Kavanaugh

[Crafty_Dog]

Pravda on the Potomac says the ABA warned the Reps about K. 12 years ago but I cannot access it without paying , , ,

Working from memory, K's second accuser says he showed his penis to her during a drinking game in freshman year at Yale , , , or at least she thinks it was him but she was too drunk to be sure.

And now for a moment of irony:  https://dailycaller.com/2017/02/23/cnns-chris-cuomo-wants-tolerance-of-naked-men-in-womens-restrooms/

[G M]

Does anyone think Ford's political persuasion had NOTHING to do with this?
Dershowitz I read made a double edged point about delaying to have th FBI investigate
But he then added so that SHE can be cross examined and really put to the test .  Not simply go in front of the nation to tell what is nothing more then a story.



Sadly we will never know Flake's motivations

To be like Mclame and simply stick it to Trump?  Strange that someone who ran as a Republican would deny a seat to a conservative judge to get even with the President but revenge is a strange thing.

Was he bribed - this is his last term ?

Was he threatened?  Did they find someone who would accuse him of gang rape in junior high school?


-------------
If only I could tell the government my story about how crooked middle men in the  music / intellectual property business has and is stalking my wife and myself to steal hundreds of music lyrics over maybe 2 decades in ways that we never have evidence (or if we did they simply steal that) and we could get justice.  Without evidence it is nothing more then a story and nothing ever happens. 

Flake is looking for a job with the MSM to play the token "Muh conservative principles" NeverTrumper on one of their news clown shows.

[Crafty_Dog]

That is entirely plausible , , ,

[rickn]

The Hill's article explaining the WaPo.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/409089-american-bar-association-questioned-kavanaughs-professional-experience-freedom

In 2006, when Senate Republicans finally hoped to advance Kavanaugh's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit after three years of Democratic opposition, the ABA downgraded its endorsement of the George W. Bush nominee.

The group’s judicial investigator had interviewed dozens of people in the legal field who had worked with Kavanaugh, some of whom raised concerns regarding “his professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and open-mindedness," the ABA said in its May 2006 report.

One judge remarked about the nominee's "sanctimonious" presentation in court, arguing that Kavanaugh showed "experience on the level of an associate." One particular lawyer argued that Kavanaugh "dissembled" in a different court proceeding.

The result was a downgrading of the group's previous "well qualified" endorsement — its highest rating — to “qualified,” meaning he met the ABA’s standards to be a federal judge but was not necessarily an outstanding candidate.

The Washington Post, which first highlighted the ABA's move 12 years ago compared to this week, noted that a day after the ABA downgraded its endorsement in 2006, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee called for Kavanaugh to appear before them again.

Senators gathered to discuss how seriously they should weigh the new endorsement, with Democrats saying it should be taken seriously while Republicans accused the ABA of bias or downplayed the importance of the endorsement.

Kavanaugh was ultimately confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in 2006 and eventually reclaimed a “well qualified” endorsement, which he has maintained throughout his tumultuous nomination to the Supreme Court. He touted the endorsement during his appearance before the Judiciary panel on Thursday.

The ABA weighed in again on Kavanaugh's nomination late Thursday after a rollercoaster day on Capitol Hill when Christine Blasey Ford delivered gripping testimony before the Senate panel about her allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh, followed by the nominee forcefully defending himself.

After Ford and Kavanaugh testified in back-to-back appearances, the ABA called for the Judiciary Committee to postpone a vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination until the FBI could investigate assault claims against him, drawing new questions about his nomination.

“We make this request because of ABA’s respect for the rule of law and due process under law,” ABA President Robert Carlson said in a letter to the committee.

"The basic principles that underscore the Senate’s constitutional duty of advice and consent on federal judicial nominees require nothing less than a careful examination of the accusations and facts by the FBI."

President Trump on Friday ordered the FBI to open a weeklong, "supplemental" investigation into the allegations after Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and others threatened to withhold their final confirmation vote if such an investigation wasn’t opened.

The ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary noted in a letter to committee leaders on Friday that the group's "well qualified" rating for Kavanaugh remains unchanged.

Here is a link to the actual ABA report from 2006.

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/scfedjud/statements/kavanaugh.authcheckdam.pdf

********************************************************************
Remember, this was back in the day when the ABA's committee on the federal judiciary was decidedly anti-Bush.  And was still anti-Ken Starr.  What they said was that Kavanaugh was not a good litigator.  They spoke to the fact that he had never tried a case to verdict, and was young and inexperienced when he tried cases.  Others called him "insulated" due to his 2006 position as staff secretary to Pres GW Bush.  They were concerned that he would remain partisan or would he remain fair and balanced as a judge.  However, the reports notes his superior writing skills. The 2006 ABA was split, but the majority thought him Qualified versus a minority that thought him Well Qualified.

Now, forward to 2018, 12 years later, and the same committee of the ABA reiterated its Well Qualified rating even after the President of the ABA wrote individually to ask for an FBI investigation into the womens' allegations.

[Crafty_Dog]

Thank you very much Rick.

[DougMacG]

"Flake is looking for a job with the MSM"

He will be perfect for that, sounds articulate and makes almost no sense.

[G M]

http://www.bookwormroom.com/2018/09/16/accusation-kavanaugh-plan-2012/

[G M]

http://www.bookwormroom.com/2018/09/16/accusation-kavanaugh-plan-2012/

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/chrisgeidner/planned-parenthood-hopes-to-scare-liberals-with-la

[G M]

http://www.bookwormroom.com/2018/09/16/accusation-kavanaugh-plan-2012/

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/chrisgeidner/planned-parenthood-hopes-to-scare-liberals-with-la

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151139134689639&set=a.189478844638.126579.8934429638

[G M]

"Flake is looking for a job with the MSM"

He will be perfect for that, sounds articulate and makes almost no sense.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sen-jeff-flake-called-hero-global-citizen-festival-n915106

 

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2018/09/julie_swetnick_one_of_kavanaug.html

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-police-and-state-s-attorney-response-to-montgomery-county-house-delegation-s-request-to-open-crimina-20180928-htmlstory.html

[ccp]

Well if the ABA is going to criticize Kavanaugh about bias what about them?

Lawyers tend to be liberals and 3/4 or more probably  Democrats

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/08/analyst-gauges-the-political-bias-of-lawyers/

No political  bias with Ginsberg or Sotomayor?  No coincidence CNN does this loving show and "RGB".   Got to get the girls excited to vote for liberals.

Just another talking point to sway public opinion against - his "temperament" which the entire LEFT is stating every opportunity they can since his defending himself.

[ccp]

may want to take an anti nausea medicine and have a shot of tequila before viewing this:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sen-jeff-flake-called-hero-global-citizen-festival-n915106

And of course I read he is going to be on the ultra liberal 60 minutes tonight .  Talking about "bipartisanship" "democracy " and all the other phony Leftist talking points buzz words.

Doug wrote:

"Flake is looking for a job with the MSM"

Yup!

[G M]

Well if the ABA is going to criticize Kavanaugh about bias what about them?

Lawyers tend to be liberals and 3/4 or more probably  Democrats

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/08/analyst-gauges-the-political-bias-of-lawyers/

No political  bias with Ginsberg or Sotomayor?  No coincidence CNN does this loving show and "RGB".   Got to get the girls excited to vote for liberals.

Just another talking point to sway public opinion against - his "temperament" which the entire LEFT is stating every opportunity they can since his defending himself.

Anything other than complete passivity to the left's destruction of one's personal character and career is evidence of a lack of judicial temperament.

[rickn]

Why did Blasey name "Mark G Judge" as one of the two attackers if she had never read his book before writing her July 30th letter to Feinstein?

[G M]

Why did Blasey name "Mark G Judge" as one of the two attackers if she had never read his book before writing her July 30th letter to Feinstein?

One of many questions that the FBI investigation should cover. I am very skeptical it will though.

[ccp]

https://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2018/09/30/nolte-fox-news-cowards-spread-fake-news-christine-blasey-ford-credible/

Apparently the Rs are just too terrified of the girl vote to stand up and fight back.

I don't believe Ford either.  It did not happen as stated with Kavenaugh or she is exaggerating .

Again as I posted,  if he were a Democrat we would never have heard anything about this .

Another thing about leftist lawyers , is in not REMARKABLE how the whole main legal concept of "innocent to proven guilty" is thrown completely out the window for political reasons - and yet they accuse Kavanaugh of being biased. 

He better be voted in next week. 

[Crafty_Dog]

Heh heh heh

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/30/cotton-feinstein-ford-leaked-letter-854019

[G M]

2018 and this is where we are.

[rickn]

The memo from Rachel Mitchell to the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Mitchell is the prosecutor hired by the Senate Judiciary Committee to question Blasey.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4952137/Rachel-Mitchell-s-analysis.pdf

[Crafty_Dog]

Much here with which I do not agree, but at least he takes on, eventually, the actual substance of K's record:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/08/why-everyone-should-oppose-brett-kavanaughs-confirmation

[DougMacG]

The memo from Rachel Mitchell to the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Mitchell is the prosecutor hired by the Senate Judiciary Committee to question Blasey.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4952137/Rachel-Mitchell-s-analysis.pdf

Important document.  Great analysis.  Mitchell was hired and instructed to not conduct a vigorous cross-examination on the stand for political and visual purposes. It is great to see that she was paying attention and wrote up this very  compelling, factual analysis summarizing why there is no case against the judge. So many voids and inconsistencies are identified, plus the point that she never named Kavanaugh until after he was publicized as a likely Supreme Court pick.

The Supreme Court started work today on very important cases with only 8 justices seated. What is the harm of waiting a week? We'll measure that later.

What are the strangest parts of this to me is that if all of this was true, attempted rape in that time and in that jurisdiction was only a misdemeanor - with a one-year statute of limitation. Add to that, the accused was a juvenile and the purpose of treating juveniles differently in the justice system is to not have a youthful mistake limit how high you may rise for the rest of your life.

Kavanaugh's denial is current and disqualifying if proven wrong, but it is impossible to prove wrong and doesn't fit any pattern.  Ford's accusations are uncorroborated, and were always uncorroboratable, likely by design.  

The nation focused on the shiny object while the national discussion of constitutional law goes fully untouched - one more time.

[Crafty_Dog]

I’m seeing a bunch of pseudo-lawyer speak on my Facebook feed. I just want to clarify a few things.

1. The Kavanaugh hearing is not a criminal prosecution; it's a fancy job interview.

2. Kavanaugh is not entitled to a legal presumption of innocence. No one has to prove anything “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

3. Kavanaugh is not entitled to any “due process” during these confirmation hearings. The term “due process” refers to the general principle that the United States government can’t take away your rights or property without a legal proceeding—i.e. notice and a hearing. Here, the United States is not attempting to take away Kavanaugh’s rights or property. They’re not trying to take away anything at all. Rather they are determining whether to BESTOW upon Kavanaugh the highest legal position in the country. Kavanaugh has no implicit right to this position. He is not entitled to fair hearing. He is not entitled to any hearing at all.

4. Kavanaugh’s life won’t be “destroyed” by this confirmation process. At worst, he’ll remain a Federal Judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Ford’s testimony may trigger a subsequent criminal or impeachment process, but those are both different sets of proceedings, with higher standards of proof and more legal protections for Kavanaugh.

5. The Rules of Evidence do not apply. Senators can ask whatever they want. Neither Kavanaugh nor Ford is entitled to any of the protections typically given to fact witnesses.

6. Some Senators, like Lindsey Graham, are using the standards of the criminal/civil justice system as a talking point. The argument is that, there isn’t enough evidence to convict Kavanaugh; there isn’t enough evidence to obtain a warrant; there isn’t enough evidence to justify a civil charge; therefore, Kavanaugh should be confirmed. This argument misstates the standard. The only question which the Judiciary Committee must answer is whether Kavanaugh is “fit” to be a Supreme Court Justice. That’s it.

Now, let’s say I was going to hire a guy to cut my lawn. But then, I got a call from three separate women claiming that this guy had sexually assaulted them all. I’d be deeply concerned. Maybe there's a chance that these three women had engaged in a coordinated and nefarious effort to wrongly discredit the guy. And sure, maybe the guy had never been convicted of any form of sexual assault.

But I STILL probably wouldn’t hire the guy. There’s plenty of other people who are perfectly qualified to cut my lawn.

Issues of due process, and considering whether declining to hire the guy would “destroy” his life wouldn't be a part of my decision at all.

[Crafty_Dog]

Second post of the day:

In response to a meme averring various things concerning the CIA, GPS Fusion, and her family I asked for citations.  So far we have:

I asked for citations for the facts averred above, here's this about her grandfather:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Deak

Here's this about her dad:

https://www.bloomberg.com/.../stocks/private/person.asp...

A friend comments "Fact checkers say he didn't work for Baker & Hostetler when they were employed by Fusion GPS. However, they conveniently fail to mention he did work for them prior."

https://www.reddit.com/r/DrainTheSwamp/comments/9jwldq/ralph_blasey_jr_vice_president_of_agency_that_is/

[Crafty_Dog]

Rick:

Would love to get your take on the CIA conspiracy theory in my previous post.  My friend is now working on running down whether Dr. Ford applied to this program:

https://haas.stanford.edu/students/cardinal-careers/fellowships/cia-undergraduate-internship-program

[ccp]

 Charles "Chad" Ludington
who now accuses Kavanaugh of being a heavy drinker and has written some books

including this one :

*******'The Politics of Wine in Britain': A New Cultural History (2013, paperback 2016), used wine consumption as a window onto English, Scottish, and British political culture from Cromwell to Queen Victoria. ***********

Just the fact he is a university professor means it is 90 % likely he is a lib.  He certainly knows how to use alcohol as a political weapon does he not?

https://history.ncsu.edu/people/faculty_staff/ccluding

[DougMacG]

I’m seeing a bunch of pseudo-lawyer speak on my Facebook feed. I just want to clarify a few things.

1. The Kavanaugh hearing is not a criminal prosecution; it's a fancy job interview.

2. Kavanaugh is not entitled to a legal presumption of innocence. No one has to prove anything “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

3. Kavanaugh is not entitled to any “due process” during these confirmation hearings. The term “due process” refers to the general principle that the United States government can’t take away your rights or property without a legal proceeding—i.e. notice and a hearing. Here, the United States is not attempting to take away Kavanaugh’s rights or property. They’re not trying to take away anything at all. Rather they are determining whether to BESTOW upon Kavanaugh the highest legal position in the country. Kavanaugh has no implicit right to this position. He is not entitled to fair hearing. He is not entitled to any hearing at all.

4. Kavanaugh’s life won’t be “destroyed” by this confirmation process. At worst, he’ll remain a Federal Judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Ford’s testimony may trigger a subsequent criminal or impeachment process, but those are both different sets of proceedings, with higher standards of proof and more legal protections for Kavanaugh.

5. The Rules of Evidence do not apply. Senators can ask whatever they want. Neither Kavanaugh nor Ford is entitled to any of the protections typically given to fact witnesses.

6. Some Senators, like Lindsey Graham, are using the standards of the criminal/civil justice system as a talking point. The argument is that, there isn’t enough evidence to convict Kavanaugh; there isn’t enough evidence to obtain a warrant; there isn’t enough evidence to justify a civil charge; therefore, Kavanaugh should be confirmed. This argument misstates the standard. The only question which the Judiciary Committee must answer is whether Kavanaugh is “fit” to be a Supreme Court Justice. That’s it.

Now, let’s say I was going to hire a guy to cut my lawn. But then, I got a call from three separate women claiming that this guy had sexually assaulted them all. I’d be deeply concerned. Maybe there's a chance that these three women had engaged in a coordinated and nefarious effort to wrongly discredit the guy. And sure, maybe the guy had never been convicted of any form of sexual assault.

But I STILL probably wouldn’t hire the guy. There’s plenty of other people who are perfectly qualified to cut my lawn.

Issues of due process, and considering whether declining to hire the guy would “destroy” his life wouldn't be a part of my decision at all.

That this doesn't destroy his life is BS. Good luck getting a girls basketball coaching job when a simple internet search of his name brings up a googolplex of writings about his alleged sexual assaults.

The Kavanaugh haters are correct that innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt is not the standard to apply here. But they go from that to applying no standard, which is obviously wrong.

Presumed Innocent, due process and right to confront your accusers are concepts of our civilized society that go far beyond the criminal code. Presumed guilty is the standard being applied here by the left.

Preponderance of the evidence might be a better description of the standard to apply here, or just use common sense.

They should look at the entirety of the Rachel Mitchell letter which seems to be the best recap of the facts known. There are no facts and no corroboration that fall against the accused. Whoever would run with that lack of a standard to destroy a man would be the ones unfit to serve in our constitutional process.

The stated objective of the Democrats to stop and to delay this nomination at all costs. What is happening here is not a secret or a mystery. False allegations are a tradition in their playbook and they only have to open their mail to find them.

[rickn]

1.  I don't think one has to get to CIA conspiracies to cast doubt on Blasey's accusation.  What doe she not want us to see about herself in her therapist's notes?  What did she not want us to see about her interests, boas and prejudices in her social media posts?

2.  While the rules of criminal procedure do not apply strictly to this issue, the federal government is acting in its official capacity with the Senate engaged in its constitutionally mandated advice and consent function after the President has appointed an associate justice to the Supreme Court pursuant to Article II, Section 2.  Amendment V states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.  This amendment suggests that a basic form of due process should be applied to any action of the federal government taken against an individual.  In other words, this is not merely a job interview.  It involves the use of power by the legislative branch of the federal government.

3.  There are certain basic principles of due process that apply to official government actions.  In a case where someone alleges that a nominee for a federal office or judgeship committed a crime, basic due process principles still apply.  Thus, it is still proper to analyze any accusation lodged in this process by 5th Amendment due process standards.  In that regard, it is proper to determine if the allegation is believable under certain standards of weighing competing claims.

4.  This is also true if the evidence produced in this process could be used against the nominee in a different governmental process.  

5.  Kavanaugh admits: 1) that he drank a lot in high school and college; 2) that he sometimes drank too much; and 3) that he sometimes did or said things back then that make him now cringe as an adult.  I did similar things in college.  I probably still think that I was not as drunk as frequently as others may recall.  I probably was loud and argumentative.  During college, I threw a slice of pizza at a guy in a bar once who was acting like a jerk.  But I know that I never blacked out and I know that I never sexually assaulted any women.  And when I became an adult, I cut out that stuff.  But I still drink.  But not anywhere as frequently as I did in college.

[Crafty_Dog]

Going on a tangent here, and when I have a moment I will move or paste the relevant posts here to the Conspiracy thread, but this is rather interesting about how Dr. Ford's grandfather was killed:

https://pando.com/2015/07/15/apa-cia/

[Crafty_Dog]

another post

http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/christine-blasey-ford-and-the-hillary-clinton-connection/

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/01/politics/read-chad-ludington-statement-brett-kavanaugh/index.html

[Crafty_Dog]

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/woman-who-confronted-flake-in-elevator-runs-soros-funded-organization/

[G M]

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/woman-who-confronted-flake-in-elevator-runs-soros-funded-organization/

I'm sure the MSM will be sure to inform the public about this!

[G M]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/ford-caught-in-major-lie-city-remodeling-permits-show-project-she-linked-to-kavanaugh-was-in-2008-not-2012/

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/christine-blasey-fords-own-family-has-been-nearly-silent-amid-outpouring-of-support/2018/09/26/49a3f4a6-c0d6-11e8-be77-516336a26305_story.html?utm_term=.c952af2c60b0

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/msnbcs-morning-joe-shocked-ex-fbi-official-reveals-white-house-limits-kavanaugh-probe/

[ccp]

I wonder if the insider connections to the LEFT and DEEP state is any reason

[Crafty_Dog]

I'm guessing he is persuaded by Kelly Ann to not piss off the women's vote.  With his rep as a pig that could be a concern , , ,

[DougMacG]

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/msnbcs-morning-joe-shocked-ex-fbi-official-reveals-white-house-limits-kavanaugh-probe/

It was Jeff Flake who called for an FBI investigation llimited in time and limited in scope. The executive branch through Trump agreed to the legislative branch request. The Democrats don't have the power to force a witch hunt fishing expedition on a highly qualified nominee. Having the hosts of MSNBC in their hip-pocket did not win them control of any of the three branches, thankfully.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/why-i-wouldnt-confirm-brett-kavanaugh/571936/

[ccp]

Brookings is not non partisan like they claim
I did not believe her testimony at all - it was politically driven

[ccp]

Seeing him beaming all over the airways with his narcissism and self import I guess no surprise:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/jeff-flake-criticizes-supreme-court-nominee-kavanaugh/571915/

 

He prefers to be hero of CNN then a Republican

How do we elect such back stabbing pricks.............with his smiling face all over the lib airways .......

He had to have been bribed with fabulous carrots and also a stick stuck at his back

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/10/02/lindsey-graham-brett-kavanaugh-renominate/1498449002/

[G M]

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/2j8xp7.jpg

[G M]

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/377395.php

October 02, 2018
Blasey's Ex-Long-Term Boyfriend: I Personally Saw Blasey Coach a Friend on How to Take a Polygraph Test
Note: Shannon Bream will almost certainly be discussing this at 11 EST.

Update: Ed Henry reports that Bob Corker, who is no TruCon or Trump fan, predicts Kavanaugh will be confirmed "no later than Saturday."

flaming_skull2a.gif flaming_skull2a.gif
And also, he says, they flew in Hawaii on a propeller plane -- you know, the little planes that cause even people without aviaphobia to go into panic.

Oddly enough, she didn't mention her apparently late-onset fear of flying.

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter

Shannon Bream
✔
@ShannonBream
 BREAKING:  Fox’s @johnrobertsFox obtains letter from Ford ex-boyfriend alleging:  dated for 6 yrs, never told of sex assault, Ford coached friend on taking polygraph, flew frequently w/o expressing any fear of flying/tight spaces/limited exits.  Doesn’t want to b/c “involved”.

6:12 PM - Oct 2, 2018
15.9K
12K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy


Note that bit about being unfaithful -- and Blasey's nonsensical claims that she was seeing a marriage therapist over her husband's slight resistance to adding a second door to the home, years after they'd already installed it.

And notice her absolute refusal to turn over her therapist notes.

Sean Davis' article here:

"During some of the time we were dating, Dr. Ford lived with Monica L. McLean, who I understood to be be her life-long best friend," the ex-boyfriend, whose name was redacted from the statement he gave to the Senate, wrote. "During that time, it was my understanding that McLean was interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office."
"I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam," he said. "Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked, and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam."
Davis notes that Rachel Mitchell asked about precisely this during Blasey's testimony -- and she denied ever having even given "tips" about taking a polygraph.

"Have you ever had discussions with anyone, beside your attorneys, on how to take a polygraph?" Mitchell asked.

"Never," Ford responded.

"And I don’t just mean countermeasures,” Mitchell said, "but I mean just any sort of tips, or anything like that."

"No," Ford said.

"[H]ave you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?" Mitchell continued.

"Never," Ford replied again.

Is Blasey going to claim her old stand-by, Tactical Amnesia, yet again to explain away this contradictory testimony?

ONT below -- but I thought you'd want this up right away, instead of waiting for JJ.

Update: A commenter sends this old record along, a sworn statement by one Monica McLean, who identifies herself as an Assistant District Counsel for the FBI in the LA office in 2000.

The document itself isn't interesting, but it does seem to indicate that there was indeed a Monica McLean hunting for lawyer jobs in the FBI at about the time Blasey's boyfriend discusses.

More: Grassley re-demands Blasey's therapist's notes and information about her polygraph -- including the videotape of it that she was cagey about pretending she didn't know existed -- noting that he has already demanded this before and her lawyers have baselessly refused.

Then, on page 2, he says the polygraph information is especially urgent given the statement made by her boyfriend that she's coached at least one person in taking a polygraph.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/02/christine-blasey-fords-ex-boyfriend-told-senate-judiciary-witnessed-coach-friend-polygraphs/#.W7Ql2gJJLnc.twitter

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-02/kavanaugh-carnival-continues-exposing-fords-paper-creating-artificial-memories

[rickn]

The judicial temperament argument is silly.  First, it’s an appellate court.  Everything is done by writing except strictly regulated oral argument in front of the Supreme Court.  Second, if Kavanaugh had a temperament issue, it would have already surfaced at the DC Circuit which, again, is an appellate court panel of 3 judges presiding over strictly regulated oral argument.  Third, I’ve heard a lot worse temperament by federal district judges and magistrates than what Kavanaugh displayed in his testimony last Thursday. 

Kavanaugh is the accused in this process.  As the subject of a constitutionally mandated Senate process, Kavanaugh is entitled to 5th Amendment Due Process and to 9th Amendment due process and fairness as well as statutory guarantees of fairness in congressional hearings that are contained in the various laws and regulations on the books.  Blasey is not immune from applicable false statement laws.

The fact that this politics are intertwined with this advice and consent process does not deprive Kavanaugh of his enumerated rights contained in the 5th Amendment and federal statutes and regulations.  Also, it does not mean that Kavanaugh is deprived of his unenumerated rights guaranteed by the 9th Amendment plus any unenumerated unalienable rights not delineated in our Declaration of Independence. 

And he has the absolute right and duty to point out these violations to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[DougMacG]

Kavanaugh was part of the Vince Foster cover-up in the 90s, link at Drudge, and removed the do not remove tag on his mattress in the 80s per Treacher at PJ media.

Let's hold the vote before we find out he didn't rewind rental VCR tapes.

[ccp]

Rick writes :

"The judicial temperament argument is silly.  First, it’s an appellate court.  Everything is done by writing except strictly regulated oral argument in front of the Supreme Court.  Second, if Kavanaugh had a temperament issue, it would have already surfaced at the DC Circuit which, again, is an appellate court panel of 3 judges presiding over strictly regulated oral argument.  Third, I’ve heard a lot worse temperament by federal district judges and magistrates than what Kavanaugh displayed in his testimony last Thursday.  "

Chuzpah is it not for 500 attorneys to thus claim he has a temperament and thus bias problem when they themselves display political bias in their attempted character assassination of him .

GM writes :

" Blasey's Ex-Long-Term Boyfriend: I Personally Saw Blasey Coach a Friend on How to Take a Polygraph Test"

I do believe we have all been played by this "Dr" Ford