Feinstein's Letter about Kavanaugh.

[charby]

Those are in Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and California.  Not so much in Indiana, West Virginia, South Dakota, Montana, Wisconsin, and Missouri.  Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the 2nd Minnesota seat could also flip, but they are long shots.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx

Must be dated, Iowa requires ID at the polls now.

[Angel Eyes]

From the comments:  "The only 'takeaway' is Brennan's security clearance."

[230RN]

Interesting map cited by charby from Amy Schumer, Reply  #450 above.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx

There seems to be a connection between laxity of ID and strictness of ID versus leftish and rightish states.

Not that correlation means causation, but it's fun to think of which "caused" which.

Did laxness of voting ID "cause" leftyness, or did leftyness "cause" lax voting requirements.

Not a realistic model, but fun to play with.

[Hawkmoon]

More about Julie Swetnick:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-kavanaugh-accuser-julie-swetnick-backtracks-on-some-claims-in-extensive-nbc-news-interview/

The FBI should have a lot of fun with her.

Swetnick also responded to reports on lawsuits filed against her by her former employer, and a restraining order filed against her by an ex-boyfriend.

She provided four names to NBC News that she said could confirm her descriptions of the parties in the 1980s. NBC News contacted all four: one said they did not remember a Julie Swetnick, one was dead, and two did not respond, per Snow.

[Scout26]

Must be dated, Iowa requires ID at the polls now.

Their definition of Strict vs. Non-Strict:

    Non-strict: At least some voters without acceptable identification have an option to cast a ballot that will be counted without further action on the part of the voter. For instance, a voter may sign an affidavit of identity, or poll workers may be permitted to vouch for the voter. In some of the “non-strict” states (Colorado, Florida, Montana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Utah and Vermont), voters who do not show required identification may vote on a provisional ballot. After the close of Election Day, election officials will determine (via a signature check or other verification) whether the voter was eligible and registered, and therefore whether the provisional ballot should be counted. No action on the part of the voter is required. In New Hampshire, election officials will send a letter to anyone who signed a challenged voter affidavit because they did not show an ID, and these voters must return the mailing, confirming that they are indeed in residence as indicated on the affidavit.

    Strict: Voters without acceptable identification must vote on a provisional ballot and also take additional steps after Election Day for it to be counted. For instance, the voter may be required to return to an election office within a few days after the election and present an acceptable ID to have the provisional ballot counted. If the voter does not come back to show ID, the provisional ballot is not counted.

Per the linked website:

On May 5, 2017 Iowa enacted HB 516, which establishes a non-strict non-photo ID requirement. It establishes five types of ID that are accepted (see Table 2 below for details) which all include a photo, but also includes a provision that requires the Secretary of State’s Office to provide existing active registered voters that do not have one of the valid types of ID with voter identification cards. Going forward, county auditors will provide newly registered voters who do not have a valid ID with voter identification cards.

From Table 2:

Iowa Code §49.78, §48A.7A, §48A.10A, §49.81

-Iowa driver’s license
-Iowa nonoperator’s identification card
-U.S. passport
-U.S. military card
-Veteran’s identification card
-A current and signed voter identification card

Note: The Secretary of State’s Office is required to provide a voter identification card to all active registered voters who do not have one of the five forms of identification at the time of passage of the bill (HB 516 in 2017). Going forward, county auditors will be required to issue voter identification cards to newly registered voters who do not possess a valid form of ID, as prescribed by the Secretary of State’s Office.

In 2018, voters will be asked for ID and anyone who does not have necessary ID will be asked to sign an oath verifying their identity, and will be allowed to cast a regular ballot.

In 2019, voters without the necessary ID will be offered a provisional ballot and can provide ID up until the time of the county canvass of votes (Monday after election day).
   
A person who is registered to vote but is unable to present a form of identification listed may present any of the following:
a. A current voter identification card that contains the voter identification number if the voter identification card is signed before the voter presents the card to the election official.
b. Other forms of identification sufficient to establish identity and residence dates, or describe terms of residency current to, within forty-five days prior to presentation:
(a) Residential lease.
(b) Property tax statement.
(c) Utility bill.
(d) Bank statement.
(e) Paycheck.
(f) Government check.
(g) Other government document.

A person who is registered to vote but is unable to present a form of identification listed above, may establish identity and residency in the precinct by written oath of a person who is also registered to vote in the precinct. The attesting registered voter’s oath shall attest to the stated identity of the person wishing to vote and that the person is a current resident of the precinct. The oath must be signed by the attesting registered voter in the presence of the appropriate precinct election official. A registered voter who has signed two oaths on election day attesting to a person’s identity and residency as provided in this subsection is prohibited from signing any further oaths as provided in this subsection on that day.

If a voter cannot meet any of the above options, the voter may cast a provisional ballot.

I like that provision that I bolded.  And yes, while it is very good, it is not "strict" in the sense that you can still vote without presenting a valid photo ID.

[Scout26]

Interesting map cited by charby from Amy Schumer, Reply  #450 above.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx

There seems to be a connection between laxity of ID and strictness of ID versus leftish and rightish states.

Not that correlation means causation, but it's fun to think of which "caused" which.

Did laxness of voting ID "cause" leftyness, or did leftyness "cause" lax voting requirements.

Not a realistic model, but fun to play with.

Indiana enacted the first "strict" Voter ID law in 2006, so I would say that pre-existing "leftyness" has prevented the passage of Voter ID laws.

[Hawkmoon]

Those are in Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and California.  Not so much in Indiana, West Virginia, South Dakota, Montana, Wisconsin, and Missouri.  Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the 2nd Minnesota seat could also flip, but they are long shots.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx

Fascinating. My state is one of those listed as "ID requested; photo not required." I'm 74 years old and I registered to vote when I was 21. As far back as I can remember (last week), we have always had to show a driver's license or other state-issued ID to vote, so as long as the state has had photos on driver's licenses (which is also as far back as I can remember), I have believed that we had to show a photo ID to vote.

I'm actually disappointed to learn that we don't. If I were to show up to vote at 6:00 p.m. on election day and get turned away because their records showed "I" had already voted, I'd be more than a little upset.

[Ben]

ABOLISH ICE!

https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2018/10/01/pulitzer-greg-gutfeld-puts-media-to-shame-for-pushing-this-latest-kavanaugh-scandal/

[MillCreek]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/christine-blasey-ford-psychologist/

Sounds like dangerous.com could have done a better job of fact-checking.

[Ben]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/christine-blasey-ford-psychologist/

Sounds like dangerous.com could have done a better job of fact-checking.

A couple of points:

These days Snopes is no more legitimate than dangerous.com.

The University did scrub her web page immediately after this came out. Why?


That said, Milo and others might want to find other things to point out, otherwise they sound like the dem senators going after Kavanaugh for saying "boof" when he was 16.

[Perd Hapley]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/christine-blasey-ford-psychologist/

Sounds like dangerous.com could have done a better job of fact-checking.

Since California college professor Dr. Christine Blasey Ford came forward with sexual assault allegations against President Donald Trump’s second U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, no shortage of rumors and hoaxes has targeted her. One of the many derogatory claims made against Dr. Ford is that she lied when she identified herself as a “research psychologist” during her Senate Judiciary Committee testimony on 27 September 2018.

The accusations against Kavanaugh are "allegations," and the accusations against Ford are "derogatory claims."

[Hawkmoon]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/christine-blasey-ford-psychologist/

Sounds like dangerous.com could have done a better job of fact-checking.

That, or Snopes isn't exactly objective and unbiased.

The California law on the use of the title "psychologist" isn't unlike the law in my state and California regarding the use of the title "architect." I'm a licensed architect in my home state. Although I used to be licensed in California, I dropped that a number of years ago because I wasn't using it, and they adopted a continuing education requirement that would have required me to travel to California to take classes every year -- even though I more than satisfy my own state's requirement, California doesn't recognize the classes I take here.

I can legally call an architect in my state, but I can't in California even though I am licensed here, unless I include the disclaimer that I'm a [state] architect.

I wouldn't say Ford committed perjury, but I would say she engaged in a bit of professional exaggeration. And the bit about tossing out professional/clinical jargon (leading one new source to describe her as providing her own expert witness) such as talking about memory being embedded in the hippocampus was pure manipulation. Memory isn't her specialty or her area of research, but by using such technical terminology she conveyed an impression that she is an expert in memory.

[MillCreek]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/politics/kavanaugh-bar-fight.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Now we are going back to bar fights in the 1980's. Hmm.

[MillCreek]

I wouldn't say Ford committed perjury, but I would say she engaged in a bit of professional exaggeration.

I deal with a lot of academics at the local medical, dental and nursing school.  I can think of a ton of them who call themselves 'physician', 'dentist' or 'nurse' but do not have a Washington state license in this regard. They were all trained as such and probably did have a Washington state license at one time, but now work in teaching, research or administrative positions rather than hands-on patient care and therefore do not need a state license. I always thought that was par for the course in academia.

[sumpnz]

Been out of the loop for over a week.  Can some one give me a Tl;dr type of summary of what's going on with Kavanaugh?

[bedlamite]

Been out of the loop for over a week.  Can some one give me a Tl;dr type of summary of what's going on with Kavanaugh?

Dems are still successfully delaying things.

[zxcvbob]

Dems are still successfully delaying things.

At the same time they are character-assassinating Kavanaugh, they are excusing much more credible and recent domestic violence accusations against their darling Kieth Ellison, deputy chairman of the DNC and currently running for AG in Minnesota     (I should write Senator Klobuchar about that...)

[makattak]

At the same time they are character-assassinating Kavanaugh, they are excusing much more credible and recent domestic violence accusations against their darling Kieth Ellison, deputy chairman of the DNC and currently running for AG in Minnesota     (I should write Senator Klobuchar about that...)

But no one* knows about those allegations, so the Dems blatant hypocrisy is not evident.





*No one that watches the MSM, that is.

[Ben]

48 Title IX sexual harassment claims filed against Kavanaugh by Harvard Law students. As one of the comments alluded, I hope none of those people ever become judges.

https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2018/10/02/harvard-law-students-file-complaint-that-brett-kavanaughs-presence-creates-a-hostile-environment/

[Angel Eyes]

Well, he did go to Yale . . .

[Hawkmoon]

48 Title IX sexual harassment claims filed against Kavanaugh by Harvard Law students. As one of the comments alluded, I hope none of those people ever become judges.

https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2018/10/02/harvard-law-students-file-complaint-that-brett-kavanaughs-presence-creates-a-hostile-environment/

Aaaarrrggghhh!!!

Kellogg said she hopes students who have previously felt reluctant to file complaints with the University — whether related to Kavanaugh or to other experiences — will see that the formal process gives them “power” and “a right to our feeling of being safe.”

No, you twit! You do not have a right to "feel" safe. You have a right to be safe. Complaining about "sexual harassment" without showing even a scintilla of evidence that there was any sexual harassment is so dumb that you all should be expelled from Harvard Law on the spot.

Did Kavanaugh harass you or any of your sister students? If yes, provide specifics. If no, STFU amd start reading up on what the law says.

[Angel Eyes]

Well, this should surprise no one:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/anti-kavanaugh-protesters-accosting-senators-have-ties-to-soros

[Hawkmoon]

Well, this should surprise no one:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/anti-kavanaugh-protesters-accosting-senators-have-ties-to-soros

Sheesh.

Archila and the other woman who stopped Flake pleaded with him not to support Kavanaugh’s nomination, describing their own experiences as sexual assault victims.

Because, obviously, their [alleged] experiences as sexual assault victims clearly validates Ford's [previously unsubstantiated] story. 

[Ben]

Interesting regarding both Ford's familiarity with the polygraph process, and also apparently how she answered a question about it while under oath.

https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2018/10/02/report-christine-blasey-fords-ex-boyfriend-says-she-coached-a-friend-on-taking-a-polygraph-more/

[Perd Hapley]

Now one of our so-called Senators wants an investigation of a party where some guys watched a hooker perform a sex act, because it's just possible that Brett Kavanaugh may have been there.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36609/democrats-reveal-new-kavanaugh-allegation-grassley-ryan-saavedra

Every time we think they can't get more retarded, they do.