... Apparently Trump thinks Christine Blasey Ford was a credible witness ...
Really?? I'd have thought he would dismiss her as a "fake, witch-hunting Democrat".
I can't find the exact quote, but Trump indicated that he would take Ford's testimony with an open mind, and go from there. My guess is that he figures she might have some credibility with moderate Republican voters, and wants an escape hatch if public opinion goes her way.
I wouldn't be surprised if she doesn't file a complaint. The trauma she's gone through recently with the hearing, and death threats and reporters invading her home space has probably been enough stress for her and her family. However, she is a strong, tough woman, so who knows?
I just know who I believed at the hearing yesterday. The admiration I have for Dr. Ford is boundless.
It's a guess, but I think Christine Blasey Ford did enough to suggest a reasonable finding of probable cause.
"Probable cause" is not necessary. If requested, the FBI would be re-opening Brett Kavanaugh's background check, not opening a new criminal investigation. Checking the backgrounds of federal appointees is on of the things the Federal Bureau of Investigation is tasked with investigating.
One of the more substantial objections I wasn't sure about from the Republican side of the Committee was how long Feinstein apparently sat on the allegation, including during a private hearing of the Committee. There can be little doubt that this affair comes at a rather opportune moment (which is not to say the Republicans didn't do more than their fair share of obstruction hitherto).
One of the more substantial objections I wasn't sure about from the Republican side of the Committee was how long Feinstein apparently sat on the allegation, including during a private hearing of the Committee. There can be little doubt that this affair comes at a rather opportune moment (which is not to say the Republicans didn't do more than their fair share of obstruction hitherto).
The alternative was to "out" someone claiming to be a victim of sexual assault who had written to Feinstein (and Congresswoman Eshoo) requesting confidentiality. Feinstein denies she or her staff were the source of the leak that made Dr. Blasey's identity known to the press. Whether or not that's true I suspect we're in for a series of Congressional investigations of Feinstein's office on the matter à la Benghazi if the Republicans retain control of either House of Congress in the coming year.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "a rather opportune moment". The Merrick Garland non-hearings established pretty clearly that the Judiciary Committee and the Senate as a whole have no schedule or deadline other than whatever they set for themselves.
Re probable cause, yes, it is not directly relevant to the FBI checks. But evidence of a dubious sexual history probably would be relevant. There wasn't any found in the original background checks (the anonymous letters were insufficient). Things have changed.
I can't find the exact quote, but Trump indicated that he would take Ford's testimony with an open mind, and go from there.
Trump says a lot of things. Whether he means them sincerely is another matter entirely.
Yeah, but it's fairly out-of-charater for him to take a nuanced position on a partisan issue like this. Which makes me think there might be something more going on here than just Trumpism-as-usual.
A federal judge on Friday gave the go-ahead to a lawsuit filed by 200 congressional Democrats against President Trump alleging he has violated the Constitution by doing business with foreign governments while in office.
The lawsuit is based on the Constitution’s emoluments clause, which bars presidents from taking payments from foreign states. Trump’s business, which he still owns, has hosted foreign embassy events and visiting foreign officials at its downtown D.C. hotel.
The decision opens up yet another legal front for the president, who is now facing an array of inquiries into his business, his campaign and his charity.
Trump is already facing a separate emoluments suit filed by the attorneys general of Washington, D.C. and Maryland that is moving forward.
This is not a finding that Trump has violated the emoluments clause, just a finding that Congressional Democrats have standing to file suite on those grounds. Discovery will probably be interesting.
The alternative was to "out" someone claiming to be a victim of sexual assault who had written to Feinstein (and Congresswoman Eshoo) requesting confidentiality.
I'm not sure that this was the only alternative.
From what I understood during the hearing (and I may well have understood wrong) the allegation itself was disclosed to Kavanaugh some time after Feinstein had it, and after a closed session of the committee. It seems to me she could have challenged him on the substance of the allegation in a private hearing without disclosing the name of the victim.
It's water under the bridge now. It may be that the week's delay thing is simply to provide a rationalisation for the GOP waverers. And a week is not a lot of time even to get the necessary procedures done; FBI report to the White House, White House passes the updated check report to the Senate (Judiciary Committee first or all Senators), Senators consider.
So I think the waverers are in control of the timetable in practice. The Senate will not vote unless and until Flake and at least one other are prepared to vote yes. That's the nub of the matter.
A cursory FBI probe conducted in seven days without cooperation from key witnesses may not actually resolve anything, but it will give various relevant players a chance to look at some polls and readjust their political calculus.
Professional Republicans feel very strongly that the rank-and-file is consolidating behind Kavanaugh, but they don’t really have data one way or another. In four or five days they will.
In other words, they may want to run some polls to tell them whether to fish or cut bait.
You know, I'm curious as to exactly when it became settled practice to target governing* efforts solely to definite/likely/probable supporters, especially when said supporters apparently constitute a minority of the electorate. Intuitively speaking, ignoring the majoritarian 'everybody else' as though they didn't exist and could exert no possible sway over future electoral consequences sounds like a risky political gamble. Did this practice begin on Jan. 20, 2016? Or did it merely become obvious only then?
You know, I'm curious as to exactly when it became settled practice to target governing* efforts solely to definite/likely/probable supporters, especially when said supporters apparently constitute a minority of the electorate. Intuitively speaking, ignoring the majoritarian 'everybody else' as though they didn't exist and could exert no possible sway over future electoral consequences sounds like a risky political gamble. Did this practice begin on Jan. 20, 2016? Or did it merely become obvious only then?
The Hastert Rule of the late nineties/early aughts seems like an earlier public expression of this, though I suspect it goes back even further as an unspoken Republican strategy
One of the more substantial objections I wasn't sure about from the Republican side of the Committee was how long Feinstein apparently sat on the allegation, including during a private hearing of the Committee. There can be little doubt that this affair comes at a rather opportune moment (which is not to say the Republicans didn't do more than their fair share of obstruction hitherto).
Thing One: Dr Blasey first contacted her Representative when the short list of nominees was announced I.e. Kavanaugh was not yet THE nominee.
Thing Two: There are plenty of other problems with Kavanaugh's record. Those should have been enough to sink him in any rational review process. It seems perfectly reasonable to me for Feinstein to withhold the information in the hope that it wouldn't be needed, and then release it when Kavanaugh's un-American opinion that a sitting President is above the law wasn't enough to stop the nomination.
I understood from one of the questions to Kavanaugh that he had been in a private hearing of the SJC which typically would have questioned candidates about former misdeeds after he was the nominee and after Feinstein had the information, and that the allegation was not put to him then, even without naming the complainant.
From what I understood during the hearing (and I may well have understood wrong) the allegation itself was disclosed to Kavanaugh some time after Feinstein had it, and after a closed session of the committee. It seems to me she could have challenged him on the substance of the allegation in a private hearing without disclosing the name of the victim.
That seems really problematic. I'm not sure that passing along the allegation to the alleged attacker with enough details that, if the allegation is true, he can easily identify his accuser counts as keeping something "in confidence" (Feinstein's term).
It's water under the bridge now. It may be that the week's delay thing is simply to provide a rationalisation for the GOP waverers. And a week is not a lot of time even to get the necessary procedures done; FBI report to the White House, White House passes the updated check report to the Senate (Judiciary Committee first or all Senators), Senators consider.
Slate has an interview with a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan who says the FBI should have no problem completing all the interviews in a week - they have lots of agents in offices around the country and lots of practice.
Slate has an interview with a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan who says the FBI should have no problem completing all the interviews in a week - they have lots of agents in offices around the country and lots of practice.
I didn't realise polygraphs were so in-use... Fascinating. And interesting insight to the process -- thank you.
Slate has an interview with a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan who says the FBI should have no problem completing all the interviews in a week - they have lots of agents in offices around the country and lots of practice.
I didn't realise polygraphs were so in-use... Fascinating. And interesting insight to the process -- thank you.
They are definitely flawed but are a part of the US intelligence community as well as in use in some legal situations. Although I can't quite remember the case law.
I was having fun with this on Twitter on Thursday. One of the lines of questioning to Dr Ford was whether she had been coached as to how to pass a polygraph. I suggested a nice technique for doing so: tell the truth.
Seriously though, whilst I am not a fan because they really are problematic, in this situation, it does add to Dr Ford's credibility.
Quickly popping in to mention that a very relevant sitcom is back, and taking on T: the beloved and infamous "Murphy Brown". Stars Candice Bergen, and they managed to bring back the original newsroom cast!
Oh, and Tyne Daley has been added as a bartender.
It's a continuation, rather than a reboot. I don't remember what year it started, but it was definitely on when Bush 41 was in office. There was a famous fiction meets reality incident. Murphy became unexpectedly pregnant. After wrestling with that, she decided to have and keep the child, and raise it on her own. (Somewhat complicated situation re bio father, fitness, and willingness.) Then VP Dan Quayle took her to task in a public speech, saying that she was mocking fathers, etc. There was quite a reaction. Women asked him if it would be better if Murphy had had an abortion. "Oh, well, no, of course not", or something similar.
(snigger)
Anyway, it premiered on CBS last week, and hit the ground running. Jabs at T, and continuing some of the original story lines. Murphy is her usual brilliant, forthright, acerbic self. And there was a very special guest...
Highly recommended. Adding this to my roster of Colbert's "Late Show"; a long list of retro shows (especially sitcoms and sci-fi--"Babylon 5" reruns start Monday!!!); old sci-fi movies (Godzilla, Mothra, et al, and all sorts of other "oh, no, they came from outer space" movies); PBS, NPR, KDFC classical music radio, and KPFA semi-radical and special interests radio), I just may get through T's reign presidency, and more comfortably.
(yipee)
I was excited to watch Murphy Brown, even though I had to stay up past my bed time! The special guest was a treat, and Murphy's son is a cutie-pie...even if he works for the Wolf network!
Like Golden Key, I think MB and Colbert will make getting through T's reign of terror a bit easier.
I didn't realise polygraphs were so in-use... Fascinating. And interesting insight to the process -- thank you.
They are definitely flawed but are a part of the US intelligence community as well as in use in some legal situations. Although I can't quite remember the case law.
From a case in 2016:
As the Government notes, law enforcement agencies use polygraphs to test the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants. Those agencies also use polygraphs to “screen applicants for security clearances so that they may be deemed suitable for work in critical law enforcement, defense, and intelligence collection roles.”
The Government has satisfactorily explained how polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes.
The author of that opinion was one Brett Kavanaugh.
I didn't realise polygraphs were so in-use... Fascinating. And interesting insight to the process -- thank you.
They are definitely flawed but are a part of the US intelligence community as well as in use in some legal situations. Although I can't quite remember the case law.
From a case in 2016:
As the Government notes, law enforcement agencies use polygraphs to test the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants. Those agencies also use polygraphs to “screen applicants for security clearances so that they may be deemed suitable for work in critical law enforcement, defense, and intelligence collection roles.”
The Government has satisfactorily explained how polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes.
The author of that opinion was one Brett Kavanaugh.
Oh yes, delicious irony.
The problem with a polygraph is that it measures certain physiological changes that can correlate with lying. The issue being that really good liars won't have such responses and people particularly under pressure or stress may fail whilst telling the truth.
Hence I don't think they are any more useful than an observant jury watching a witness being cross-examined. However in this context, I do think Dr Ford passing it and Kavanaugh refusing it when he is on-record supporting their role in judicial processes is note worthy.
Not to mention that he gave answers to the committee that are factually wrong; he does not appear to be temperamentally suited to being a judge...
The political nature of judicial appointments was always likely to reach this kind of crisis. Especially with a president like Trump.
Huge chunks of the GOP don't care that he's demonstrably unsuited. They don't care that he's probably guilty of sexual assault. They only care about his judicial activism. This is how democracy dies. An independent judiciary is so vital...
The other noteworthy point is to see how Trump is not really that much of an anomaly is the current GOP.
I saw video of that Mississippi rally on the news this morning. It was bad enough listening to T, but to see the audience, men and women alike, laughing and applauding made me sick. It was like a gang of bullies egging on the head bully. A bunch of cowards.
I would guess that none of those men and women were ever assaulted, and probably would have no way to know someone who was, because a victim would know from the bully's actions and attitudes that they were untrustworthy and would likely blame the victim.
I think Trump also did a speech where he lamented how tough it is today for young men, who might get falsely accused. Wow, the white patriarchal system has a real champion. I find it incredible also that he blatantly intervenes in a decision over judge selection, but I suppose the idea of impartiality got lost early in Trump's life.
President Trump participated in dubious tax schemes during the 1990s, including instances of outright fraud, that greatly increased the fortune he received from his parents, an investigation by The New York Times has found.
Mr. Trump won the presidency proclaiming himself a self-made billionaire, and he has long insisted that his father, the legendary New York City builder Fred C. Trump, provided almost no financial help.
But The Times’s investigation, based on a vast trove of confidential tax returns and financial records, reveals that Mr. Trump received the equivalent today of at least $413 million from his father’s real estate empire, starting when he was a toddler and continuing to this day.
Much of this money came to Mr. Trump because he helped his parents dodge taxes. He and his siblings set up a sham corporation to disguise millions of dollars in gifts from their parents, records and interviews show. Records indicate that Mr. Trump helped his father take improper tax deductions worth millions more. He also helped formulate a strategy to undervalue his parents’ real estate holdings by hundreds of millions of dollars on tax returns, sharply reducing the tax bill when those properties were transferred to him and his siblings.
So it's not a case of a son stealing from his father, it's a case of a father and son working together to steal from the government. You know, "family values".
By age 3, Mr. Trump was earning $200,000 a year in today’s dollars from his father’s empire. He was a millionaire by age 8. By the time he was 17, his father had given him part ownership of a 52-unit apartment building. Soon after Mr. Trump graduated from college, he was receiving the equivalent of $1 million a year from his father. The money increased with the years, to more than $5 million annually in his 40s and 50s.
Fred Trump’s real estate empire was not just scores of apartment buildings. It was also a mountain of cash, tens of millions of dollars in profits building up inside his businesses, banking records show. In one six-year span, from 1988 through 1993, Fred Trump reported $109.7 million in total income, now equivalent to $210.7 million. It was not unusual for tens of millions in Treasury bills and certificates of deposit to flow through his personal bank accounts each month.
Fred Trump was relentless and creative in finding ways to channel this wealth to his children. He made Donald not just his salaried employee but also his property manager, landlord, banker and consultant. He gave him loan after loan, many never repaid. He provided money for his car, money for his employees, money to buy stocks, money for his first Manhattan offices and money to renovate those offices. He gave him three trust funds. He gave him shares in multiple partnerships. He gave him $10,000 Christmas checks. He gave him laundry revenue from his buildings.
Much of his giving was structured to sidestep gift and inheritance taxes using methods tax experts described to The Times as improper or possibly illegal. Although Fred Trump became wealthy with help from federal housing subsidies, he insisted that it was manifestly unfair for the government to tax his fortune as it passed to his children. When he was in his 80s and beginning to slide into dementia, evading gift and estate taxes became a family affair, with Donald Trump playing a crucial role, interviews and newly obtained documents show.
Because what toddler doesn't need a six-figure salary?
I think Trump also did a speech where he lamented how tough it is today for young men, who might get falsely accused. Wow, the white patriarchal system has a real champion. I find it incredible also that he blatantly intervenes in a decision over judge selection, but I suppose the idea of impartiality got lost early in Trump's life.
The New York Times is now reporting how Trump and his siblings have stolen 100s of millions of dollars from his father.
Not exactly.
o
MSNBC, in citing this story specifically said it was a scheme set up between Trump and his siblings to steal from this father. It was also repeated on NPR.
Comments
I can't find the exact quote, but Trump indicated that he would take Ford's testimony with an open mind, and go from there. My guess is that he figures she might have some credibility with moderate Republican voters, and wants an escape hatch if public opinion goes her way.
I just know who I believed at the hearing yesterday. The admiration I have for Dr. Ford is boundless.
"Probable cause" is not necessary. If requested, the FBI would be re-opening Brett Kavanaugh's background check, not opening a new criminal investigation. Checking the backgrounds of federal appointees is on of the things the Federal Bureau of Investigation is tasked with investigating.
Trump says a lot of things. Whether he means them sincerely is another matter entirely.
The alternative was to "out" someone claiming to be a victim of sexual assault who had written to Feinstein (and Congresswoman Eshoo) requesting confidentiality. Feinstein denies she or her staff were the source of the leak that made Dr. Blasey's identity known to the press. Whether or not that's true I suspect we're in for a series of Congressional investigations of Feinstein's office on the matter à la Benghazi if the Republicans retain control of either House of Congress in the coming year.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "a rather opportune moment". The Merrick Garland non-hearings established pretty clearly that the Judiciary Committee and the Senate as a whole have no schedule or deadline other than whatever they set for themselves.
Trump thinks Ford is a very credible witness.
Yeah, but it's fairly out-of-charater for him to take a nuanced position on a partisan issue like this. Which makes me think there might be something more going on here than just Trumpism-as-usual.
This is not a finding that Trump has violated the emoluments clause, just a finding that Congressional Democrats have standing to file suite on those grounds. Discovery will probably be interesting.
From what I understood during the hearing (and I may well have understood wrong) the allegation itself was disclosed to Kavanaugh some time after Feinstein had it, and after a closed session of the committee. It seems to me she could have challenged him on the substance of the allegation in a private hearing without disclosing the name of the victim.
So I think the waverers are in control of the timetable in practice. The Senate will not vote unless and until Flake and at least one other are prepared to vote yes. That's the nub of the matter.
That's one possibility. Matthew Yglesias posits another.
In other words, they may want to run some polls to tell them whether to fish or cut bait.
The Hastert Rule of the late nineties/early aughts seems like an earlier public expression of this, though I suspect it goes back even further as an unspoken Republican strategy
Thing One: Dr Blasey first contacted her Representative when the short list of nominees was announced I.e. Kavanaugh was not yet THE nominee.
Thing Two: There are plenty of other problems with Kavanaugh's record. Those should have been enough to sink him in any rational review process. It seems perfectly reasonable to me for Feinstein to withhold the information in the hope that it wouldn't be needed, and then release it when Kavanaugh's un-American opinion that a sitting President is above the law wasn't enough to stop the nomination.
That seems really problematic. I'm not sure that passing along the allegation to the alleged attacker with enough details that, if the allegation is true, he can easily identify his accuser counts as keeping something "in confidence" (Feinstein's term).
Slate has an interview with a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan who says the FBI should have no problem completing all the interviews in a week - they have lots of agents in offices around the country and lots of practice.
This isn't going to end well, is it?
They are definitely flawed but are a part of the US intelligence community as well as in use in some legal situations. Although I can't quite remember the case law.
I was having fun with this on Twitter on Thursday. One of the lines of questioning to Dr Ford was whether she had been coached as to how to pass a polygraph. I suggested a nice technique for doing so: tell the truth.
Seriously though, whilst I am not a fan because they really are problematic, in this situation, it does add to Dr Ford's credibility.
AFZ
Oh, and Tyne Daley has been added as a bartender.
It's a continuation, rather than a reboot. I don't remember what year it started, but it was definitely on when Bush 41 was in office. There was a famous fiction meets reality incident. Murphy became unexpectedly pregnant. After wrestling with that, she decided to have and keep the child, and raise it on her own. (Somewhat complicated situation re bio father, fitness, and willingness.) Then VP Dan Quayle took her to task in a public speech, saying that she was mocking fathers, etc. There was quite a reaction. Women asked him if it would be better if Murphy had had an abortion. "Oh, well, no, of course not", or something similar.
(snigger)
Anyway, it premiered on CBS last week, and hit the ground running. Jabs at T, and continuing some of the original story lines. Murphy is her usual brilliant, forthright, acerbic self. And there was a very special guest...
Highly recommended. Adding this to my roster of Colbert's "Late Show"; a long list of retro shows (especially sitcoms and sci-fi--"Babylon 5" reruns start Monday!!!); old sci-fi movies (Godzilla, Mothra, et al, and all sorts of other "oh, no, they came from outer space" movies); PBS, NPR, KDFC classical music radio, and KPFA semi-radical and special interests radio), I just may get through T's reign presidency, and more comfortably.
(yipee)
Like Golden Key, I think MB and Colbert will make getting through T's reign of terror a bit easier.
From a case in 2016:
The author of that opinion was one Brett Kavanaugh.
So far it's going just fine as far as this resident of the Korean peninsula is concerned. Jaw-jaw > war-war, and all that.
Or is that an unsuitable remark for a Sunday?
:crackingup:
Because he knows what the results would be.
Oh yes, delicious irony.
The problem with a polygraph is that it measures certain physiological changes that can correlate with lying. The issue being that really good liars won't have such responses and people particularly under pressure or stress may fail whilst telling the truth.
Hence I don't think they are any more useful than an observant jury watching a witness being cross-examined. However in this context, I do think Dr Ford passing it and Kavanaugh refusing it when he is on-record supporting their role in judicial processes is note worthy.
Not to mention that he gave answers to the committee that are factually wrong; he does not appear to be temperamentally suited to being a judge...
The political nature of judicial appointments was always likely to reach this kind of crisis. Especially with a president like Trump.
Huge chunks of the GOP don't care that he's demonstrably unsuited. They don't care that he's probably guilty of sexual assault. They only care about his judicial activism. This is how democracy dies. An independent judiciary is so vital...
The other noteworthy point is to see how Trump is not really that much of an anomaly is the current GOP.
AFZ
Enoch with that and the one mousethief noted, that's two cracking posts from you in one brief peruse from me. Keep them coming!!!
But do you want to know the translation of Kavanaugh's yearbook entry? Caution it is rated for mature audiences only.
I would guess that none of those men and women were ever assaulted, and probably would have no way to know someone who was, because a victim would know from the bully's actions and attitudes that they were untrustworthy and would likely blame the victim.
I'm just really angry and need to vent a bit.
However, follow the money. The NYT has another big story.
Not exactly. The Times story details how Trump's father, Fred, with the cooperation of his kids (especially Donald Sr.) "worked" hard to fraudulently shield hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes from the U.S. government.
So it's not a case of a son stealing from his father, it's a case of a father and son working together to steal from the government. You know, "family values".
Because what toddler doesn't need a six-figure salary?
Or, as the Onion put it, "Nation Urged To Be Extra Sensitive To Men Reliving Trauma Of Not Getting Something". I noticed that the part where Trump lamented the supposed loss of the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" was followed, apparently unironically, by chants of "Lock Her Up".
MSNBC, in citing this story specifically said it was a scheme set up between Trump and his siblings to steal from this father. It was also repeated on NPR.
#AbuserInChief
#EvaderInChief
Plenty more me thinks...
AFZ