Trump wanted the best deal he could get. Negotiators always ask for more than what they will settle for. Trump has the reputation of pushing that to the extreme. So the fact that he got less than he asked for does not in any way show that he caved.
.
I don’t much care if the new deal with Canada is much better or a little better than the old one. Trade with Canada is not the big problem. The important thing with NAFTA/USMCA is Mexico. My impression is that Trump got a much better deal there.
DeWitt,
I’m also puzzled as SteveF was. Your comment pointed out two areas in which the US negotiating position was not adopted. Chapter 19 was not changed, and the a sunset provision was not added. What I took from those lines was that you considered the agreement was not substantially modified, that the final agreement was closer to Canada’s positions. In the first area, the situation remains as it was, and in the latter it seems to have moved slightly towards the US position.
So I don’t see why you think that the new agreement is worse (presumably from the US perspective). The re-negotiation might well be viewed as a failed opportunity to make significant improvement to the agreement (again, viewed from the US perspective), but why do you think it worse?
It’s probably near impossible to qualitatively measure the long term impacts of Trade A vs. Trade B based on real economic data. Once you get past primary effects in economics you can dial in any argument you want.
.
The voters aren’t going to read those articles and even if they did they can read just as convincing articles that say the exact opposite. It might as well be quantum mechanics.
.
What they are assessing is whether to trust people who overtly want to continue and endorse BAU (globalism, automation) that has had major long term negative impacts on their local economy, versus trusting someone who at least SAYS they want to go fix the problem and actively tries to do so, however fleetingly.
.
In short they want to know somebody prioritizes their problems over poor people in Mexico and China. This is normally referred to as local representation and what elections are supposed to enable. Only well off people think it is a good idea to elect people who want to solve global problems at the expense of their local citizens.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #171171)
” If NAFTA was bad, USMCA is worse.”
_____
It’s also harder to say,
I hope Trump’s generosity will improve the way Canadians view the U.S.
Under Trump, a majority of Canadians dislike the U.S. for the first time in 35 years, likely much longer Maybe as far back as 1812.
A major Pew Research survey in June 2017 “found that just 43 per cent of Canadians hold a favourable view of the U.S., with 51 per cent holding an unfavourable view.â€
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/06/26/a-majority-of-canadians-dislike-the-us-for-the-first-time-in-35-years-likely-much-longer.htm
But the majority of Americans like Canadians
In a Pew Research survey in August 74 per cent of Democrats were favourably disposed toward Canada, compared to 59 per cent of Republicans.
According to the survey 63 per cent of Democrats said their feelings toward Canada were “very warm.†Just 39 per cent of Republicans said the same.
thestar.com/news/world/2018/09/04/democrats-like-canada-republicans-not-so-much-us-poll-finds.html
It occurred to me some respondents may have been confused by the survey questions, thinking they were being asked
if they would feel “very warm†in Canada in August.
lucia (Comment #171167)
October 3rd, 2018 at 6:04 am
OK_Max
“These people made statements under possibility of perjury. And they take a greater risk than Ford, because all that would be required to show they perjured themselves is an instamatic photo by someone who attended.”
_______
lucia, it’s difficult to prove a “I don’t remember” statement is perjury unless it’s something that obviously should be remembered (e.g. a significant thing last week).
If you swore we were at a party 36 years ago (hypothetical), but I said I don’t recall seeing you at a party 36 years ago, and then was shown a 1982 dated photo of you and I in a party setting, I would say “Oh, now I remember,” or “Well, that’s proof, but I still don’t remember it.” I wouldn’t be guilty of perjury because no reasonable person would think just seeing you at a party 36 years ago is obviously something I should remember.
Dale S (Comment #171168)
October 3rd, 2018 at 6:13 am
OK_Max (Comment #171166)
“Kavanaugh makes falsifiable claims.”
___________
In an interviewed by Fox News host Martha MacCallum on September 24, 2018.
“Judge Brett Kavanaugh said he does not recall having any memorable interactions with Christine Blasey Ford, a 51-year-old research psychologist and professor who accused him of sexually assaulting her in the 1980s.â€
In the same interview he denied doing what Ford said he did to her,
leaving open the possibility they may have had an interaction of some kind that he couldn’t remember right then, and an interaction
he may have seen differently if he did remember it.
OK_Max (Comment #171198)
Why pick out that particular comment from the interview? I think the most obvious falsifiable claim from that interview was his claim to be a virgin in high school and many years after. Talk about going out on a limb….
.
Further, why pick out a *paraphrase* of the interview rather than quote him? Here’s a transcript, and as you can see he’s *quite* definite:
—-
MACCALLUM: This Christine Ford, do you know her?
KAVANAUGH: I may have met her, we did not travel in the same social circle, she was not a friend, not someone I knew—
MACCALLUM: You don’t remember ever being at parties with her ever?
KAVANAUGH: I do not. And this is an allegation about a party in the summer of 1982 at a house near Connecticut Avenue and East West highway with five people present.
I was never at any such party. The other people who are alleged to be present have said they do not remember any such party. A woman who was present, another woman who was present who is Dr. Ford’s lifelong friend has said she doesn’t know me and never remembers being at a party with me at any time in her life.
—
Kavanaugh leaves absolute no room in this statement for “Oh, now I remember”. And yes, it’s falsifiable. Now, in this statement he’s obviously working off press reports of Ford’s allegations, since the number of people at the party changed to *six* (and the location became less specific) for the actual testimony. But here’s the thing — if Kavanaugh *had* been at the party described, he’d know there was a sixth person, presumably the host, and know that person could expose him as a liar. Massively high risk, for absolutely no gain.
.
Note that he also hasn’t left the “I can’t remember because I was drunk” option to himself either. In sworn testimony he excluded that possibility, not only for this incident but for *any* incident. As I said before, as a defense strategy he has been beyond reckless *if he believes there’s any chance the allegations are true*.
Dale S (Comment #171199)
October 3rd, 2018 at 7:33 pm
OK_Max (Comment #171198)
I think the most obvious falsifiable claim from that interview was his claim to be a virgin in high school and many years after. Talk about going out on a limb….
________
“In high school could be falsifiable,” but I doubt Republicans would take one girl’s word. “Many years after” is vague.
The alleged sexual assault on Ford wouldn’t have destroyed his virginity anyway, as it was not successful.
I’m not sure what he said about his drinking, but he may be vulnerable on that.
OK_Max
Nope. You’re wrong. If you did remember, you might have talked to someone about it. They could relate your conversation with them. Then the Feds ‘gotcha’.
No one come forward. So your speculation about whether Republican’s would the girl’s is moot.
The story wouldn’t necessarily need to be brought forward by a girl. If he talked to someone about having sex, a boy from high school could come forward and relate that story. Hasn’t happened.
It’s a pretty risky claim with plenty of people being able to bring up evidence to suggest it was false if it was false.
Dale S (Comment #171199)
Dale, in my previous post I intended to comment on your remarks quoted below.
“MACCALLUM: You don’t remember ever being at parties with her ever?
KAVANAUGH: I do not. And this is an allegation about a party in the summer of 1982 at a house near Connecticut Avenue and East West highway with five people present.
I was never at any such party. The other people who are alleged to be present have said they do not remember any such party. A woman who was present, another woman who was present who is Dr. Ford’s lifelong friend has said she doesn’t know me and never remembers being at a party with me at any time in her life.
—
Kavanaugh leaves absolute no room in this statement for “Oh, now I rememberâ€.
_____________
I think he does. He could say “Oh, now I remember the party, but I didn’t sexually assault that girlâ€.
His “I was never at any such party” refers to his previous “And this is an allegation about a party”. He is saying he was never at a party where he assaulted her.
OK_Max
No. That’s not what the quote you posted says. He is pretty clearly saying he was never at a party ” in the summer of 1982 at a house near Connecticut Avenue and East West highway with five people present.”
That is: he was never at any party that matches the description of that specific party.
If someone found picture of him at a party ” in the summer of 1982 at a house near Connecticut Avenue and East West highway with five people present.”. He doesn’t merely say he “doesn’t remember” such a party. He says “I was never at any such party.”
And since this guy kept calendars, he actually has some basis for knowing if he ever was at such a party.
If they find a photo of him, they have him having made a false claim and pinning perjury on him.
He also also says he doesn’t remember being at any party with her. That one could turn into “Oh, now I remember”. But the other one can’t.
lucia (Comment #171202)
October 3rd, 2018 at 8:45 pm
OK_Max
lucia, it’s difficult to prove a “I don’t remember†statement is perjury unless it’s something that obviously should be remembered (e.g. a significant thing last week).
Nope. You’re wrong. If you did remember, you might have talked to someone about it. They could relate your conversation with them. Then the Feds ‘gotcha’.
_______
True, if the conversation was recorded. Otherwise, it would be his word against mine.
________________________________________________________
Me: “In high school could be falsifiable,†but I doubt Republicans would take one girl’s word. “Many years after†is vague.
lucia:
“No one come forward. So your speculation about whether Republican’s would the girl’s is moot.”
True, so far. No boys either. But Kav isn’t accused of not being a virgin in high school, he’s accused of trying to not be one.
Max_OK (Comment #171201)
The claim to be a virgin practically invites disputing, and it’s a much more dramatic claim than claiming he never assaulted women. It’s part of a broad pattern where Kavanaugh makes sweeping claims that can be directly contradicted by witnesses, even though such claims are not necessary to dispute the primary dispute against him. Would “Republicans” believe a contradicting witness? Some certainly wouldn’t. Would all Senate Republicans reject such a claim? I certainly wouldn’t bet my nomination on it, you never know when a theoretical supporter might Flake out.
.
It’s certainly true that his claim to be a virgin, if true, doesn’t directly contradict Ford or even Ramirez’s claim. But it wasn’t responding to either — he was responding to a question about Avenetti’s then-unknown client accusing him of gang rape, and virginity *does* contradict that. But true to form, he doesn’t just deny participating in gang rape. He denies even *hearing* about it, or being at a party where it happened. He not only claims to be a virgin, he claims he “never had anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years there after.” It is, once again, completely reckless claims for a man with sexual misdeeds to hide.
.
I think you’re off base about his party claim. He is specifically claiming, with no room for “Oh now I remember”, that he was not at the party described by Ford. Please note that Kavanaugh is not, and never has, denied that *Ford* was at a party such as she described, and has never suggested that Ford did not have the experience she described — his claim is that *he* was not present at such a party in any capacity, let alone as the would-be rapist.
.
Of course, his denial is working on the assumption that the attack was in summer 1982 as claimed. As has been noted, Ford’s therapist notes from 2013 have the attack happening in her “late teens” and her *first* text this year has the attack in the mid-80s — those details are consistent with each other and also consistent with her testimony that she subsequently struggled in her first two years of college. (It’s also consistent with her polygraph, since she crossed out the “early” before 80s.) . Had it remained in the mid-80s, the question of how she got to and from the party could also have been easily resolved. The difficulty would be getting Yale student Brett Kavanaugh at the party.
“Ladies and gentlemen, the story you are about to hear is true. The names and places have been changed to accuse the innocentâ€
Max,
How would you phrase it differently if you were Kavanaugh and wished to indicate unequivocally that you had not attended that party?
I hate to give the impression that I pay too much attention to Nate Silver’s 538 (because I probably do), but here goes anyway. Dem odds of winning the House and Senate have dipped recently.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/
and
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/senate/?ex_cid=midterms-header
Do you guys think the Kavanaugh circus is responsible, or is there some other factor that explains it? I can’t think of anything else, but I haven’t had much time to devote to it.
The trade deal, perhaps.
I think incumbent polls improve a little as the election gets closer What was 41-39 becomes 46-42.
OK_Max
Above, you seem to put a lot of weight on mere verbal testimony given under pain of perjury. That’s all Ford’s accusation is, but you seem to think we ought to give it heavy weight.
Meanwhile, you seem to come up with reasons to say other verbal evidence given under pain of perjury is someone lightweight and not to be given credit. That is: that seems to be your standard if that evidence cuts against your argument.
In fact: if the guy gave verbal evidence under pain of perjury, its still evidence. Of course people can weigh and consider credibility. But it’s still a risk for Kavanaugh if somone stepped forward and said they remembered him having sex in high school. Even if you some how imagine no one would believe the accuser, some people would. Many might. So it’s still at least as big a risk as you perceive Ford taking by naming kids at a party.
Notably, no one has stepped forward to gainsay Kavanaugh’s claims. Several people have stepped forward to give testimony that gainsays Ford’s claim.
No one said he was accused of that. We were discussing application of your “rule” about the risk of lying. Many of Kavanaugh’s statements are much more easily falsified than the credit you give to Ford’s.
I think it’s possible the Kavanaugh accusations have created a backlash. I don’t think any of the three accusations have sufficient support to be published in a reputable newspaper, let alone stage-managing by high elected officials for the widest possible exposure to the world. The actions taken by Feinstein and Ford’s legal team are completely inconsistent with Ford’s motivations expressed under oath. If she truly is an independent person and no one’s pawn, as she testified, she perjured herself.
To my knowledge, not one Democratic Senator or even congressman has stepped forward to condemn the use of uncorroborated sexual allegations to smear Kavanaugh and block his nomination. And in the all too likely case that it works, we can look forward to similar behavior in the future. Based on the information in our possession, the question should not be whether Kavanaugh should be disqualified — it should be whether Feinstein should be censured. She should be.
I am about 1000% more motivated to vote in November than I was in August. I suspect I’m not alone.
The Kavanaugh hearings have fired up the Republican base. Many people see this as an orchestrated character assassination for political purposes that wasn’t fair to anybody involved.
.
What may very well happen is Kavanaugh will get confirmed and the needle will switch back the other direction again, but the hearing and the FBI investigation will temper that.
Dale S,
“I suspect I’m not alone.”
.
You’re certainly not alone. I got a haircut yesterday, same place as I have gone for 20 years. I never before heard a conversation about politics, but yesterday several people (and not just men!) were absolutely raging about the absurdity of the Kavanaugh hearings. It’s an anecdotal datum, but it is certainly unusual for me to hear people speak angrily about a political event while getting their hair cut.
.
“To my knowledge, not one Democratic Senator or even congressman has stepped forward to condemn the use of uncorroborated sexual allegations to smear Kavanaugh and block his nomination.”
.
No surprise at all. See the Lindsey Graham video: “Boy, you guys sure want power. God, I hope to you never get it.”
The Lindsey Graham video is interesting in and of itself. Graham seems honestly shocked at the tactics employed against Kavanaugh (maybe he was acting, but it didn’t seem like it). His anger and sense of betrayal by “my friends” in the Senate seem real. The interesting thing to me is that Graham could possibly think ‘progressives’ are interested in anything but political power; this has been self evident to me for most of my lifetime.
.
Progressives want fundamental change in how the country is run, (greater equality of outcomes, not greater equality of opportunity, transfer of sovereignty from national governments to international organizations, etc.) and that can only be achieved via naked political power. Few progressives have the desire nor even the inclination to discuss the issues with those who oppose their desired policies, and they have little stomach for substantive compromise on policy. The Supreme Court fight is the result of the (perfectly accurate) recognition that much “progress” over the past decades, and certainly since Roe V Wade, has come from a progressive Court acting as a super-legislature to impose progressive policies; policies which the elected legislature (AKA Congress) would almost certainly not enact. Reversal of some of those policies by a conservative court, and just as importantly, refusal to support other progressive policies which are plainly unconstitutional, is considered a catastrophic loss of power. Hence the hysteria, and uniform willingness to stoop to character assassination to keep Kavanaugh off the Court. This behavior is not going to change any time soon.
To me it has been rather obvious that Ford has been given a pass by the Democrats, the media and the Republicans. Her vague recollections and changing story of an incident that has real consequences for the accused are ripe for a hard cross examination that has never materialized. The MeToo movement has evidently made all these organizations gun shy. That is too bad as a more even handed process by all involved might well want to have more assurances that the professed victim has an account of the event that holds up to hard questioning.
Ford is rather obviously under the control of her Democrat handlers which is most readily witnessed by hesitancy to make her claims public and then insisting through her handlers that she wanted the Republican senators to question her and do it in a public setting. The only reason for that apparent about face was to obtain as negative a political impact as possible on the Republicans. I doubt very much that she is politically neutral in this matter. The only question might be how much her politics were enhanced by her handlers when she had a realization of a “civic duty”.
The story is not over. I will not try and excuse Democrats for their process misbehavior–but the story is not over.
As for Lindsay and his buds… M*E*R*R*I*C*K G*A*R*L*A*N*D…
(Does anyone remember The Education of Hyman Kaplan?)
Thomas Fuller,
The appoitment process involving the Senate was designed to be political. What happened with M*E*R*R*I*C*K G*A*R*L*A*N*D was entirely straightforward, fair and the way the process is designed to work. No one made any pretense about what was going on. The Republicans were running out the clock and hoping to gain control in November, which is what happened. The picked a method of not appointing that did not subject Merrick Garland to an indignity, probes, character assassination and so on.
Politics are politics. But character assassination to get what you want is not fair. I’m not surprised it happenes, because politics are politics. But anyone suggesting the Senate using its perogative to not consent to Garland as the same as what is happening with Kavanaugh has problems seeing the difference between apples and coal.
Maybe a better point of comparison would be K*E*I*T*H E*L*L*I*S*O*N.
If Trump had lost, it was reasonably likely that Garland would have been approved by the Senate in November rather than let Clinton appoint someone else who could well be even more liberal. There is no constitutional requirement for an up or down vote for a given appointee. This will become obvious if the Democrats gain control of the Senate in November. No conservative Trump appointee to the Supreme Court and possibly to an appellate court will get a hearing from a Democrat controlled Senate.
Harry Reid, 2005
What we need here is an investigation into the WH’s direction of the requested and allowed FBI’s investigation based on the requested and allowed public testimony of last minute uncorroborated allegations on a person who has had 6 different FBI background investigations and went through previous public hearings.
.
That should clear things up to everyone’s satisfaction .. or not.
Lucia,
“The Republicans were running out the clock and hoping to gain control in November, which is what happened.”
.
It was a big gamble… few people thought Trump would win, there was no certainty the Senate would remain in Republican hands, and Merrick Garland was far more moderate in his judicial rulings than the nominees Hillary would likely have sent to the Senate.
.
.
Thomas Fuller,
It is good you do not try to defend the indefensible. As for progressives everywhere who complain about Merrick Garland…. A*F*O*R*D*A*B*L*E C*A*R*E A*C*T and how that monstrosity of unconstitutional regulations was upheld by the Supreme Court, helps explain why Republicans took the gamble they did to gain control of the Court. Had Obama the good sense to compromise on Obamacare and insist on having empowering legislation instead of taking multiple very dubious (AKA unlawful) executive actions, there is a good chance the Democrats would have held the Senate in 2014, and Trump would still be a reality TV personality. Obama flipped the bird at half the country, but he was too dumb to understand that what goes around, comes around.
DeWitt,
“If Trump had lost, it was reasonably likely that Garland would have been approved by the Senate in November rather than let Clinton appoint someone else who could well be even more liberal.”
.
Maybe, but not at all certain. Obama could have pulled the nomination, and Dems might have filibustered to give the nomination to Hillary.
.
“No conservative Trump appointee to the Supreme Court and possibly to an appellate court will get a hearing from a Democrat controlled Senate.”
.
That is certain. Dems will probably insist on progressives for all appointments, judicial or executive. (They long ago declared war on Trump.) If Republicans lose control of the Senate, there will be a rush for judicial confirmations in the lame duck session, but the time will be limited, so a relative handful will be confirmed.
Based on what the Senators are saying after being briefed on the report, there is no there, there in the FBI report. The left is complaining about a limited investigation after being briefed. They don’t seem to be demanding that the report be made public if that means anything.
.
Sen. John Kennedy (R., La.): “There’s things in there that really make me angry.” Asked to elaborate, Mr. Kennedy said “anybody who thinks politics isn’t involved in this ought to put down the bong.â€
.
They are wisely not letting the report outside a secure room at the moment.
DeWitt Payne
DeWitt,
Yep. Which is allowable. And in that case, if any Republicans complain Dem’s can repeat M*E*R*R*I*C*K G*A*R*L*A*N*D… all day long and that will be entirely valid. But that’s not the same as what is happening now.
lucia,
Indeed. What’s happening now is even worse than what the Dem’s did to Clarence Thomas. Anita Hill was far more credible, though still uncorroborated, than Ford.
The Senate never held hearings or scheduled a vote on Bush’s appointment of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court in 2005. But technically it’s not the same as Garland because the opposition to Miers was bipartisan. IMO, that’s a distinction without a difference.
I wonder what the current thoughts are on the ethics of a fishing expedition. I suspect it matters greatly on whose behalf the expedition is occurring. The Mueller probe and now the Ford probe look to me very much like fishing expeditions.
The Republicans could have Kavanaughed Merrick Garland. That action might have been better understood by the Democrats.
On USMCA vs NAFTA: I never saw the problem with NAFTA that needed such sturm und drang. Now after all the uncertainty and excitement, there’s little change. I seriously doubt the balance of trade, which appears to be Trump’s only measure of the goodness of a trade deal, will change significantly. Even if the enabling legislation is passed before the end of the year, Trump will at best be a very lame duck when the six year review takes place, assuming he’s even re-elected in 2020. The steel and aluminum tariffs and the retaliatory Canadian tariffs are still in place, which is a loss for both countries.
Kenneth,
“The Republicans could have Kavanaughed Merrick Garland. That action might have been better understood by the Democrats.”
.
Conservatives have less inclination for such things, in part because they want more civility, not less (eg the strongly negative reaction to Trump’s buffoonery by many Republicans), and in part because they are not as desperate for ‘progress’: they want less ‘hope and change’ not more.
SteveF (Comment #171237): “Conservatives have less inclination for such things, in part because they want more civility, not less (eg the strongly negative reaction to Trump’s buffoonery by many Republicans), and in part because they are not as desperate for ‘progress’: they want less ‘hope and change’ not more.”
.
True. Also, conservatives value freedom, while the tactics being used against Kavanaugh are those of totalitarians.
Mike M,
“Also, conservatives value freedom, while the tactics being used against Kavanaugh are those of totalitarians.”
.
Or people who are convinced they are absolutely right, which does tend to lead to totalitarian behaviors. When someone is absolutely right, niceties like presumption of innocence, or even due process under law, no longer matter. That is where many progressives are now. Hard to say if that will change, but I suspect not.
One of Facebook’s executives sat behind Kavanaugh at a hearing, this caused a predictable reaction from the never biased and ultra tolerant employees of Facebook. He has been friends with Kavanaugh a long time and was in his wedding, and Kavanaugh was in his. As a sign that sanity might be coming back, he posted this to complaining employees:
.
“If you need to change teams, companies or careers to make sure your day-to-day life matches your passions, we will be sad to see you go, but we will understand,†Mr. Bosworth wrote. “We will support you with any path you choose. But it is your responsibility to choose a path, not that of the company you work for”
.
He eventually had to apologize for that one, ha ha.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/technology/facebook-kavanaugh-nomination-kaplan.html
Mike M,
“Also, conservatives value freedom, while the tactics being used against Kavanaugh are those of totalitarians.â€
I think the only people who value freedom are those who feel they do not have it.
Cannot pick sides, Conservatives are just as bad as all the rest paying lip service to freedom only when they do not have it.