HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » kpete » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ... 2659 Next »

kpete

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Sep 17, 2004, 03:59 PM
Number of posts: 60,994

Journal Archives

Dear GOP - from: Every survivor in America

Dear GOP,
You KNEW there was another accuser that was being vetted to come forward, so you tried to rush Dr. Ford and call her bluff and push a vote. It didn't work. You drew first blood, but didn't kill us and now we're coming for you.
Sincerely,
Every survivor in America




https://twitter.com/girlsreallyrule/status/1044053710073208833

Jane Mayer discusses her very credible sources re: Kavanaugh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=DwGLi_3Aj_E

Jane Mayer on CBS: "We found classmates had been talking about this for weeks ... There'd been an email chain of Yale classmates of Kavanaugh talking about 'will this thing come out' long before Christine Blasey Ford came forward. We felt the public ought to know about this."
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1044209842884210689


snippet from video:

“There’s a very sober background source, who was not part of the party, was not drunk, heard about it either that night, he thinks, or the next day,” she said. “When I asked him myself, does he remember this, and is he sure that Kavanaugh was the person he heard about in this. He said to me, ‘I am 100 percent sure.'”

“He’s mentioned it to other people in grad school over the years,” Mayer continued. “His classmates were talking about it in July, before Christine Blasey Ford came forward. We have looked at the e-mails, they’re chattering about it, saying, ‘Boy, if the FBI investigates him, there are going to be some stories here that are going to put an end to his nomination.'”

Another source contacted Mayer and Farrow to share her concerns about Kavanaugh friend Mark Judge, who Ford claims was an accomplice in her near-rape.

“Her name is Elizabeth Rasor, and she was at Catholic University with (Judge), and she said, ‘I feel a moral obligation to correct the record here,'” Mayer said, paraphrasing her source. “‘What he’s saying about how there’s no way that this could have happened because they only knew boys, they only roughhoused with boys, there were no girls basically in their lives,’ she said, ‘Mark Judge told me that he’ — I don’t want to say anything too scuzzy on television — ‘but told me that he had sex when she was at Georgetown Prep with some of his friends, all with the same drunk woman at the same time.'”

“She’s saying this on the record,” Mayer added, “and she is a teacher now, and she said, ‘I wouldn’t betray confidences ordinarily, but I felt it was just too important, and I needed to say there’s another picture of Georgetown Prep social life than the one that he painted — and he knows that.'”



https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/scuzzy-tv-reporter-repulsed-latest-brett-kavanaugh-allegations-revealed-new-yorker/

This Modern World: Cavalcade of Kavanaugh

?1537748663

Jane Mayer was very busy this weekend - yes, the Russians stole the election for Trump

How Russia Helped Swing the Election for Trump
A meticulous analysis of online activity during the 2016 campaign makes a powerful case that targeted cyberattacks by hackers and trolls were decisive.

Jane Mayer
September 24, 2018 5:00 AM




...................


Jamieson argues that the impact of the Russian cyberwar was likely enhanced by its consistency with messaging from Trump’s campaign, and by its strategic alignment with the campaign’s geographic and demographic objectives. Had the Kremlin tried to push voters in a new direction, its effort might have failed. But, Jamieson concluded, the Russian saboteurs nimbly amplified Trump’s divisive rhetoric on immigrants, minorities, and Muslims, among other signature topics, and targeted constituencies that he needed to reach. She noted that Russian trolls had created social-media posts clearly aimed at winning support for Trump from churchgoers and military families—key Republican voters who seemed likely to lack enthusiasm for a thrice-married nominee who had boasted of groping women, obtained multiple military deferments, mocked Gold Star parents and a former prisoner of war, and described the threat of venereal disease as his personal equivalent of the Vietcong. Russian trolls pretended to have the same religious convictions as targeted users, and often promoted Biblical memes, including one that showed Clinton as Satan, with budding horns, arm-wrestling with Jesus, alongside the message “ ‘Like’ if you want Jesus to win!” One Instagram post, portraying Clinton as uncaring about the 2012 tragedy in Benghazi, depicted a young American widow resting her head on a flag-draped coffin. Another post displayed contrasting images of a thin homeless veteran and a heavyset, swarthy man wearing an “undocumented unafraid unapologetic” T-shirt, and asked why “this veteran gets nothing” and “this illegal gets everything.” It concluded, “Like and share if you think this is a disgrace.” On Election Day, according to CNN exit polls, Trump, despite his political baggage, outperformed Clinton by twenty-six points among veterans; he also did better among evangelicals than both of the previous Republican nominees, Mitt Romney and John McCain.


In her Post article, Jamieson wrote that it was “hard to know” if Russian propaganda and dirty tricks—including the steady release of hacked e-mails, starting with Democratic National Committee correspondence that was leaked just before the Party’s convention—had made a decisive difference in 2016. Nevertheless, she argued, the “wide distribution” of the trolls’ disinformation “increases the likelihood” that it “changed the outcome.”

After the article’s publication, she returned to her sabbatical project on the debates, with a newly keen eye for Russian trolls and hackers. After reviewing the debate transcripts, scrutinizing press coverage, and eliminating other possibilities, Jamieson concluded that there was only one credible explanation for the diminishing impression among debate viewers that Clinton was forthright: just before the second debate, WikiLeaks had released a cache of e-mails, obtained by Russian hackers, that, it said, were taken from the Gmail account of Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta. They included excerpts from speeches that Clinton had given to banks, for high fees, and had refused to release during the campaign. The speeches could be used by detractors to show that, despite her liberal rhetoric, she was aligned with Wall Street. The hacked content permeated the discourse of the debates, informing both the moderators’ questions and the candidates’ answers. All this, Jamieson writes, gave legitimacy to the idea that Clinton “said one thing in public and another in private.”


During the second debate, on October 9th, before 66.5 million viewers, one of the moderators, Martha Raddatz, relayed a question submitted by a voter: Did Clinton think that it was acceptable for a politician to be “two-faced”? The question referred to a leaked passage from one of Clinton’s previously unreleased paid speeches; Russian hackers had given the passage to WikiLeaks, which posted it two days before the debate. In the speech, Clinton had cited Steven Spielberg’s film “Lincoln” as an example of how politicians sometimes need to adopt different public and private negotiating stances. The point was scarcely novel, but the debate question—which took her words out of context, omitted her reference to the movie, and didn’t mention that Russian operatives had obtained the speech illegally—made Clinton sound like a sneaky hypocrite. When Clinton cited “Lincoln” in order to defend the statement, Trump pounced.

“She got caught in a total lie!” Trump said. “Her papers went out to all her friends at the banks—Goldman Sachs and everybody else. And she said things, WikiLeaks, that just came out. And she lied. Now she’s blaming the lie on the late, great Abraham Lincoln!”


The dynamic recurred in the third debate, on October 19th, which 71.6 million people watched. When Trump accused Clinton of favoring “open borders,” she denied it, but the moderator, Chris Wallace, challenged her by citing a snippet from a speech that she had given, in 2013, to a Brazilian bank: “My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.” Again, there was no mention of the fact that the speech had been stolen by a hostile foreign power; Wallace said that the quotation had come from WikiLeaks. The clear implication of Wallace’s question was that Clinton had been hiding her true beliefs, and Trump said to him, “Thank you!” His supporters in the audience laughed. Clinton said that the phrase had been taken out of context: she’d been referring not to immigrants but to an open-bordered electric grid with Latin America. She tried to draw attention to Russia’s role in hacking the speech, but Trump mocked her for accusing Putin, and joked, “That was a great pivot off the fact that she wants open borders.” He then warned the audience that, if Clinton were elected, Syrians and other immigrants would “pour into our country.”

The fact-checking organization PolitiFact later concluded that Trump had incorrectly characterized Clinton’s speech, but the damage had been done. Jamieson’s research indicated that viewers who watched the second and third debates subsequently saw Clinton as less forthright, and Trump as more forthright. Among people who did not watch the debates, Clinton’s reputation was not damaged in this way. During the weeks that the debates took place, the moderators and the media became consumed by an anti-Clinton narrative driven by Russian hackers. In “Cyberwar,” Jamieson writes, “The stolen goods lent credibility” to “those moderator queries.”

As Jamieson reviewed the record further, she concluded that the Russian hackers had also been alarmingly successful in reframing the American political narrative in the crucial period leading up to the second debate. On Friday, October 7th, two days before it took place, three major stories landed in rapid succession. At 12:40 p.m., the Obama Administration released a stunning statement, by the Department of Homeland Security and the director of National Intelligence, accusing the Russian government of interfering in the election through hacking. This seemed certain to dominate the weekend news, but at 4:03 p.m. the Washington Post published a report, by David Fahrenthold, on an “Access Hollywood” tape that captured Trump, on a hot mike, boasting about grabbing women “by the pussy.” Then, less than half an hour later, WikiLeaks released its first tranche of e-mails that Russian hackers had stolen from Podesta’s account. The tranche contained some two thousand messages, along with excerpts from the paid speeches that Clinton had tried to conceal, including those that would be mentioned in the subsequent debates. (Julian Assange, the head of WikiLeaks, has denied working with the Russian government, but he manifestly despises Clinton, and, in a leaked Twitter direct message, he said that in the 2016 election “it would be much better for GOP to win.”)


.....................



TONS MORE:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump/amp?__twitter_impression=true
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1044187190505476097
https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/status/1044171656850288640

"The WH Stands Firmly Behind Judge Kavanaugh."






https://twitter.com/KellyO/status/1044015089345601539

This seems telling...






https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1044032541286715392

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez

Kavanaugh Just Provided Compelling Evidence He Received Sexually Explicit Emails From Alex Kozinski

BRETT KAVANAUGH JUST PROVIDED COMPELLING EVIDENCE HE RECEIVED SEXUALLY EXPLICIT EMAILS FROM ALEX KOZINSKI
September 23, 2018/2 Comments/in Law /by emptywheel

In his latest attempt to respond to the allegation that he attempted to rape Christine Blasey Ford, Brett Kavanaugh has let it be known he has calendars from 1982 that (he claims) exonerate him, as if teenagers create permanent records of the incidences where they drink illegally and attempt to rape their acquaintances.

But his claim to have records so readily at hand should focus new scrutiny at one of his answers — or rather, one of many refusals to answer — to a question from Patrick Leahy.

59. At your hearing last week, you and Senator Hirono had the following exchange:

SEN. HIRONO: Have you otherwise ever received sexually suggestive or explicit e-mails from Judge [Alex] Kozinski, even if you don’t remember whether you were on this “Gag List” or not?

KAVANAUGH: So Senator, let me start with no woman should be subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace, and … [sic] 7


You avoided answering the question. Please go through your files and emails, and definitively state whether you ever received sexually suggestive or explicit emails from Judge Kozinski, whether as part of his “Easy Rider Gag List” or otherwise.

RESPONSE: I do not remember receiving inappropriate emails of a sexual nature from Judge Kozinski. [bold original]

When it suits his interests, Kavanaugh has now shown, he has a heroic ability to find documentary evidence.

But here, for a period that lasted into much more recent time, Kavanugh insolently ignored a second direct request about whether he had documentary evidence that he knew of Kozinski’s harassment.

Which is pretty compelling evidence that such evidence does or once did exist.


https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/09/23/brett-kavanaugh-just-provided-compelling-evidence-he-received-sexually-explicit-emails-from-alex-kozinski/

Here's McConnell in 2016 bragging about preventing Pres Obama from filling Justice Scalia's seat

https://twitter.com/DeanObeidallah/status/1043885170028412936

Sick to your stomach? Me Too!

Just Boys Being Boys...

Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ... 2659 Next »