SEPTEMBER 27 AND 28, 2018

NEWS AND VIEWS

HE WHO LAUGHS LAST LAUGHS BEST. NONETHELESS, THANK YOU, PRESIDENT TRUMP AND SENATE GUARDIANS OF THE REALM OF REPUBLICANISM FOR SHOWING HUMANITY.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/senate-committee-prepares-to-vote-on-kavanaugh-nomination-as-key-senators-remain-silent/2018/09/28/0b143292-c305-11e8-b338-a3289f6cb742_story.html
Politics
Kavanaugh vote: Senate Republican leaders agree to new FBI background investigation of Kavanaugh
By Seung Min Kim ,
John Wagner and
Josh Dawsey
September 28 at 8:49 PM

TWO VIDEOS – WHICH WON’T PLAY FOR ME, MAYBE BECAUSE I HAVEN’T PAID A SUBSCRIPTION FEE. THERE ARE SEVERAL PHOTOGRAPHS ALSO, THOUGH, UNDER THE HEADING: “THE SCENE DURING THE VOTE FOR SUPREME COURT NOMINEE BRETT KAVANAUGH.”

President Trump on Friday ordered the FBI to reopen the investigation of Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh’s background, a stunning turnaround in an emotional battle over sexual assault allegations that has shaken the Senate and reverberated across the country.

The dramatic developments capped an extraordinary day on Capitol Hill, which began with a sense of momentum for Kavanaugh but then sharply changed when one of Trump’s fiercest Republican critics, Sen. Jeff Flake (Ariz.), who at first endorsed the nominee, emerged from a private meeting with Democrats to call for a renewed inquiry into misconduct allegations.

Flake’s move puts in doubt the fate of Kavanaugh, who has in recent days drawn strong support from Trump and other top Republicans, but now faces another week of scrutiny and must watch as senators in both parties endure mounting pressure from their respective bases to either rally to his side or block his confirmation.

Conservatives have demanded that Republicans confirm Trump’s second Supreme Court pick, a judge who could shift the high court to the right for a generation, or face political consequences in midterm elections in six weeks with control of Congress at stake.

The delay once again thrusts the FBI, an increasing target of Trump’s ire, into the center of a politically charged controversy in the #MeToo period.

Flake, who at one point Friday was confronted by two women who tearfully and angrily urged him to consider the pain of sexual assault survivors, was soon joined by Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), and hailed by Democrats for forcing a one-week delay in the nomination process to allow for the federal inquiry.

“There’s lingering doubt out there among a lot of people that we haven’t taken every measure that we should to make sure that these allegations are dealt with,” Flake told reporters Friday after the Senate Judiciary Committee said it requested the White House call for an FBI probe. “That’s what this effort is about.”

[‘Look at me when I’m talk­ing to you!’: Crying protester confronts Flake in Capitol elevator]

The request for a supplemental FBI background check will almost certainly delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote beyond Tuesday, the tentative date eyed by Senate GOP leaders. But Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had no choice but to placate the small core of undecided senators whom Trump has little power to influence.

Late Friday, by voice vote, the Senate took an initial step to move ahead on the nomination. Barring no major revelations from the FBI, the Senate could vote on confirming Kavanaugh next weekend, days after the start of the high court’s session.

The FBI has already cleared Kavanaugh through six background checks for his previous public-service jobs, a point the nominee underscored in a statement Friday while adding, “I’ve done everything they have requested and will continue to cooperate.”

The scene during the vote for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh
View Photos Several Democrats walk out of Kavanaugh meeting in protest.
[Kavanaugh takes partisan turn as he lashes out at ‘search and destroy’ Democrats]

Trump said the investigation “must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week.” The Judiciary Committee said the probe would cover “current credible allegations,” although committee spokesmen did not respond to a request to elaborate on what those accusations are.

The rapid-fire events Friday came a day after dramatic, searing testimony from Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault when both were in high school, and from the nominee, who denied the allegation in an emotional presentation.

Attorneys for Ford praised the decision to reopen the probe and added, “No artificial limits as to time or scope should be imposed on this investigation.”

The announcement followed a vote along party lines by the Judiciary Committee to advance Kavanaugh’s nomination — an 11-to-10 roll call that was left significantly in doubt amid a contentious yet odd debate as senators dashed into an anteroom behind the hearing space.

The committee fight already was tense, as several Democrats — including Sens. Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), Kamala D. Harris (Calif.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) — walked out in protest. Flake often appeared conflicted and pained as senators engaged in a contentious debate over the nomination.

After Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) implored Republicans to join Democrats in calling for an FBI probe, Flake walked over and gestured to Coons to join him in the anteroom. The two close friends, as well as Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), left — prompting immediate speculation about whether they were working on a deal to delay the vote.

The curiosity inside the Dirksen Senate Office Building hearing room grew as more and more senators shuffled in and out of the back room for the discussions, which Collins called into via phone. Besieged by colleagues, Flake and Coons even sought privacy for their conversations in one of the Senate’s old-fashioned phone booths.

The senators eventually returned, and Flake announced that he would still vote to advance Kavanaugh’s nomination, on the condition that a final vote would be delayed no more than a week to allow for an investigation.

Shortly afterward, Murkowski, Collins and Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) said they supported his call for a limited FBI probe. Manchin said in a statement that “the American people have been pulled apart by this entire spectacle.”

“What I’m encouraged by is that in an anteroom, back-hall conversation — first with Sen. Flake and then with Sen. [Dianne] Feinstein and then with many other senators of both parties, there was broad agreement that this committee has been too divided and too partisan with this process,” Coons said.

Senate Republican leaders have yet to lock down the minimum 50 votes to confirm Kavanaugh. Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) announced late Thursday that he would oppose the nominee, and on Friday, Sen. Joe Donnelly (Ind.) — one of just three Democratic senators who supported now-Justice Neil M. Gorsuch in April 2017 — said he would reject Kavanaugh as well.

Collins and Murkowski have not declared a position on Kavanaugh’s nomination; neither has Manchin nor Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.).

[A look at where the 100 senators stand]

Trump told advisers in meetings Thursday and Friday that prolonging the vote doesn’t help Kavanaugh but that if an FBI check came up clean, he could use that as a cudgel to get more votes. But the biggest concern in the White House is that with more time, more women, more accusations and more stories could emerge.

“It’s not the FBI investigation that sparks the fear like it is just another week of this,” one White House official said. “How much longer is this sustainable?”

On Thursday, Trump was elated with Kavanaugh’s fiery testimony, in which he defended his character while furiously denying the allegations. Trump was “fired up” in a phone call with McConnell about Kavanaugh’s ultimate confirmation, according to two people familiar with the call, and said senators needed to take the vote.

It was a reversal from an earlier call with McConnell in which Trump was upset as Ford delivered her emotional testimony, according to the two people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.

McConnell, as well as White House counsel Donald McGahn, has urged Trump to hold his fire and let the confirmation battle play out, advisers to both men said. Both Trump and McGahn had told others that they did not want an FBI investigation, two senior officials said — but that it was inevitable once it became clear that Kavanaugh could not be confirmed without one.

McGahn and informal Trump judicial adviser Leonard Leo — rather than the president — have been calling senators. McGahn has told others that he has good relationships with Collins and Murkowski.

Trump is telling advisers that he wants to stick by Kavanaugh. But he also says that “Republicans have been played like a fool,” according to a senior White House official. Still, one official involved in the confirmation process said that while Trump has expressed some frustration with the timing, he generally believes that McGahn and McConnell have the Supreme Court and other judicial nomination fights figured out.

Mark Judge, a friend and high school classmate of Kavanaugh’s, is likely to be a prominent figure in any inquiry by the FBI. Ford claims he was present when Kavanaugh allegedly attacked her. Another Kavanaugh accuser alleges that Judge and Kavanaugh sought on multiple occasions in high school to drug inebriated girls for nonconsensual sex with multiple boys — an accusation Kavanaugh has strongly denied.

“If the FBI or any law enforcement agency requests Mr. Judge’s cooperation, he will answer any and all questions posed to him,” Judge’s lawyer Barbara Van Gelder said.

Judge met with his lawyer Friday morning in Washington, after returning from Bethany Beach, Del. The Washington Post found him there Monday, where his lawyer said he had fled to try to avoid an avalanche of media requests and criticism.

Judge told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday that he either does not recall or flatly rejects the allegations about his and Kavanaugh’s behavior in high school.

“All I can say is that next week, this will be over,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said. “I really believe, I believe he will be on the court.”

Carol D. Leonnig, Sean Sullivan, Mike DeBonis, Paul Kane, Robert Barnes and Elise Viebeck contributed to this report.

Read more at PowerPost


Seung Min Kim
Seung Min Kim is a White House reporter for The Washington Post, covering the Trump administration through the lens of Capitol Hill. Before joining The Washington Post in 2018, she spent more than eight years at Politico, primarily covering the Senate and immigration policy. Follow

John Wagner
John Wagner is a national reporter who leads The Post's new breaking political news team. He previously covered the Trump White House. During the 2016 presidential election, he focused on the Democratic campaigns of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley. He also chronicled Maryland government for more than a decade. Follow

Josh Dawsey
Josh Dawsey is a White House reporter for The Washington Post. He joined the paper in 2017. He previously covered the White House for Politico, and New York City Hall and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for the Wall Street Journal. Follow


SANDERS’ WORDS, SPARE AS USUAL, CONGRATULATE THE WOMEN’S COURAGE IN COMING FORWARD IN SUCH AN INTIMIDATING CLIMATE. PROFESSOR FORD HAS LITERALLY FLED HER HOME WHEN SHE WAS THREATENED WITH DEATH. LEFT LEANERS SUCH AS MYSELF CAN BE VERY DOGMATIC, BUT WE AREN’T USUALLY AS PRONE TO VIOLENCE AS THE RIGHTISTS ARE.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408339-sanders-kavanaugh-accusers-have-risked-their-lives-to-come-forward
Sanders: Kavanaugh accusers 'have risked their lives to come forward'
BY BRETT SAMUELS - 09/25/18 02:28 PM EDT

PHOTOGRAPH -- BERNIE SANDERS SPEAKING © Greg Nash

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) condemned Republicans and the White House for their treatment of the two women who have accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct.

"Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez have risked their lives to come forward and tell their stories," Sanders wrote in a tweet on Monday.

"Republican Senators, their staff and the Trump administration must stop disparaging these brave women and treat them with respect," he added.

Sanders joined other Democrats in calling for a delay in Kavanaugh's confirmation process until "a full and fair investigation" into the allegations can be completed.

Kavanaugh's nomination has been upended in recent weeks after Ford and Ramirez accused him of sexual misconduct.

Ford claimed that Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed groped her and attempted to remover her clothes during a high school party in the 1980s, then covered her mouth when she tried to scream.

Ford, who will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, has said she's received death threats and been forced to leave her home since she went public.

Ramirez told The New Yorker in a story published Sunday that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her and thrust his genitals in her face at a party during his freshman year at Yale.

Kavanaugh, whose family has also received threatening messages, has adamantly denied the accusations and vowed he will not withdraw.

President Trump, while initially restrained, has in recent days lashed out at the accusers and questioned their credibility. He has questioned why both women waited decades to come forward and on Tuesday suggested Ramirez lacked credibility because she was admittedly intoxicated during the alleged incident.

Republican senators have echoed Trump's more aggressive rhetoric in recent days. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) implied Monday that Democrats had engaged in "wholesale character assassination" against Kavanaugh, while Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called the allegations a "smear."

TAGS MITCH MCCONNELL LINDSEY GRAHAM BERNIE SANDERS DONALD TRUMP


DURING THE TESTIMONY

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408876-five-takeaways-on-kavanaugh-and-fords-testimony
Five takeaways on Kavanaugh and Ford’s testimony
BY JORDAIN CARNEY AND EMILY BIRNBAUM - 09/27/18 08:27 PM EDT

Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh combined to provided one of the most dramatic and memorable hearings in Senate history on Thursday.

Millions watched on cable television as Blasey Ford held the Senate Judiciary Committee rapt with her account of a sexual assault on her as a teenager that she says was carried out by Kavanaugh.

The Supreme Court nominee hours later offered an angry and indignant response, ripping Senate Democrats for their attacks on his character and denying Ford’s accusations.

Here are five takeaways.

Ford came off as credible

As Ford wrapped her testimony, both sides praised the 51-year-old professor for being credible and effective under hours of interrogation by senators and Rachel Mitchell, the lawyer hired to question her on behalf of Republicans.

Sen. Richard Shelby (Ala.) told reporters that he found Ford to be “credible.” Meanwhile, GOP Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the No. 2 GOP senator and member of the committee, told reporters he “found no reason to find her not credible.”

Ford’s testimony left Republicans grim faced, and commentators on Fox News pronounced it a disaster for the GOP.

Democrats rallied behind her, with Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), a 2020 White House candidate, telling Ford: “I believe you and I believe many Americans across this country believe you.”

Kavanaugh’s aggressive tact paid off

Ford’s testimony was so powerful and so good, commentators said Kavanaugh really needed to deliver.

He did with a forceful denial notable for its passion and indignation.

Kavanaugh was visibly angry, red faced and appeared to be at times on the verge of yelling at senators as he began his opening statement.

He ripped the committee process, and specifically Democrats, calling the attacks a “national disgrace,” and saying senators had gone from “advise and consent to search and destroy.”

It seemed to light a fire under the GOP, as some panel members began laying into Democrats themselves.

No one was more fiery than Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

“What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life, hold this seat open and hope you win in 2020. You’ve said that not me,” Graham told committee Democrats in his viral video moment.

“You’ve got nothing to apologize for,” he then said, turning to Kavanaugh. “When you see [Supreme Court justices] Sotomayor and Kagan, tell them that Lindsey said ‘Hello,’ cause I voted for them.”

Before Kavanaugh’s testimony, his confirmation was teetering. Afterward, he immediately had new life.

The final stamp of approval came from President Trump. A White House official told The Hill that the president was pleased with his performance.

The GOP’s outside counsel didn’t really work

Republicans hired a female outside counsel to question Ford and Kavanaugh as they tried to avoid the optics of 11 male senators questioning the 51-year-old professor, a setup that would have been compared to Anita Hill being questioned in 1991 by an all-male Judiciary Committee.

But the counsel, Rebecca Mitchell, failed to really poke holes in Ford’s testimony, and at times appeared to help her.

Fox News’s Chris Wallace said more than an hour into the hearing that Democrats were “scoring points” but Mitchell “hasn't laid a glove” on Ford. And Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano on Fox News that Republicans “made a grave error,” by allowing Mitchell to “craft her questioning the way she did.”

It’s possible things would have gone worse without Mitchell, since that would have led to the scenes of the all-male GOP panelists questioning Ford.

Regardless, as Kavanaugh gained momentum through his own testimony, Mitchell disappeared from the hearing.

Starting with GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Republican members one-by-one asked Kavanaugh their own questions, a move that gave them the chance to also try to defend him.

Mitchell declined to answer questions after the hearing.

Grassley looks defensive

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grasley (R-Iowa) began the hearing on the defensive and remained that way throughout.

Grassley interjected and interrupted during both Ford and Kavanaugh's questioning, often sparring with Democratic senators over criticisms of his committee.

During his opening remarks, Grassley lamented how Democrats had treated the allegations from Ford, doubling down on his accusation that Feinstein “took no action” after receiving Ford’s letter alleging the Kavanaugh attack in July.

“We did not know about the ranking member’s secret evidence” during Kavanaugh's lengthy vetting process, he said.

He addressed the allegations from two other women publicly accusing Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, saying his staff had put in “eight requests” for evidence from Deborah Ramirez and “six requests” for evidence from Julie Swetnick.

Grassley spoke up throughout the hearing to staunchly defend the committee's actions, speaking over other senators when they posed criticisms of him or his staff.

He also went after Feinstein several times, including interrupting when she began her opening remarks by saying she wanted to introduce Ford because “the chairman chose not to do this.”

“By the way, I was going to introduce her, but if you want to introduce her I’ll be glad to have you do that,” he said. “But I want you to know I didn’t forget to do it because I would do that just as she was about to speak.”

Focus shifts again to undecideds

While the testimony from both witnesses could have an impact on the midterm elections and beyond, the immediate concern is whether Kavanaugh will get to 51 votes.

A handful of senators in both parties are undecided, and only they know whether their minds were changed by Thursday’s events.

Republicans hold a razor-thin 51-seat margin in the Senate, meaning they can only lose one GOP senator before they need help from Democrats for Kavanaugh to be confirmed.

GOP Sen. Jeff Flake (Ariz.), the only undecided vote on Judiciary, told reporters half-way through Thursday's hearing that he remained undecided on if he would support Kavanaugh.

GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine) also remain undecided.

Republican senators sidestepped saying on Thursday if they believe they have the votes for Kavanaugh to be confirmed.

GOP Sen. John Thune (S.D.), the No. 3 GOP senator, Thune told reporters that Ford’s testimony had not upheld the burden of proof after he heard Kavanaugh.

“The question of whether or not is was him, there just isn’t the evidence to support that,” Thune said of Ford’s accusation against Kavanaugh. “The burden of proof had to be reached and I don’t think they reached that burden.”


AFTER THE TESTIMONY ON THURSDAY

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408871-moderate-republicans-remain-undecided-on-kavanaugh
Moderate Republicans remain undecided on Kavanaugh after hearing
BY ALEXANDER BOLTON - 09/27/18 07:49 PM EDT

Senate Republican moderates remain undecided on how to vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh after nearly eight hours of testimony Thursday before the Judiciary Committee, according to Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).

Manchin, a swing Democrat vote, huddled with three of the undecided Republican votes, Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Jeff Flake (Ariz.), in a Capitol hideaway office before the entire GOP conference met to discuss how to proceed on the controversial nominee.

Manchin said it did not appear that Collins, Murkowski or Flake had decided how to vote on Kavanaugh, who vigorously denied allegations by Christine Blasey Ford that he attempted to sexually assault her when they were both in high school.

“Everyone’s trying to get some answers to a few things and we’ll go from there,” Manchin said after meeting with his GOP colleagues. “We’ve talked and we’re still talking. There’s no decisions made on anything, I can assure you of that."

“There are some concerns that people have and they’re going to try to close the loop,” he told reporters.

“We’re friends. We talk. There’s no decisions on anything. No one told me they made a decision and we’re all still looking and talking and comparing,” he added.

Republican senators who convened with Collins, Murkowski and Flake during a meeting of the entire Senate GOP conference — which followed the smaller meeting that Collins hosted in her hideaway office — said the moderates gave no hint of how they would vote.

One Republican in the room said “there was no indication given in the meeting.”

Rachel Mitchell, the sex crimes prosecutor whom Republicans hired to handle the questioning of Ford, did not make any recommendation about how to vote.

Instead she walked GOP lawmakers through the facts of the case and her perspective of the testimony.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said the panel will meet at 9:30 a.m. Friday to debate the nomination but declined to commit to holding a vote on Kavanaugh.

Grassley said he wasn’t sure how Collins, Murkowski or Flake, a member of the Judiciary Committee, will vote.

Republicans hold 11 seats on the committee and Democrats hold ten so Flake’s defection would prevent the panel from voting Kavanaugh out with a favorable recommendation.


THIS ARTICLE IS IMPORTANT, NOT JUST ABOUT THIS VOTE, BUT ABOUT HOW IN THE FUTURE WE MIGHT MODIFY HOW SENATE NOMINATIONS ARE DONE, MUCH OF WHICH I PERSONALLY THINK IS ECHOED IN THE POLLING HERE. ABOVE ALL, LIFETIME MEMBERSHIP IS, IF IT EVER WAS, NO LONGER FAIR OR EVEN RATIONAL. A GOOD DEAL OF WHAT IS UNFAIR OR UNHELPFUL IN GENERAL TODAY IS DUE TO OUR TYING OURSELVES TO THE SUPREME COURT RULINGS, AS TO A BALL AND CHAIN. THE DANGER OF A FAR, FAR RIGHTIST’S ACCESSION TO THE COURT IS TOO GREAT, THE WAY THINGS IN THIS COUNTRY ARE TODAY. OUR CURRENT SITUATION IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF A CRISIS, WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT “CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS” MEANS.

ALSO, THE VIEWS OF A GROUP OF NINE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES IS TOO IMPORTANT, IN GENERAL, IN THE LIFE OF THE NATION, I BELIEVE. WHEN A FLAW IN THE LAW IS FOUND BY THE SUPREME COURT, IT SHOULD PERHAPS BE REFERRED TO BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS TO REVISE THE LAW IN QUESTION RATHER THAN “INTERPRET” IT. GOOD WRITING SHOULDN’T NEED ALL THAT “INTERPRETATION,” AS THOUGH IT WERE A FOREIGN LANGUAGE. ALSO, IT IS JUST TOO COMPLEX AND TURGID. IT NEEDS GOOD FRESH AIR!

FINALLY, IT IS MY VIEW THAT AFTER A CASE IS ADJUDICATED, THE INJUSTICE TO A CITIZEN THAT IS DONE SHOULD ALSO BE REVERSED, OF COURSE. WHEN THE BUSINESS OR PERSON WITH “DEEP POCKETS” BULLDOZES OVER SOMEONE, THEY SHOULD PAY A MONETARY FINE OF A SORT THAT WILL ACTUALLY HURT THEM A LITTLE. I WANT TO HEAR THEM SAY “OUCH.” I BELIEVE IN THE VALIDITY OF THE WORD OF THE LAW MORE THAN I DO PRECEDENCE. IF IT’S WRONG, FIX IT. I THINK PERPETUAL REVISION OF LAWS WHEN THE WORDS THEMSELVES ARE THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM SHOULD BE THE NEW PRACTICE. IF IT’S BROKE, DO FIX IT!

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/408756-most-believe-supreme-court-justices-should-serve-for-fixed
Hill.TV poll shows most believe Supreme Court justices should have fixed terms as Kavanaugh controversy unfolds
9/27/2018

VIDEO – AMERICAN BAROMETER -- WHAT AMERICA’S THINKING

The majority of Americans say they believe Supreme Court justices should serve fixed terms instead of getting lifetime appointments, according to a new American Barometer survey.

The poll, conducted by Hill.TV and the HarrisX polling company found that 53 percent of respondents said they believed justices should only serve for a fixed term, while 28 percent said they believed the justices should continue to be appointed for life.

Nineteen percent said they were unsure or did not know.

The poll also showed little partisan divide on the issue, with 61 percent of Democrats saying justices should serve for fixed terms, while 49 percent of Republicans said the same.

Forty-nine percent of independent respondents also said justices should serve for fixed terms.

Director of the Monmouth University poll, Patrick Murphy, said the American Barometer survey's findings match up with results in other surveys.

“The 28 percent who like the idea of lifetime appointments is pretty consistent with what we’ve been seeing across the past,” Murphy told Hill.TV's Joe Concha on "What America's Thinking."

The survey comes as Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's Senate confirmation process has been upended by three sexual misconduct allegations.

Kavanaugh and one of his accusers, Christine Blasey Ford, are testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday.

Kavanaugh has fiercely denied all three allegations.

The American Barometer survey was conducted on September 21-22 among 1,000 registered voters. The sampling margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

— Julia Manchester


I DIDN’T, AND WILL NEVER, LIKE THE WAY COMEY TREATED HILLARY CLINTON, BUT HE CERTAINLY DID STAND UP TO DONALD TRUMP, AND THAT WAS A GOOD THING. I DO RESPECT HIS INTELLIGENCE.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408885-comey-on-kavanaugh-small-lies-matter
Comey on Kavanaugh: 'Small lies matter'
BY MEGAN KELLER - 09/27/18 10:16 PM EDT

VIDEO – KAVANAUGH TESTIFYING

Former FBI director James Comey said Thursday that small lies matter, even ones about yearbooks, in apparent reference to statements Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh made during senate hearings.

"Small lies matter, even about yearbooks," Comey, a frequent and vocal critic of the Trump administration, tweeted.

He added, "From the standard jury instruction: 'If a witness is shown knowingly to have testified falsely about any material matter, you have a right to distrust such witness' other testimony and you may reject all the testimony of that witness ...'"

Comey's statements seemed to be in reference to remarks Kavanaugh made during Senate Judiciary Hearings on a sexual assault allegation Christine Blasey Ford made against the nominee.

Comey as FBI Director by President Trump and released a book earlier this year about his dismissal.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) questioned Kavanaugh about things he wrote in his high school yearbook.

The senator led by asking Kavanaugh if he was familiar with "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" which is a legal principle that dictates jurors can rule a witness to be false in everything if he says one thing that is not true.

He then asked Kavanaugh if his written yearbook comment about a female friend of his was meant to mock her sexual exploits, potentially with Kavanaugh.

"She said she and I never had sexual interactions," Kavanaugh replied. "Your question is based on a false premise and really does great harm to her, I don't know why you're bringing this up, frankly. Doing great harm to her by even bring her name up here."

"She's a great person, she's always been a great person," Kavanaugh said. "We never had any sexual interaction. By bringing her name up you're just dragging her through the mud."

Kavanaugh apologized about his written yearbook comment in his opening remarks.

Ford and Kavanaugh both appeared before the committee to testify earlier Thursday.

Ford has accused Kavanaugh of attempting to sexually assault her at a party in the summer of 1982.

Kavanaugh unequivocally denied the allegation and presented his calendars from that time, which seemed to show no trace of the party.

All three people Ford has said also attended the event have said that they never went to a party even similar to what she described.

The committee is set to vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation Friday morning.


BRETT KAVANAUGH SAYS HE IS A DEVOUT CATHOLIC. I HAVE LIKED MOST OF THE CATHOLICS I KNOW VERY MUCH, BUT SOME THINGS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ALLOWS IN ITS’ OUTER EDGES ARE TRULY EVIL: PEDOPHILIA, ANTIFEMINISM, ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM, OBEDIENCE OVER GOODNESS, THE MURDER OF ABORTION DOCTORS, ETC.

FUNDAMENTALISTS OF ALL KINDS ARE TOO OFTEN DANGEROUS, WHETHER IT BE RELIGIOUS, POLITICAL, ETHNIC OR RACIAL, ETC. I AM USING THE TERM “FUNDAMENTALISTS” TO MEAN FANATICS, WHICH MAY BE UNFAIR, BUT IT’S NOT NECESSARILY UNTRUTHFUL, I DON’T BELIEVE. IT ISN’T THAT ALL FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS OR MUSLIMS ARE EVIL, BUT THAT A CERTAIN MINORITY OF THEM ARE TRULY INSANE. SOME OF THE THINGS I’VE SEEN PROPOSED AS RELIGION ARE SHOCKING IN MY VIEW. THAT’S BECAUSE IT’S THE BORDERLAND BETWEEN TWO FIELDS OF THOUGHT AND BELIEF, ONE RATIONALISTIC AND ONE RULE AND OBEDIENCE BOUND. I WILL SAY HERE THAT JESUS HIMSELF -- EVEN THOUGH HE SAID PEOPLE SHOULD APPROACH FAITH IN SUPERIOR BEINGS (GOD) IN THE SAME WAY THAT A LITTLE CHILD DOES – SAID THAT SOME RELIGIONS ARE GOOD AND OTHERS NOT; “YE SHALL KNOW THEM BY THEIR FRUIT.” SO, EVEN JESUS BELIEVED IN OUR USING THE MIND TO COME TO A VIEW OF REALITY.

WHATEVER SIDE OF THAT FAITH LINE THAT WE FALL ON, WE MUST CULTIVATE HUMAN EMPATHY ACTIVELY, OR TO QUOTE THE BIBLE AGAIN, WE WILL BE “AS SOUNDING BRASS” – LOUD, BUT DEFINITELY NOT MUSIC. THAT’S WHAT GOOD CHURCHES DO. THEY GUIDE THEIR PEOPLE TO BE LESS RIGID ON RITUAL AND DOGMA, AND MORE CONCERNED ABOUT CARING, EMPATHY, KINDNESS, GRATITUDE, AND OTHER SUCH UNDENIABLY GOOD THINGS.

SO, IN THE LIGHT OF THOSE FINE THOUGHTS, SEE THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE FROM MY FACEBOOK PAGE, WHICH DEALS WITH UNFREE THOUGHT AND BIASES. AGAIN, IF THIS IS A REPETITION, I’M SORRY. GO, ALSO, TO THE WEBSITE BIGTHINK.COM. THERE ARE A SERIES OF INFORMATIONAL VIDEO ESSAYS ATTACHED TO IT, AND IT’S ALL BEAUTIFUL TO ME. IT REMINDS ME OF THE TED TALKS. SEE WHAT YOU THINK. THEN, AFTER BIGTHINK, GO TO JUSTLIFE: https://www.facebook.com/JustLifeJustLifeJustLife/?fref=pb&hc_location=profile_browser.

https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/one-logical-fallacy-unites-creationists-and-conspiracy-theorists
One logical fallacy unites creationists and conspiracy theorists
Creationists believe that every aspect of reality was planned. Conspiracy theorists think that major socio-political events were planned. We now know why there is an overlap between the two groups.
SCOTTY HENDRICKS
24 August, 2018

Many of us have claimed “everything happens for a reason” or “it was meant to be” when presented with less-than-desired outcomes or random occurrences. Some of us see a great plan at work when we look at nearly everything; others see vast plots afoot every time they watch the news.

This kind of thinking is called teleological thinking. It is characterized by pointing to random or natural events and seeing them as caused by an intelligence or as part of a larger plan. Lots of people do it, and it is a key part of the intellectual development of children.

In some cases, like business ethics, it is a useful way of thinking. Until the scientific revolution, it defined a great deal of western thought about the natural world. Today, however, it is a scientific no-no.

Less positively, it is associated with the teleological fallacy, where the incidental use of something is taken as evidence of it being designed to fulfill that purpose.

A person who thinks this way might say things like “we have large noses so we can fit glasses on our faces” or “it is dry in the desert so cactus plants have a place to live.” Both statements assume a grand purpose for noses, or areas with low rainfall, that doesn’t exist or are unsubstantiated. It is an unscientific worldview that can get in the way of finding the real causes at work.

A tendency to teleological thinking is correlated with a belief in creationism. This is intuitively reasonable since a tendency to think everything is part of a plan lends itself to trying to impose divine order on random biological events. Somehow, studies have not been carried out to see if the same correlation exists with similar beliefs—not until now, anyway.

Some people find meaning and larger purposes everywhere

Researchers in France have published a new study showing the relationship between teleological thinking and a belief in conspiracy theories. Their study, published in Current Biology, involved more than 2,000 test subjects from the general public and university student bodies.

Their study consisted of online and pen-and-paper questionnaires consisting of 100 questions. In the first part of the test, respondents were asked to answer true and false questions designed to determine how inclined they were to teleological thought. The statements were simple, such as “Bats hunt mosquitoes to control overpopulation.” In this case, a person answering “true” would reveal their tendency to teleological thinking.

The rest of the questions focused on how well the subjects could judge an explanation’s plausibility and determined any biases in their answers.

The next part of the test focused on grand conspiracy theories of a general nature. Participants had to rate the likelihood that statements such as “The government is involved in the murder of innocent citizens and/or well-known public figures, and keeps this a secret” were correct. They then did the same thing for specific conspiracy theories, such as ones revolving around the assassination of President Kennedy.

Lastly, subjects were asked to rank images shown to them consisting of black and white squares on a grid on a scale of “certainly not random” to “certainly random.” As this picture shows, the answers are rather clear and can be used to determine if a person tends to assign meaning to random data.

As you can see in this chart. The images were both simple and complex, and either had a structure or were randomized. A person who thinks that there is a pattern to the top row's pictures is likely to ascribe meaning to random data. (Wagner-Egger et al.)

The second iteration of the experiment asked the same questions but added the subject’s belief in creationism to the analysis. The final version added a section to better asses [sic] how being good at correct teleological thinking (e.g. thinking that pasta comes in different shapes to hold different sauces) factored into the conspiracy mindset.

What did they find?

As you might have guessed, the people who scored high on the teleological thinking test, those who see things as having a purpose even when they don’t, were more likely to believe in the general grand conspiracies. This held true, to a lesser extent, for those who only scored high on “correct” teleological thinking as well.

Subjects who believed in any of the conspiracy theories tended to believe in multiple others, too, supporting previous studies that hinted at a “conspiracy mentality,” a frame of mind that drives some people to see conspiracies everywhere. The authors suggest that the correlation between the three scales of teleological thinking they tested for; test, true and false casual,[sic – “causal” is probably the correct word here I would think] suggests “the existence of a teleological mentality, that partly overlaps with the conspiracist mindset.”

What about the creationists?

When the belief in creationism was factored in, the researchers found a strong correlation between a belief in creationism, the conspiracy mentality, and teleological thinking. The results held true even when accounting for demographics, political views, and religious tendencies.

These findings expand on previous studies into how and why people come to hold extreme beliefs. They are also conceptually backed by the philosophy of Karl Popper, who suggested long ago that grand conspiracy theories were motivated by this kind of thinking, and even suggested that “Illuminati” conspiracy theories are the modern incarnation of divine intervention claims.

What use might this study have for us?

The authors remind us that “teleological thinking has long been associated with creationism and identified as an obstacle to the acceptance of evolutionary theory.”

With this in mind, they propose that we can start viewing conspiracies as creationistic, in that an intelligence purposefully created every socio-political event, and that we can view creationism as a grand conspiracy; in that it assumes everything was purposefully designed for specific reasons.

The findings could also be used to understand how anti-scientific worldviews are formed and how to best communicate with the people who hold them. It can also explain why both creationists and conspiracy theorists are both seemingly immune to evidence that refutes their worldviews- even the evidence against them can be viewed as part of a plan thanks to the power of teleological thinking.

Teleological thinking is a common thought process that we all use every once in a while. When it gets out of hand, however, it can cause some people to see patterns where none exist and to reject the idea that some things might not be the result of a master plan. While it might be some time before we finally learn how to educate people out of fallacious teleological thinking, we do have a better understanding of how it alters the way some people view the world.

VIDEO – HOW SKEPTICISM CAN FIGHT RADICALISM.