A friend of the blog writes:
And here we have an example of a liberal who chooses to not believe someone when they are accusing a Democrat. I wonder what reaction the blogger would get if she wrote this about Kavanaugh?
But, maybe the blogger is not too far from where we all ought to be. I mostly roll my eyes when I hear about a new accusation against a politician. These accusations certainly all seem set up to distract from real issues. Let’s vow not to be distracted. Let’s vow to make sure accusers have solid evidence before we hear about it night and day.
Perhaps the real movement should be to encourage people to report incidents when they happen and investigate then, rather than when they are politically expedient.
Of course, counter to what the blogger writes, I have heard reports that Karen Monahan did try to report it at the hospital. If true, this is far more evidence than we get from most accusers and this is one woman we ought to believe.
The blogger at the link would seem to be a reliable relater of Democrat party chanting points. But as my correspondent correctly notes, I laud the (late breaking, selective’ sudden) concern for facts as a better arbiter of justice than raw, focused emotion (dutifully applied by a biased media).
MBerg: Can you remind us why Ms Monahan hasn’t released the video evidence she claims to have regarding Ellison?
Ms Monahan hasn’t released the video evidence she claims to have regarding Ellison for the same reason the senate democrats sat on their hit piece on Kavanaugh. She is waiting for the eleventh hour.
How does it feel?
Christine Brassely Ford has been caught in two big lies.
She claimed her alleged encounter with Judge Kavanaugh made her afraid to fly. It turns out she is a frequent flyer, even flying to Tahiti and Costa Rica.
She also claimed she required a second front door as an escape exit, again because of her alleged encounter with Kavanaugh. This supposedly prompted conflicts with her husband that required couples therapy in 2012. Palo Alto building permits and tax records revealed that the work was done in 2008 (not 2012) and that the second front door led to a sectioned off area that was illegally turned into a rental for Google employees. Google is close by. Note: Ford employed the term “hosted” rather than “rented” because to rent would violate local ordinances.
So why did she lie? Why did she lie when there was no reason to lie? A better question is why did she lie about something so obviously untruthful? Did she not think anyone would question her?
In each case, she lied to enhance her role as a victim. It is what happens in “survivor” therapy groups. It is not the role of those groups to question the members – but therein lies a danger. Without questioning, without restraint, the members can feel encouraged to build their victimization into epic myths.
It is how “Jackie” came to .
greg
Don’t overlook the fact that Google (or FB or Amazon) has a dog in this fight:
Google (or FB or Amazon), seeing the tech anti-trust mood thats developing among state Attorneys General, can accurately predict that they will in the next few years have cases involving 10s of billion$ before the court. So Big Tech is deeply concerned that a conservative friendly to the notion of applying/extending the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to Internet Tech Giants might get seated on the Supreme Court. They do have deep pockets and they definitely don’t want someone like Kavenaugh on the court.
As has you mention, she had google employees renting rooms from her (second doorway…)? If they didn’t know how to scrub her presence from the web themselves they certainly had workmates who could and her presence has definitely been professionally scrubbed. Not something a tech naif like herself would have access to or be technically capable of doing.
ok what magic word was it this time?
The DNC passed the buck to the Minnesota DFL to investigate Ellison. The DFL hired its lobbyist law firm to look into it. Powerline has the DFL lawyer’s report exonerating Ellison, read it in full.
The report details all the evidence supporting the claim, the contemporaneous medical report, the report to friends, the consistency of the story over time. But then the lawyer (like Emery) seizes on the video. If you could produce the video, why haven’t you? Based on that, the lawyer concludes the allegation is “unsubstantiated.” Naturally, that’s all the media picks up from the report. Ellison, waving aside all the other evidence, proclaims he’s been vindicated. Low-information voters who get their news from the Strib’s headlines will never know better.
Ellison is like the man accused of killing three bishops and a dog who refutes the charges by triumphantly producing alive, the dog.
Regarding Ellison, the ugly fact is that in normal prosecutorial worlds, the fact that the accuser suggested evidence exists pretty much creates an obligation to share it to move her accusation past he said/she said. A prosecutor might go forward with just a clean he said/she said where the accuser’s history of truthfulness is stronger, but he will tend not to go forward with a he said/she said where she refers to evidence she’s not willing to provide.
Like it or not, the best evidence against Ellison with regards to domestic violence is his previous police report, and the best reason not to vote for him is, well, his well known political record. Standing by cop-killers ought to end any AG bid in any place in the world, but apparently it does not if you’re DFL in Minnesota.
Emery Incognito,
1) Apparently the jump drive with the video is somewhere in her home, she’s just not sure where.
2) Even if she had it she won’t release it because it’s embarrassing. The assumption is that she’s probably naked while being manhandled.
Those are the 2 reasons that I remember off the top of my head.
The demand that the victim release the Ellison sex tape to prove she was assaulted corresponds with SJW’s push for affirmative consent at every stage of the proceedings. Insisting men ask “May I kiss you?” and “May I touch your . . .” is fine but how can a man prove consent was received? Answer: men must video all encounters at all times, and be prepared to post the video on-line upon demand.
I volunteer to be the curator of the sex tapes library.
“I volunteer to be the curator of the sex tapes library.”
Voluntarily condemning yourself in this life to Dante’s Second Circle of Hell – that’s disturbing.
Moderation IS BROKEN!
The video evidence, whether it exists or not – or is embarrassing or not (good point, SSC) – is a red herring to distract from the discrepancy in evidence requirements between Ellison and Kavanaigh. For the purposes of politics.
I was under the impression that there was other evidence of abuse, actual evidence in the guise of various papers indicating actual dates and places. Things that were/are not present with any of Kavanaugh’s accusers, the lack of which was ignored because #BelieveWomen.
The video evidence, whether it exists or not – and/or is embarrassing or not (good point, SSC) – is a red herring to distract from the discrepancy in evidence requirements between Ellison and Kavanaigh. For the purposes of politics.
I was under the impression that there was other evidence of abuse, actual evidence in the guise of various papers indicating actual dates and places. Things that were/are not present with any of Kavanaugh’s accusers, the lack of which was ignored because #BelieveWomen.
Sorry about that double post. Here is something that moderation would be good for.
Regarding the video, if it’s an issue of what she was or was not wearing at the time, I’ve been told that there are “female” lawyers in both parties who might be able to see this without embarrassing the heck out of her. In fact, I remember dating a female law student back in grad school.
Now that’s assuming points not in evidence, but if the DFL is not approaching Ms. Monahan to see about that evidence, we can infer that they’re not serious about real cases of sexual harassment. Which is, of course, exactly what anyone who is familiar with the careers of Bill Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, Joe Biden, and Anthony Weener would tell you.
Gorsuch was not accused. Scalia wasn’t accused. Nor was Bork, Roberts or Alito.
Being an angry, violent drunk doesn’t get better with age, as Kavanaugh’s testimony showed.
Greg: When you’ve finished with that divination stick, perhaps you can lend it to me.
Being an angry, violent drunk doesn’t get better with age
Head-shaking asshole-ery.
Creating a solid conservative majority in SCOTUS scares the bejeezus out of the left.
I stole this:
Being that we are investigating events fron 1982-1985, I want to know if #Kavanaugh returned every VHS / Betamax tape he ever rented on time and if they were rewound.
This is critical.
Don’t pretend like it isn’t.
the modern left
Emery, exactly what part of “it’s OK to get angry when you are falsely accused of rape before a national audience” do you not get? Clarence Thomas got angry when he was falsely accused in his “high tech lynching”. Obama got angry many times over far smaller issues. Is he a high functioning drunk, too?
I actually think it would be very healthy if, when a Senator or Congressman said something that was an obvious lie/BS, the victim of the slander spoke up and said “you can take that back, or we’re going to take this outside.” We would see some serious behavior modification as a result on the part of Dianne “Nifong” Feinstein, Cory Booker, Richard Blumenthal, and Kamala Harris.
It’s a terrible thing when a man born on third base can’t even stagger home anymore.
Emery: If Barack had known which direction to run, instead of being loaded on weed, maybe he could’ve at least reached second.
You could answer some of the questions posed to you instead of just taking potshots, Emery. Reality is as well that your attitude–that somehow because Brett Kavanaugh was born to prosperous parents who cared enough about him to get him a good education, he deserves this kind of c**p treatment–is the exact same notion that got tens of millions of similar people put in an early grave by the Communists. Class warfare, ends justify the means.
Several points here:
1. Harris poll: 60% want Kav confirmed. But, but, but, Emery told me he’s underwater in the polls. Wait, are you telling me Emery LIES? Heaven forfend.
2. See how the left works; one day its a groping charge (hilariously un-corraborated), and then he’s angry about being called a rapist and having his family dragged through the mud, and he drank in college (perish the thought), so now he’s a violent angry drunk. Right.
Emery, someday you just MIGHT meet someone with whom you disagree. I doubt it will help, but you need to get away from Kimmel, SNL, and CNN, and get some real news for a change.
3. Start responding to the challenges to your bs statements. Mitch doesn’t put up with that kind of poop and run commenting for too long.
4. Say it with me now: Associate Justice Kavanaugh.
The Senate is entirely outcome based. Why deliberate?
BReAKInG! “Leftist twaat says a little bruising is a price she’s willing for someone else to pay to elect a leftist twaat to office.”
What the hell are we supposed to do with this? This is exactly what I expect from them.
And make no mistake, unless he or she has offended me or my family personally, I’ll support anyone with verifiable conservative creds no matter what they did to someone else.
I don’t fucking care. As long as the enemy loses, I win. That’s how war works.
I call it the NASA protocols.
We just have to do it better, more often.
Señor kinlaw wrote: “Harris poll: 60% want Kav confirmed”
Let me be of some assistance: “60% Want Kavanaugh Confirmed if FBI Dismisses Allegations”
The problem is not that Democrats are throwing “mud and muck” at Kavanugh. It’s that 20 million Americans saw Kavanaugh for who he really was on September 27th.
“With wide gender, racial and partisan gaps, and a shift in support among independent voters, 48 percent of American voters say the U.S. Senate should not confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, as 42 percent say Kavanaugh should be confirmed, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today. ~ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/poll-reveals-deep-divisions-over-brett-kavanaugh
Say it with me now: Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Kavanaugh.
Oh, and by the Emetic? You and the rest of the lefties just fired up the Republican base.
Good job retards
.
Señor kinlaw: Unlike you, I don’t play shirts and skins. I just want the truth.
I suspect Trump must have a list of nearly 20 potential SC nominees, and each one sufficiently conservative. Kavanaugh has become a punchline. Time to cut bait and on to the next man up.
But the next individual might not believe that presidents shouldn’t be prosecuted for crimes.
I suspect Trump must have a list of nearly 20 potential SC nominees, and each one sufficiently conservative. Kavanaugh has become a punchline. Time to cut bait and on to the next man up.
But the next individual might not believe that presidents shouldn’t be prosecuted for crimes.
Taliking point alert!
I hope that you realize that this is insane, Emery.
What is driving the lunacy around kavanaugh’s confirmation is not Trump’s desire to place an SC justice who will be an excuser of executive over reach, it is the Democrats outrageous, below the belt antics of opposing kavanaugh at all costs. You may remember that all the Democrats on the committee said that they would oppose Trump’s nominee before they even knew who that nominee would be.
You are on the side of the crazy, conspiracy-theorist, wannabee-totalitarian, anti-democratic, anti-republican side, Emery.
If you want to bring humaity back to the 17th century, at least be honest about it.
“If you want to bring humaity back to the 17th century, at least be honest about it.”
It’s time to bring dueling back.
And Pinochet Helicopter Tours.
I saw highlights of a boxing match once. I think Howard Cosell was the commentator. Some big Black guy was being interviewed, talking trash about his opponent, a White man.
The thing was, when the two men got into the ring, they BOTH threw punches, beat each other mercilessly for 15 rounds. The Black guy eventually won but it wasn’t handed to him, he worked hard for it.
What’s got Emery so worked up is this is the first time the Republicans haven’t backed down, left the ring, and handed the victory to Democrats. They’re actually fighting back, a little, tentatively, hesitantly, but some. That hasn’t happened in 50 years.
Crickets on my social media feeds from the lefties today in re Kavanaugh. Gee, I wonder what happened?
The same people who condemn Pinochet wear Che t-shirts.
Though I would not invite Pinochet to my child’s birthday party, all Argentinians are in his debt for not allowing the country to become another Cuba or Venezuela.
I mean….who wants to eat their pets?
Correction, “all Argentinians” should read “all Chileans” but then the Argentinians should be thankful for not becoming another Cuba or Venezuela too.
Not to hog the thread, but one must note that Chile and Argentina have evolved into democracies unlike Cuba and Venezuela, which speaks to the superiority of right wing coups versus left wing coups.
Or, to take the thread back, sort of, from Greg, yes, Pinochet is said to have killed 3000 people to prevent the leftists from having Chile. In doing so, I’m guessing he’s more than given those lives back through the fruits of liberty and prosperity.
What’s got Emery so worked up is this is the first time the Republicans haven’t backed down, left the ring, and handed the victory to Democrats. They’re actually fighting back, a little, tentatively, hesitantly, but some. That hasn’t happened in 50 years.
I think that there are 2 events primarily responsible for this: 1) Trump’s initial win and continued winning despite the ever-increasing leftist rancor, and 2) McCain and his maverickosity passing away.
Graham is better on his own than as McCain’s sidekick.
I heard Jeff Flake interviewed shortly the other day. The guys a loony. He says he worked his deal with Coons because COONS IS HIS FRIEND AND HE TRUSTS HIM! Gah! What an ignoramus. I guess he’s never heard the old saying “you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.”
I’ve heard a few pundits say that if Kavanaugh doesn’t get his 51 votes, Trump will appoint Amy Barrett. Her candidacy will be immune from the vile man-hatred of the Dem’s feminist Left.
Ho-ho-ho. It is to laugh. They will find some woman to accuse Barrett’s husband or some close male relative. Can’t have her on the bench, then, what with “credible” accusations that her husband or son (maybe both) ran a roofy gang-rape club thirty years ago.
Her candidacy will be immune from the vile man-hatred of the Dem’s feminist Left
After everything they’ve done to (thrown at) Kavanaugh, you really believe her candidacy will be any different? I mean the words may be different, but the pushback will not. I mean, f’r’chrissakes, she’s a Catholic – Feinstein has already raked her over the coals for that – she’s assumed to be not only against abortion, but an anti-abortion activist.
Sorry, I should’ve read that last paragraph of yours. I’m better now. 😉
I do rather like the Graham solution: if Kavanaugh is voted down, re-nominate him and run on it.
Pinochet is said to have killed 3000
peoplestinking Communist parasites.FTFY
He did the best he could, but he left a few.
I would have been proud to have been the General’s favorite chopper loadmaster.
Woolly: The suppression of conservative voices continues…
Sources of today’s top performing Facebook posts about Kavanaugh, per @crowdtangle:
1. Fox News
2. Ben Shapiro
3. CNSNews (“News the Lefty Media Doesn’t Want You to Have”)
4. Breitbart
About Dr. Ford:
1. Fox News
2. CNN
3. Daily Caller
4. Breitbart
I think that you need to check if your evidence supports your thesis, Emery.
😉
Emery, where people end up looking does not necessarily show how Google and Facebook are, or are not, putting their fingers on the scales. To do that, you’d have to correlate actual traffic to Facebook/Google rankings. It is by no means surprising that, for example, the top network has the top traffic. I personally access it without much help from Google, and with no help from Facebook.
Yes, but “performance” on social media is defined as intensity of support from supporters, not breadth of support.