JustOneMinute

Breakthrough Stuff

Back in the Kavanaugh morass: High school hard-drinker Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's alleged wingman, has been deposed by Senate staffers and the video has leaked. Breakthrough stuff.

Disingenuous Level Max

This piece from NBC News is getting attention - five former prosecutors, all women, explain that Prof. Blasey's accusations are stronger than we may think. The five women seem to be Democrats - we have a mix of Obama appointees, Dem donors, and, as a bit of an outlier, Jill Wine-Banks. who worked with Jaworski on the Watergate investigation and was later appointed by Jimmy Carter as General Counsel of the Army.

As to the arguments from four and a half Democrats, well, here we go:

So now the question is: What’s next? The latest proposal is for Ford and Kavanaugh to testify under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday. However, these allegations are extremely serious and we — five former federal prosecutors with a combined experience of many decades — believe that a Senate hearing, if it indeed occurs, is not enough. It will not adequately provide the American public with the full facts and truth about these allegations, nor, importantly, will it allow the Senate to fulfill its constitutional role of “advice and consent” in the context of potential Supreme Court justices. Rather, there must be a thorough, unrushed investigation by the FBI or by another independent investigator and a full and fair public hearing, including all relevant witnesses and not just Kavanaugh and his accuser.

I concur that a proper investigation would include more witnesses and more time. As a matter of politics that rewards Sen. Feinstein's contempt for the process and the public and may give the Democrats a chance to run out the clock on the Kavanaugh nomination. Awkward, but yes, this is a lifetime appointment at stake and I don't know how to balance it. Moving on:

Instead, prosecutors look for corroborating evidence — and there are strong indications already that Ford is telling the truth about her attack. Here are some of those indicators:

First, there is corroboration. Ford’s therapist’s notes in 2012, provided to The Washington Post, generally record her account of the attack. To believe that this is a made-up tale to prevent Kavanaugh’s confirmation, Ford would have had to plant the seeds of this story in 2012. That makes no sense.

Makes no sense? Per her own husband's account to the WaPo, Prof. Blasey was worried about Kavanaugh's Supreme Court prospects in 2012. That doesn't mean she's fabricating this - Kavanaugh had been in the news in 2012 and she may have worried that an ogre from her past was reappearing on the national stage. However, her 2012 version is hardly inconsistent with a fabrication theory. The WaPo:

In an interview, her husband, Russell Ford, said that in the 2012 sessions, she recounted being trapped in a room with two drunken boys, one of whom pinned her to a bed, molested her and prevented her from screaming. He said he recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh’s last name and voiced concern that Kavanaugh — then a federal judge — might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.

Let me add a Frequently Unasked Question overlooked by this prosecutorial team - the notes from 2013 describe a rape attempt in her "late teens". Is fifteen years old "late teens"?

Notes from an individual therapy session the following year, when she was being treated for what she says have been long-term effects of the incident, show Ford described a “rape attempt” in her late teens. 

Maybe these therapist just don't listen carefully. Back to the prosecutors:

Second, while not determinative, the fact that Ford passed a polygraph administered by a former FBI agent lends credence to her claims. Polygraph exams are inadmissible in court because they are not always reliable, but the FBI and other law enforcement agencies frequently use polygraph tests to assess the credibility of witnesses and defendants.

"While not determinative". Why are they peddling junk science?

In addition, consider the motives of Ford, who by all accounts is not a particularly politically active person, to go public with allegations of sexual assault. It appears that she did not want to speak publicly at all, but that reporters discovered her identity and pursued her. Ford knew that she would be personally attacked in front of her children, colleagues, students and friends. There is no reasonable explanation for why she would subject herself to such humiliation other than the reason she has given: that she felt she had a duty as a citizen to speak up.

As the Last Woman Standing between the United States and the Handmaid's Tale she had plenty of reason to speak up. And she is not working at Big Oil or a defense contractor - she's a psych professor at a California university where 98% of her colleagues think she is the biggest Resistance hero since Rey. Her biggest risks now are going deaf from the applause she's getting and getting bruised from all the pats on the back. (Spending the money from the book deal? She'll cross that bridge by private 'copter when she gets to it).

They next note, fairly, that not all witnesses come forward promptly, or at all. Fair enough. But the following is a howler:

If you are still inclined to believe that Ford is lying, ask yourself: Why would she create a defense witness by identifying Mark Judge, who was and still is indisputably a friend of Kavanaugh’s, as being present and participating in this attack? Why would she place at the scene an individual who could, because of loyalties to his friend, contradict her account if she were making this up? She wouldn’t.

OMG. Ford was a self-described blackout drunk during his high school years. Ask yourself if any defense attorney anywhere would ever bring in Judge as a character or evidence witness to defend Kavanaugh. They wouldn't. Well, not unless the strategy was that the entire prosecution team would literally die laughing, after which the defense could move for a mistrial.

Does this mean Judge's role is fabricated? Of course not. But if -IF - Dr. Blasey was inventing a story then including a "witness" who would do Kavanaugh more harm than good would be a clever stroke which would boost her credibility with those eager to be convinced. For placing Judge into the story to work, all Dr. Blasey would need to remember is that she sometimes saw Kavanaugh and Judge at parties together, and that Judge had a drinking problem. His 2005 memoir would certainly reassure her that he was a safe pick.

The team concludes with a call for more witnesses and a longer investigation. However, they don't raise a question that puzzles me. Dr. Blasey's expertise seems to cover statistics and study design, not the actual treatment of patients. However, she has two degrees in psychology, a Masters from Pepperdine and a PhD from USC.

I can't speak to the degree requirements of those schools but I know that for many programs a psychologist has to undergo therapy herself as part of the educational process. Did Dr. Blasey have other therapists prior to 2012? What did she tell them about the life-altering attempted rape?

Obviously no Senate Republican can ask that question in a public hearing - protestors will faint and the room will need to be cleared. But for whatever reason the five prosecutors above overlooked that seemingly obvious question, so I am asking it here.

New Hearing For Kavanaugh, Blasey, and No One Else?!?

The trial was a big circus. He never had a chance.

I have seen on Twitter that there is no plan to call Mark Judge or any other witnesses, so this will be the undiluted he said/she said.

The non-investigation is ludicrous - since the only important scene is at a small gathering of teens drinking, some other witnesses might be helpful in establishing the drinking and partying styles of Kavanaugh and Blasey. Of course Mark Judge, who has a memoir of his days as an alcohol abuser in high school, would almost surely be a disaster for Kavanaugh.

The Kavanaugh Train Wreck

Sweet Jiminy, I am waxing nostalgic for the calm, thoughtful Clarence Thomas hearings.

CNN claims to have transcribed the letter from Prof. Christine Blasey Ford, and the WaPo story that triggered this latest round of, hmm, truth-seeking. Yeah, that's what this is.

David French has a good recap. I disagree with his adoption of the more-likely-than-not 'preponderance of evidence' standard here because the severity of the accusation and the consequences of reaching the wrong judgment should also be weighed. As an example, we had excellent evidence (eight accusers, photos) that Al Franken was a serial jerk. But he also held an elective office (vote 'em out!) and the alleged offenses (basically, groping and unwanted kissing) don't rise to the level of attempted rape. (But do not try that argument in the current environment).

In any case, Franken was a victim of political expedience - Democrats wanted to attack Republican Roy Moore without having to defend Al, who would be replaced by a Democratic governor in any case. Bye, Al!

Kavanaugh is in line for a lifetime appointment. Given the stature of the position and the seriousness of the charge, if the case against him weighed in at, e.g., 40% probability, that might be reasonable grounds to move him aside.

ON the other hand, it is deeply troubling to think we will reward Sen. Feinstein for this cheap political stunt, which showed contempt for the confirmation process, her Senate colleagues, and the public. The cost of rewarding terrible behavior ought to be factored into the final assessment. Again, as an example, if there is only a 40% chance that Kavanugh is guilty as charged AND we are rewarding deplorable behavior, maybe we should put him on the court in an attempt to preserve respect for the process. Maybe. Politically challenging, obviously.

Put it another way - if Sen. Feinstein and Prof. Blasey had come forward in July we would have a bit more confidence that taking them seriously would not undermine our current system. But now? What's next? Will future hearings be six months of shadow boxing with the final punches only thrown after the hearing's end? How is that helpful to an already badly broken system?

The situation is an outrage and I doubt we will ever know "the truth". Was this an attempted rape as described by Prof. Ford? Was it a drunken pass misinterpreted by an hysterical fifteen year old, embellished over the years? Is it a story cut more or less from whole cloth by a Psych professor anticipating acclaim as the greatest Resistance hero since Rey? My goodness, her claim to fear publicity is absurd - she is not working for a defense contractor or Once Big Coal. 98% of her colleagues will be giving her shoulder rides as the Last Woman Standing between the United States and The Handmaid's Tale.

Well. I have some questions for each side. For Kavanaugh, I think the question of his high school drinking might merit some Senate follow-up. And here is an unremarked connection - Kavanaugh got attention during the process for his extreme interest in the Nationals baseball team, racking up big credit card bills buying season tickets for himself and three "old friends". 

By Eerie Coincidence, Mark Judge, the alibi witness, was described in 2005 as an "ardent" Senators fan (his grandpa played for the Senators) who transferred his allegiance to the Nationals when they came to DC in 2005. Hmm - is he one of the "old friends" going out to the od ball game with Kavanaugh? Just how close are Kavanaugh and his alibi witness? Honestly, wouldn't we all be more impressed if Mark Judge was a former Dick Durbin staffer who was still willing to vouch for a guy he hasn't seen since they drank too much together thirty years ago?

As to Prof. Blasey, I am intrigued that, per the WaPo, she did not seem to undergo therapy until 2012, despite two degrees (Master, Pepperdine; PhD, USC) in psychology. School and state requirements vary but I have read and been told that undergoing therapy is a very normal part of a degree program.

So, did she have therapists before 2012, and what notes do they have about this life-altering assault from her high school days?

And speaking of high school, there is a little-noticed discrepancy in the WAPo account - therapist notes from 2013 indicate a "rape attempt" in her "late teens". Later, we are told that she was probably fifteen at the time. That's "late teens"?

Her inability to be sure of even the summer the event occurred is a but ludicrous. Come on, I broke my knee in high school and I remember the year - watched Sam Ervin and his hearings with my leg propped up. (The good times just roll on, amirite?). Here we go:

Notes from an individual therapy session the following year, when she was being treated for what she says have been long-term effects of the incident, show Ford described a “rape attempt” in her late teens. 

...

After so many years, Ford said, she does not remember some key details of the incident. She said she believes it occurred in the summer of 1982, when she was 15, around the end of her sophomore year at the all-girls Holton-Arms School in Bethesda. Kavanaugh would have been 17 at the end of his junior year at Georgetown Prep.

Do let me note: Kavanaugh was in the news (March, Oct) as a likely Supreme Court pick if a Republican won. If she was laying the groundwork for a counterstrike it was Handmaid's Tale time, not trump Derangement Syndrome.

Football Sunday

I'm taking a knee om this.

YIKE: OK, Kavanaugh's accuser comes forward. I don't know - given the therapist's notes from 2012, it seems pretty clear that something happened to her in high school. She gave the WaPo the names of two other attendees at this small gathering (maybe 8-10 people?) but they have not yet been heard from.

On the other hand, I really have no idea how far The Resistance will go in resisting, so maybe the basic traumatizing incident is true but the names have been changed to malign the innocent. I suspect we will hear from some of the other party-goers soon enough.

 

The 'Wrong Apartment' Shooting - A NY Times Scoop

The NY Times has coverage of the 'wrong apartment' shooting in Dallas. There detail about neighbors complaining about marijuana smoke is new to me (and to Google News), and provides a rationale for the seemingly gratuitous marijuana 'smear' of a few days back. My emphasis:

In an echo of past police killings, there has been anger over what seem to be attempts to incriminate the victim: Police released a search warrant that revealed that 10.4 grams of marijuana in multiple baggies had been found in Mr. Jean’s apartment.

“First they assassinate his person, then they assassinate his character,” Mr. Crump said.

Hours earlier that evening, managers at the apartment complex had received complaints from residents that there was a strong smell of marijuana in the fourth-floor hallways. Managers knocked on Mr. Jean’s door and at least five other doors inquiring about the smell, the Jean family lawyers said. It was unclear who on the floor was responsible for the odor.

OK, first, the Times cites as its source "Jean family lawyers", who held a press conference which included denunciations of the marijuana search and coverage. Did the Times get this 'neighbors complaining' detail separately, or did the rest of the media overlook its significance?

And what is the significance? Well, if - IF - Jean had been smoking marijuana and had cracked his apartment door in order to get some cross-ventilation, that would explain the neighbors' complaints and might answer the riddle of whether his door could have been ajar at times during the night, as Citizen Guyger claims. Kind of a big deal.

Other details which might lean a bit towards Citizen Guyger:

Mr. Jean’s relatives, lawyers and supporters all say it would have been difficult for the officer to have mistaken Mr. Jean’s door: It had a large, bright-red, semicircular doormat, lying on a bare concrete floor. Officer Guyger had none. Would she not have noticed?

“My main concern is that she is lying,” said Mr. Merritt, one of the Jean family lawyers.

But Officer Guyger’s supporters say she had her hands full at the time she arrived at Mr. Jean’s door: Officials said she had with her a police vest, duty bag and lunchbox — items she might be expected to carry to her own front door, not someone else’s.

Depending on how she is holding those items the floor and doormat might not be immediately visible. Nor, if she is on autopilot after a long day, would she be checking for prompts and clues as to her whereabouts.

I still believe that if evaluated as a police officer, Ms. Guyger's decision to shoot can not be justified; if it was too dark for her to see anything other than a silhouette, as she claims, it was too dark for her to see a weapon that could have elevated this to a deadly force situation. IMHO police training in de-escalation is woefully deficient but she could have simply stepped back out of the apartment, re-assessed, and called for back-up. My goodness, what if she had been at her own apartment door and the superintendent had been responding to a complaint about a leak and then decided to change a burned out lightbulb in her entranceway? She's going to shoot the guy?

Evaluated as a civilian in her own residence, the standards for the use of a weapon in self-defense are more lenient and a case for self-defense to prevent a robbery could be made (Texas Penal Code 9.31, 9.32). IF she had been in her own home, which of course she wasn't. And since the hallway was available, shooting just seems to me to be a second or third choice. She lived alone, so she had no reason to think anyone inside was in danger. Stand in the hallway and think things over. Count to ten.

Well. Hindsight is twenty-twenty.

AS BEST I CAN TELL: The NY Times stands alone on this, as best I see.

I await developments.

Andrew Sullivan on Conservatism

When he's good he's excellent - Andrew Sullivan bashes both parties while reprising the history of conservatism in America and trying to figure out what his for, not just what he is against..

I'll highlight this, from his Big Finish:

I also believe we need to slow the pace of demographic and cultural change. It is happening too fast, even for America, to sustain our society’s coherence and cohesion. The elite indifference to mass immigration — especially the illegal kind — is an ugly pact between Republican elites, eager for cheap, exploitable labor, and Democratic elites, who cynically encourage it because they think it will give them a reliable voting bloc. When the foreign-born population is at a proportion last seen in 1910, and as the raw numbers are higher than ever before, it is not inherently racist to seek to slow the pace to integrate the newcomers better, to defuse racial conflict and resentment. A nation has to mean something; to survive, it needs a conservative weaving of past, present, and future, as Burke saw it. And you cannot do that if you see this country as a blight on the face of the earth and an instrument of eternal oppression; or if you replace a healthy, self-critical patriotism with an ugly, racist nationalism that aims to restore the very worst of this country’s past, rather than preserve its extraordinary and near-unique achievements.

I know there’s no place for this in our current political climate. And that is why I believe this country is in as grave a crisis as any since the 1850s. Without a healthy conservatism, liberalism will degenerate. Without liberalism, conservatism has no inheritance to defend. And both rich veins in Western moderation are now under assault from the ideological left and the authoritarian right. We have to brave this pincer attack, conservatives and liberals together, or we will die together.

Resistance Follies

The NY Times headline writers outdo themselves with this one:

Nikki Haley’s View of New York Is Priceless. Her Curtains? $52,701.

Hmm. We quickly learn they are not "her" curtains; they are the curtains for the US Ambassador to the UN, a spot currently held by Ms. Haley.

We also learn that the contracts were signed during the Obama Administration, but whatever.

WASHINGTON — The State Department spent $52,701 last year buying customized and mechanized curtains for the picture windows in Nikki R. Haley’s official residence as ambassador to the United Nations, just as the department was undergoing deep budget cuts and had frozen hiring.

The residence, in a new building on First Avenue, has spectacular views, and Ms. Haley is the first ambassador to live in it. For decades, her predecessors lived in the Waldorf Astoria hotel. But after the hotel was purchased by a Chinese insurance company with a murky ownership structure, the State Department decided in 2016 to find a new home for its top New York diplomat because of security concerns.

The government leased the apartment, just blocks from the delegation’s offices, with an option to buy, according to Patrick Kennedy, the top management official at the State Department during the Obama administration. The full-floor penthouse, with handsome hardwood floors covering large open spaces stretching nearly 6,000 square feet, was listedat $58,000 a month.

...

Ms. Haley’s residence is particularly grand since it is used for official entertaining. But her deputy’s is also very nice, having served as the location for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s intimate steak dinner in May with Kim Yong-chol, North Korea’s top nuclear weapons negotiator. During the dinner, Mr. Pompeo used its sweeping views to point out various features of New York City’s skyline to the senior official from the world’s most reclusive country.

A spokesman for Ms. Haley said plans to buy the curtains were made in 2016, during the Obama administration. Ms. Haley had no say in the purchase, he said.

The curtains themselves cost $29,900, while the motors and hardware needed to open and close them automatically cost $22,801, according to the contracts. Installation took place from March to August of last year, during Ms. Haley’s tenure as ambassador.

Jiminy. Anyone familiar with Federal bureaucracy and New York City, even a Times reporter or headline writer, knows that if installation began in March the plans were underway before Jan 20, 2017.

Whatever. Maybe in the interests of greater transparency they should have left the windows undraped.

The Dreadful Police Shooting In Dallas

David French is a national treasure and when he speaks I listen very carefully but he goes a bit awry in his evaluation of the deplorable 'mistaken apartment' police shooting in Dallas.

I completely agree that the police have treated Officer Amber Guyger in a far different manner from they would a civilian in similar circumstances. That treatment is not appropriate. However, I dispute this (my emphasis):

First, police sources are reportedly indicating that Guyger may actually try to raise the fact that Jean didn’t obey her commands as a defense. It’s not a defense. The moment she opened the door to an apartment that wasn’t her own, she wasn’t operating as a police officer clothed with the authority of the law. She was instead a criminal. She was breaking into another person’s home. She was an armed home invader, and the person clothed with the authority of law to defend himself was Botham Shem Jean.

First of all, as a matter of life advice, please look past the point that Botham Shem Jean had the legal right to defend himself [A modified right; see MORE LAW below] that and listen to me: EVEN THOUGH Mr. French is correct that the officer had no legal presence there, don't be dead right about this - if a cop in uniform starts giving orders, comply first and let the lawyers sort it out later. My goodness - maybe the cop got a bad tip from a neighbor. Who can forget (try as we might) when Obama announced the police had acted stupidly in arresting Henry Gates, then hosted a beer summit to attempt amends?

Or maybe the police got a malicious tip and the occupant is being "Swatted". Maybe officers are serving a warrant with the wrong address. Maybe the officer is confused and at the wrong building. Figure it out later, if you live that long.

Secondly, as a lawyer Mr. French ought to know that despite Ms. Guyger's lack of legal authority "She was an armed home invader" is not how the law works. Most states do not have a specific statute for home invasion. As an example, Connecticut does and criminal intent is a requirement. I don't think anyone is ready to argue that Ms. Guyger was entering the wrong apartment with criminal intent.

2011 Connecticut Code
Title 53a Penal Code
Chapter 952 Penal Code: Offenses
Sec. 53a-100aa Home invasion: Class A felony.

      Sec. 53a-100aa Home invasion: Class A felony. (a) A person is guilty of home invasion when such person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling, while a person other than a participant in the crime is actually present in such dwelling, with intent to commit a crime therein, and, in the course of committing the offense: (1) Acting either alone or with one or more persons, such person or another participant in the crime commits or attempts to commit a felony against the person of another person other than a participant in the crime who is actually present in such dwelling, or (2) such person is armed with explosives or a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

Down in Texas, home invasions are covered under burglary. Again, intent is a requirement of the law:

TITLE 7. OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY

...

CHAPTER 30. BURGLARY AND CRIMINAL TRESPASS

Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person:

(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault; or...

This question of intent, which is important, appears a bit later as well:

Which brings us to the second troubling element of the story. So far, Guyger is only charged with manslaughter. But all the available evidence indicates that she intentionally shot Jean. This wasn’t a warning shot gone awry. The pistol didn’t discharge during a struggle. She committed a crime by forcing open Jean’s door, deliberately took aim, and killed him.

We may never establish the circumstances under which she entered the apartment. Per the arrest affidavit, which seems to be her version of events, the door was slightly ajar. When she pushed her key into the lock, the door opened. If - IF - that is true, where was the "forcing open" and where was the criminal intent?

Now, apparently there are witnesses who tell a different tale:

These statements, however, don’t square with other testimony. One witness reported hearing a woman yelling, “Let me in! Let me in!” before the gunshots and a man’s voice saying, “Oh my God. Why did you do that?” after them.

Oh, brother. That comes from Lee Merritt, a young Al Sharpton wannabe who has had credibility problems in the past. From the Dallas News:

One attorney, Lee Merritt, said two independent witnesses had come forward to say they heard knocking on the door in the hallway before the shooting. Merritt said one witness reported hearing a woman's voice saying, "Let me in, let me in." Then they heard gunshots, he said.

After the gunshots, one of the witnesses reported hearing what she thought was a man's voice saying, "Oh my God, why did you do that," Merritt said.

He said he believes those were Jean's last words.

One witness said she didn't report what she had heard to law enforcement, Merritt said, but did reach out to Jean's family because she thought what she heard contradicted the prevailing theory.

So at least one of these two witnesses didn't talk to the Texas Rangers. Did the other? And sad to say, finding witnesses to support the target narrative is sometimes easy, as many of us learned with the "hands up, don't shoot" Michael Brown debacle. Do let me note - "hands up" is described as a hoax by Mr. French in a fascinating follow-up, where he describes a change in his own thinking on these police shootings.

MORE LAW: It turns out that my life-extending advice is also the law in Texas - when a peace officer is involved, comply first, let the lawyers hash it out later. Or at least, don't use force unless the officer is using undue force.

Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.31. Self-Defense

...

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

...

c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;  and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

Back At It!

I'm going to quit Googling on flu symptoms (In September?!?) and get this going: Trump is about to pass gas, or at least, relax rules on methane capture. Who do you trust to balance sensibly the burdens and benefits of regulation - Team Obama or Team Trump? For my money, "Neither of the Above" is an acceptable answer.

However, I am highly confident of my recollection that methane is a very potent but short-lived greenhouse gas (a couple of years instead of a century for carbon dioxide). So any errors can be relatively quickly reversed. Based on that, it is probably true that substituting methane for coal in our energy production will be beneficial even after accounting for methane leakage. Then again, if capturing leaky methane is cheap and easy, why not do it? Then then again, methane has a market value - if people won't pay to capture it, how cheap is the capture process? But yet again - if I have 1% leakage, the marginal cost of capture may exceed the marginal value of that 1%. On the fourth (or fifth?) hand, my profit on the 99% I do produce may easily cover most of the cost of capturing the 1% leaked. And over-arching this - just how much impact on global warming does any investment in methane mitigation actually deliver?

Per NPR, Big Ag is the big driver of methane production. I also recall reading that global warming is going to unleash the permafrost in Alaska and Siberia and those bogs will produce a methane apocalypse. 

It's complicated. And I don't have particular confidence in Obama, Trump, the NY Times, a Voxsplainer, or the WSJ editorial page in sorting this out.

College Football

The flailing Ny Times offers an alienated branch to flyover country by pretending to care about college football.

Harris v. Kavanaugh

Kamala Harris, Senator of California and darling of the Resistance, asked Supre Court nominee Kavanaugh whether he had ever had a conversation however casual, about the Mueller investigation with any Detroit Tigers fans.

OH, not exactly! Here is Politico, which so far is the only outlet with anyone who can explain this:

Kavanaugh stumbles when grilled on whether he discussed Mueller probe

He certainly stumbled in that on video [link] he looked confused and Sen. Harris looked incisive. Pure theatrics - the question was vague, but he could have done a better job exposing the absurdity of it.

Nearly 12 hours into Brett Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation hearing, Kamala Harris opened with a tantalizing query: Has the Supreme Court nominee ever discussed Robert Mueller’s probe with a lawyer at Kasowitz Benson & Torres, President Donald Trump’s longtime law firm?

“Be sure about your answer, sir,” Harris asked Kavanaugh. Trump’s high court pick appeared nonplussed, responding that “I’m not sure I know everyone who works at that law firm,” but the California Democrat – a veteran prosecutor known for her tenacious questioning and high on her party’s 2020 presidential short lists — would not let up. 

“How can you not remember whether you’ve had a conversation about Robert Mueller or his investigation with anyone at that law firm?” Harris asked, suggesting that Kavanaugh was “thinking of someone and you don’t want to tell us.”

The moment was striking, one of the Democratic Party’s newest leading lights taking on a well-respected Trump nominee with roots in hard-knuckle GOP politics. But Harris moved on from the question within minutes, turning what seemed like a chance to get Kavanaugh on the ropes into a mystery — and one with a sizable downside risk.

As I said, all theatrics. Kavanaugh is a Supreme Court nominee and I'm not but for heaven's sake - if I chatted with someone for five minutes at a cocktail party about the Mueller investigation last year I'd be surprised if I remembered his name, let alone his employer. Obviously, if Kavanaugh had a formal sit-down complete with an exchange of business cards, that is something different.

So what was going on?

The only explanation for the back-and-forth came from a Democratic aide speaking on condition of anonymity, who said Wednesday night that some in the party "have reason to believe that a conversation happened and are continuing to pursue it."

If tangible evidence of that conversation doesn’t emerge, Harris and fellow Democrats are likely to face serious questions of their own from the GOP about whether their attempt to pin down Kavanaugh was little more than a game of gotcha.

So, Democrat rumor and innuendo? Pretty strong stuff, and right now no news outlet (including the LA Times, which ought to have more CA sources) seems to have more.

My utterly fair and balanced guess - given the passion of her base, Sen. Harris may have seen the benefits of indulging in a little bit of Resistance Porn. The Politico suggestion that she faces downside risk is ludicrous - if nothing comes of this it will be because the EVIL TRUMP EMPIRE squashed all evidence of a shameful strategy session The Resistance just knows [stamp foot here!] took place.

Or, if this breaks big for Harris, then OK, she is a legitimate Dem hero and I'll feel bad flashing that OK sign at her. In fact, as a bit of a public service let me pass along some stuff I just learned from following The Resistance:

Hate is everywhere - be vigilant!

Yeah, this fast track to Crazytown will be a bumpy ride.

On The Fast Track To Crazytown

OK, a senior official in the Trump Administration describes the resistance from within. This comes the day after the big Woodward firestorm and Washington (or at least Memeorandum) is reeling.

So what does it mean? I am sure I am not alone in having had the pleasure of working for an idiot-savant boss who offered on a daily basis a mix of great ideas, terrible ideas and illegal ideas with no ability to distinguish them. Humble yet earnest underlings would huddle, try to separate the wheat from the chaff and the handcuffs, and carry on with appropriate commitment.

If the Big Dog never barked again on a particular topic we figured we were in the clear. After all, we were all adults and in moments of sanity we thought there was a mutual understanding from both high and low that some of these ideas needed to be forgotten. Things did get tense when the boss repeatedly pushed for one his terrible ideas, but we had fallbacks and fall guys.

Anyway - some level of madness is normal, or at least not unusual, in an organization. Trump seems to be an extreme outlier but Woodward was pretty harsh on Clinton in The Agenda and Bush in State of Denial. Disgruntled staffers gonna disgrunt. This is from a review of The Agenda:

Some examples. George Stephanopoulos, perhaps Clinton's closest aide, is said to have told incoming budget director Leon Panetta that the president-elect's worst failing is that he can never make a decision (Page 86). Senior political assistant Paul Begala opines that the president is so lacking in backbone that without his wife he would have had a career as the most popular law professor at the University of Arkansas (Page 111). Deputy budget director Alice Rivlin is reported to have told Mr. Begala that the Clinton campaign's numbers on the federal deficit were dishonest (Page 114). Political adviser Stanley Greenberg is said to have thought at one key juncture in 1993 that Hillary Clinton's strategy on health care was insane and dishonest (Page 122).

Would that Woodward and Anonymous had so little to say about Trump.

MORE: Nick Gillespie is excellent.

Kavanaugh, Day Two

Into the abyss! Or, "Second verse, same as the first".