And then there is this:
"Ralph Blasey, brother of Christine Blasey-Ford, worked as a Litigation Partner for Baker Hostetler, a law firm that retained Fusion GPS, the infamous D.C. company that produced the unverified Steele dossier on President Donald Trump and Russia, sparking the whole Russian collusion investigation."
So the brother was one of many many hundreds of lawyers working at this big law firm. He worked there from 1989-2004. That firm retained Fusion in 2016, many years after the brother left that firm.
Shocking!!
The Independent State Legislature Doctrine
Re: SCOTUS
Last edited by ggait on Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Boycott stupid. If you ignore the gator troll, eventually he'll just go back under his bridge.
Re: SCOTUS
cute!...or, a well coordinated smear campaign.seacoaster wrote:Again, aren't we losing sight of the emails and Hillary's server?
-
- Posts: 34178
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: SCOTUS
Hillary, Comey, Strzok and McCabe are behind this....... life long democrats all upset that Hillary lost....we need Devin on the case.ggait wrote:And then there is this:
"Ralph Blasey, brother of Christine Blasey-Ford, worked as a Litigation Partner for Baker Hostetler, a law firm that retained Fusion GPS, the infamous D.C. company that produced the unverified Steele dossier on President Donald Trump and Russia, sparking the whole Russian collusion investigation."
So the brother was one of many many hundreds of lawyers working at this big law firm. He worked there from 1989-2004. That firm retained Fusion in like 2013, many years after the brother left that firm.
Shocking!!
“I wish you would!”
Re: SCOTUS
ATTORNEY SENT LETTER TO CHUCK GRASSLEY AND DIANNE FEINSTEIN CLAIMING FEDERAL COURT EMPLOYEES WILLING TO SPEAK ABOUT BRETT KAVANAUGH
"Cyrus Sanai made his first attempt to reach out to Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in a letter dated July 24.
Sanai told the committee leadership that “there are persons who work for, or who have worked for, the federal judiciary who have important stories to tell about disgraced former Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, and his mentee, current United States Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. I know that there are people who wish to speak out but fear retaliation because I have been contacted by more than a half-dozen such persons since Judge Kozinski resigned in disgrace.”
Sanai is the California attorney who blew the whistle on Kozinski years before a series of articles in the Washington Post in December finally brought about the resignation of the former chief judge of the 9th Circuit Court over sexual harassment revelations. Sanai has long challenged the judiciary, and was deemed a “vexatious litigant” by one trial court, a ruling that was overturned on appeal.
Since Kozinski’s resignation, questions have been raised about what Kavanaugh knew or did about such behavior, given the close relationship between the two. Kavanaugh clerked for Kozinski in the 1990s, a post that led directly to his clerkship with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who recommended Kavanaugh to President Donald Trump as his replacement. Kozinski and Kavanaugh remained close and both vetted prospective clerks for Kennedy."
..
"Cyrus Sanai made his first attempt to reach out to Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in a letter dated July 24.
Sanai told the committee leadership that “there are persons who work for, or who have worked for, the federal judiciary who have important stories to tell about disgraced former Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, and his mentee, current United States Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. I know that there are people who wish to speak out but fear retaliation because I have been contacted by more than a half-dozen such persons since Judge Kozinski resigned in disgrace.”
Sanai is the California attorney who blew the whistle on Kozinski years before a series of articles in the Washington Post in December finally brought about the resignation of the former chief judge of the 9th Circuit Court over sexual harassment revelations. Sanai has long challenged the judiciary, and was deemed a “vexatious litigant” by one trial court, a ruling that was overturned on appeal.
Since Kozinski’s resignation, questions have been raised about what Kavanaugh knew or did about such behavior, given the close relationship between the two. Kavanaugh clerked for Kozinski in the 1990s, a post that led directly to his clerkship with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who recommended Kavanaugh to President Donald Trump as his replacement. Kozinski and Kavanaugh remained close and both vetted prospective clerks for Kennedy."
..
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
-
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm
Re: SCOTUS
I have already said that I have serious misgivings about allegations of this sort, from a time when he was a kid, being used to derail his nomination -- and you, of course, have missed or disregarded it in your zeal to be a protector of the universe and most things Trump. My concern about Kavanaugh is that he is, in his essence, a political animal and his carefully conducted history shows it all too well. He may well be a dissembler, not a great quality in a jurist for most folks.
- MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 27108
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: SCOTUS
I'm in the "countryside", northwest. 40 acres, but just 20 mins to downtown.runrussellrun wrote:If you know, you know. Syracuse, NY City. Brought 4 cases of Alchemist products down to the District last week. But you live in "charm city", don't go anywhere near that dump. (drive around it, thru the coutryside, or via Gettysburg/Fredneck )MDlaxfan76 wrote:Guess I better let my fingers do the walking.Typical Lax Dad wrote:It will be next to impossible to find it that far south.MDlaxfan76 wrote:Thanks, I don't think they're at my closest wine store, so will need to go a little further afield to get a better selection.HooDat wrote:they are quite good! Famous for their Heady-Topper, but I actually prefer Focal Banger.MDlaxfan76 wrote:Never had Alchemist products, will look for some!
What's their distribution area?
EDIT: Vermont
BTW, "dump" describes only small sections of Charm City proper, much like any city.
- MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 27108
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: SCOTUS
Ingraham is pretty darn despicable in my book. Almost cartoonishly so.ggait wrote:So the trashing-back begins. The accuser is trying to get revenge against the Kavanaugh family because Kavanaugh's mom (who is a state court judge) foreclosed on their house...Laura Ingraham
Verified account @IngrahamAngle
5h5 hours ago
Accuser Christine Ford's PARENTS Were Defendants in a 1996 Foreclosure Case, Presided Over by Kavanaugh’s Mother
Real story is that Ford's parents had some financial difficulties many years after the Kavanaugh incident would have taken place. The bank filed legal papers. Parents and bank reached a settlement, and Kavanaugh's mom granted the bank's unopposed motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Ford's parents still live in the same house today.
Now that's what I call effing fake news. Nice work Laura!!
- MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 27108
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: SCOTUS
Yup. 30 years ago the benefit of the doubt went to the nominee, despite a highly credible accuser. This time, if she's equally as credible as Anita Hill was, hard to imagine the benefit of the doubt going to the nominee and not the accuser.tech37 wrote:That's a good point. So then it really comes down to his credibility (denial) vs hers.MDlaxfan76 wrote:I'd agree, if he hadn't so categorically denied it ever happened. The lie, the cover-up is the issue, not the mistake as a high schooler.tech37 wrote:a fan you're not reading. Read my first sentence again..."how inflated this becomes" & "more alleged victims coming forward."a fan wrote:The election is in how many days?tech37 wrote:Wouldn't be so sure about that a fan. It depends on how inflated this all becomes. Watch for more alleged victims coming forward?a fan wrote:This is the Trump era, Ggait. Lying is just fake news. You think R voters give two figs if Kavanaugh is caught in a lie?
I sure don't. Anything short of Kavanaugh murdering Trump is fair game for these voters.
I do agree with you regarding "lying." Thanks to lawyers in general, spin doctors/damage controllers, and now shoddy, duplicitous media/reporting practices (fake news), more than ever, lying has become subjective.
You gents think that Republican Senators would jeopardize a SCOTUS pick over this? An allegation made in K's High School years?
If this is a one-time, drunken, youthful indiscretion, and that comes across during examinations, I believe he'll be confirmed and should be. BTW, this is completely different from the Anita Hill accusations...that happened in the work place and Thomas certainly wasn't 17 years old.
But she does need to be credible. Apparently she is, but this is going to play out on TV unless the White House withdraws his nomination first. And that doesn't appear to be what the White House is considering, or at least not yet.
But they're playing it carefully/smartly at this point and not following a path that could backfire badly, ala the Roy Moore PR debacle...though their surrogates at Fox, like Laura Ingraham, are following a different script. Does Fox go all-in with the smear-the-accuser strategy? Does Trump tweet late at night when Kelly Anne and General Kelly et al don't have him corralled?
Re: SCOTUS
True for your average (and to be sure not a single one of them is above average) R male Sen, but Collins and Murkowski may care more about their legacies as advocates for women than as good R soldiers.a fan wrote:You gents think that Republican Senators would jeopardize a SCOTUS pick over this? An allegation made in K's High School years?
No chance.
Too much is stacking up against poor lil Bart O'Kavanaugh to believe anything he says (even under oath):
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... n-alcohol/
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... rings.html
Re: SCOTUS
Agreed.MDlaxfan76 wrote:Yup. 30 years ago the benefit of the doubt went to the nominee, despite a highly credible accuser. This time, if she's equally as credible as Anita Hill was, hard to imagine the benefit of the doubt going to the nominee and not the accuser.tech37 wrote:That's a good point. So then it really comes down to his credibility (denial) vs hers.MDlaxfan76 wrote:I'd agree, if he hadn't so categorically denied it ever happened. The lie, the cover-up is the issue, not the mistake as a high schooler.tech37 wrote:a fan you're not reading. Read my first sentence again..."how inflated this becomes" & "more alleged victims coming forward."a fan wrote:The election is in how many days?tech37 wrote:Wouldn't be so sure about that a fan. It depends on how inflated this all becomes. Watch for more alleged victims coming forward?a fan wrote:This is the Trump era, Ggait. Lying is just fake news. You think R voters give two figs if Kavanaugh is caught in a lie?
I sure don't. Anything short of Kavanaugh murdering Trump is fair game for these voters.
I do agree with you regarding "lying." Thanks to lawyers in general, spin doctors/damage controllers, and now shoddy, duplicitous media/reporting practices (fake news), more than ever, lying has become subjective.
You gents think that Republican Senators would jeopardize a SCOTUS pick over this? An allegation made in K's High School years?
If this is a one-time, drunken, youthful indiscretion, and that comes across during examinations, I believe he'll be confirmed and should be. BTW, this is completely different from the Anita Hill accusations...that happened in the work place and Thomas certainly wasn't 17 years old.
But she does need to be credible. Apparently she is, but this is going to play out on TV unless the White House withdraws his nomination first. And that doesn't appear to be what the White House is considering, or at least not yet.
But they're playing it carefully/smartly at this point and not following a path that could backfire badly, ala the Roy Moore PR debacle...though their surrogates at Fox, like Laura Ingraham, are following a different script. Does Fox go all-in with the smear-the-accuser strategy? Does Trump tweet late at night when Kelly Anne and General Kelly et al don't have him corralled?
Also, in this day and age (#metoo), Thomas IMO, would not have been confirmed. Poor Anita Hill... back then and up against that crowd... she didn't stand a chance. FWIW, I was certainly impressed by her.
And, she was cute!...oof... was that wrong?
- MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 27108
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: SCOTUS
'cute' is cute.tech37 wrote:Agreed.MDlaxfan76 wrote:Yup. 30 years ago the benefit of the doubt went to the nominee, despite a highly credible accuser. This time, if she's equally as credible as Anita Hill was, hard to imagine the benefit of the doubt going to the nominee and not the accuser.tech37 wrote:That's a good point. So then it really comes down to his credibility (denial) vs hers.MDlaxfan76 wrote:I'd agree, if he hadn't so categorically denied it ever happened. The lie, the cover-up is the issue, not the mistake as a high schooler.tech37 wrote:a fan you're not reading. Read my first sentence again..."how inflated this becomes" & "more alleged victims coming forward."a fan wrote:The election is in how many days?tech37 wrote:Wouldn't be so sure about that a fan. It depends on how inflated this all becomes. Watch for more alleged victims coming forward?a fan wrote:This is the Trump era, Ggait. Lying is just fake news. You think R voters give two figs if Kavanaugh is caught in a lie?
I sure don't. Anything short of Kavanaugh murdering Trump is fair game for these voters.
I do agree with you regarding "lying." Thanks to lawyers in general, spin doctors/damage controllers, and now shoddy, duplicitous media/reporting practices (fake news), more than ever, lying has become subjective.
You gents think that Republican Senators would jeopardize a SCOTUS pick over this? An allegation made in K's High School years?
If this is a one-time, drunken, youthful indiscretion, and that comes across during examinations, I believe he'll be confirmed and should be. BTW, this is completely different from the Anita Hill accusations...that happened in the work place and Thomas certainly wasn't 17 years old.
But she does need to be credible. Apparently she is, but this is going to play out on TV unless the White House withdraws his nomination first. And that doesn't appear to be what the White House is considering, or at least not yet.
But they're playing it carefully/smartly at this point and not following a path that could backfire badly, ala the Roy Moore PR debacle...though their surrogates at Fox, like Laura Ingraham, are following a different script. Does Fox go all-in with the smear-the-accuser strategy? Does Trump tweet late at night when Kelly Anne and General Kelly et al don't have him corralled?
Also, in this day and age (#metoo), Thomas IMO, would not have been confirmed. Poor Anita Hill... back then and up against that crowd... she didn't stand a chance. FWIW, I was certainly impressed by her.
And, she was cute!...oof... was that wrong?
Not sure I'd have come up with that word in specific , but certainly she was, and still is, an attractive, in all senses, woman.
I recall wanting badly to believe Thomas, but finding the questioning of her veracity being pretty darn uncomfortable.
As I've said, tech37, you and I could definitely enjoy a cold one and shooting the breeze on all sorts of subjects.
Re: SCOTUS
Granted. OK, she was quite attractive.MDlaxfan76 wrote:'cute' is cute.tech37 wrote:Agreed.MDlaxfan76 wrote:Yup. 30 years ago the benefit of the doubt went to the nominee, despite a highly credible accuser. This time, if she's equally as credible as Anita Hill was, hard to imagine the benefit of the doubt going to the nominee and not the accuser.tech37 wrote:That's a good point. So then it really comes down to his credibility (denial) vs hers.MDlaxfan76 wrote:I'd agree, if he hadn't so categorically denied it ever happened. The lie, the cover-up is the issue, not the mistake as a high schooler.tech37 wrote:a fan you're not reading. Read my first sentence again..."how inflated this becomes" & "more alleged victims coming forward."a fan wrote:The election is in how many days?tech37 wrote:Wouldn't be so sure about that a fan. It depends on how inflated this all becomes. Watch for more alleged victims coming forward?a fan wrote:This is the Trump era, Ggait. Lying is just fake news. You think R voters give two figs if Kavanaugh is caught in a lie?
I sure don't. Anything short of Kavanaugh murdering Trump is fair game for these voters.
I do agree with you regarding "lying." Thanks to lawyers in general, spin doctors/damage controllers, and now shoddy, duplicitous media/reporting practices (fake news), more than ever, lying has become subjective.
You gents think that Republican Senators would jeopardize a SCOTUS pick over this? An allegation made in K's High School years?
If this is a one-time, drunken, youthful indiscretion, and that comes across during examinations, I believe he'll be confirmed and should be. BTW, this is completely different from the Anita Hill accusations...that happened in the work place and Thomas certainly wasn't 17 years old.
But she does need to be credible. Apparently she is, but this is going to play out on TV unless the White House withdraws his nomination first. And that doesn't appear to be what the White House is considering, or at least not yet.
But they're playing it carefully/smartly at this point and not following a path that could backfire badly, ala the Roy Moore PR debacle...though their surrogates at Fox, like Laura Ingraham, are following a different script. Does Fox go all-in with the smear-the-accuser strategy? Does Trump tweet late at night when Kelly Anne and General Kelly et al don't have him corralled?
Also, in this day and age (#metoo), Thomas IMO, would not have been confirmed. Poor Anita Hill... back then and up against that crowd... she didn't stand a chance. FWIW, I was certainly impressed by her.
And, she was cute!...oof... was that wrong?
Not sure I'd have come up with that word in specific , but certainly she was, and still is, an attractive, in all senses, woman.
I recall wanting badly to believe Thomas, but finding the questioning of her veracity being pretty darn uncomfortable.
As I've said, tech37, you and I could definitely enjoy a cold one and shooting the breeze on all sorts of subjects.
- MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 27108
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: SCOTUS
tech37 wrote:Granted. OK, she was quite attractive.MDlaxfan76 wrote:'cute' is cute.tech37 wrote:Agreed.MDlaxfan76 wrote:Yup. 30 years ago the benefit of the doubt went to the nominee, despite a highly credible accuser. This time, if she's equally as credible as Anita Hill was, hard to imagine the benefit of the doubt going to the nominee and not the accuser.tech37 wrote:That's a good point. So then it really comes down to his credibility (denial) vs hers.MDlaxfan76 wrote:I'd agree, if he hadn't so categorically denied it ever happened. The lie, the cover-up is the issue, not the mistake as a high schooler.tech37 wrote:a fan you're not reading. Read my first sentence again..."how inflated this becomes" & "more alleged victims coming forward."a fan wrote:The election is in how many days?tech37 wrote:Wouldn't be so sure about that a fan. It depends on how inflated this all becomes. Watch for more alleged victims coming forward?a fan wrote:This is the Trump era, Ggait. Lying is just fake news. You think R voters give two figs if Kavanaugh is caught in a lie?
I sure don't. Anything short of Kavanaugh murdering Trump is fair game for these voters.
I do agree with you regarding "lying." Thanks to lawyers in general, spin doctors/damage controllers, and now shoddy, duplicitous media/reporting practices (fake news), more than ever, lying has become subjective.
You gents think that Republican Senators would jeopardize a SCOTUS pick over this? An allegation made in K's High School years?
If this is a one-time, drunken, youthful indiscretion, and that comes across during examinations, I believe he'll be confirmed and should be. BTW, this is completely different from the Anita Hill accusations...that happened in the work place and Thomas certainly wasn't 17 years old.
But she does need to be credible. Apparently she is, but this is going to play out on TV unless the White House withdraws his nomination first. And that doesn't appear to be what the White House is considering, or at least not yet.
But they're playing it carefully/smartly at this point and not following a path that could backfire badly, ala the Roy Moore PR debacle...though their surrogates at Fox, like Laura Ingraham, are following a different script. Does Fox go all-in with the smear-the-accuser strategy? Does Trump tweet late at night when Kelly Anne and General Kelly et al don't have him corralled?
Also, in this day and age (#metoo), Thomas IMO, would not have been confirmed. Poor Anita Hill... back then and up against that crowd... she didn't stand a chance. FWIW, I was certainly impressed by her.
And, she was cute!...oof... was that wrong?
Not sure I'd have come up with that word in specific , but certainly she was, and still is, an attractive, in all senses, woman.
I recall wanting badly to believe Thomas, but finding the questioning of her veracity being pretty darn uncomfortable.
As I've said, tech37, you and I could definitely enjoy a cold one and shooting the breeze on all sorts of subjects.
-
- Posts: 7583
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:07 am
Re: SCOTUS
Besides the blue crabs, one of the few other positives of Maryland. Great online case search: Here is the link to the case.ggait wrote:So the trashing-back begins. The accuser is trying to get revenge against the Kavanaugh family because Kavanaugh's mom (who is a state court judge) foreclosed on their house...Laura Ingraham
Verified account @IngrahamAngle
5h5 hours ago
Accuser Christine Ford's PARENTS Were Defendants in a 1996 Foreclosure Case, Presided Over by Kavanaugh’s Mother
Real story is that Ford's parents had some financial difficulties many years after the Kavanaugh incident would have taken place. The bank filed legal papers. Parents and bank reached a settlement, and Kavanaugh's mom granted the bank's unopposed motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Ford's parents still live in the same house today.
Now that's what I call effing fake news. Nice work Laura!!
http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/ca ... ilLoc=MCCI
Of course, only the Kushners seek revenge, and petty tRump
ILM...Independent Lives Matter
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
Re: SCOTUS
I think a lot of people, especially those concerned with whether this is a fake smear campaign, don't know or are forgetting that these allegations were made a few months ago when Kavanaugh wasn't yet the pick, but just on the list of nominees right wing orgs picked for Trump to choose from.
It's certainly an attempt by a number of D's to delay or derail his nomination, but it's not like this was trumped up at the very last second.
It's certainly an attempt by a number of D's to delay or derail his nomination, but it's not like this was trumped up at the very last second.
Re: SCOTUS
Wait till America gets to know Kavanaugh wingman (and the only witness) Mark Judge and his deleted social media. I’m calling it now. Kav pulls out as the humiliation mounts this week.
“I don’t take responsibility at all.” —Donald J Trump
Re: SCOTUS
No holmes...this is I was referring to as a "well coordinated smear"...not simply the Dem's timing.CU88 wrote:https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... ending-her
The letter, which says it’s from more than 200 alumnae from classes 1967 through 2018,
https://other98.com/brett-kavanaughs-fe ... ng-letter/
Almost 1,000 signatures from YLS
https://shareblue.com/brett-kavanaugh-a ... nd-by-him/
63 women who signed letter have now gone silent on their support.
IMO, this is a no win for anyone involved.
Re: SCOTUS
Great! Hope that makes your day TrinityTrinity wrote:Wait till America gets to know Kavanaugh wingman (and the only witness) Mark Judge and his deleted social media. I’m calling it now. Kav pulls out as the humiliation mounts this week.
-
- Posts: 34178
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: SCOTUS
Dirt bags. Find another candidate. There are plenty of them.tech37 wrote:Great! Hope that makes your day TrinityTrinity wrote:Wait till America gets to know Kavanaugh wingman (and the only witness) Mark Judge and his deleted social media. I’m calling it now. Kav pulls out as the humiliation mounts this week.
“I wish you would!”
Re: SCOTUS
https://theintercept.com/2018/09/17/cyr ... responded/
Federal Ct employees would like to weigh in. They believe he’s lying too.
Federal Ct employees would like to weigh in. They believe he’s lying too.
Last edited by Trinity on Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
“I don’t take responsibility at all.” —Donald J Trump