Brett Kavenaugh Supreme Court Nomination

[Ma'ake]

That's fine to collect that information, but we are already ignoring the information like that which has been gathered and submitted, including the two of the others present who deny it happened, the many people who have vouched for his character in HS and college, and apparently two men who have purportedly confessed to doing it. Conversely we've also ignored the other character witnesses for Ford, and even timelines of when she started talking about this before K's nomination.

I honestly don't think that it will uncover anything new or even as substantial as what we have now. Plus an important factor in all of this is being drunk at a party, and even blackout drunk doesn't make him a sexual predator either, and that seems to be the very best we can come up with. Plenty of people out there getting blackout drunk that aren't committing any crimes beyond soiling their own pants.

It also seems pretty disingenuous to be critical of Republicans using a tight filter when Feinstein deplorably sat on this information throughout the entire vetting process. It seems she has escaped this whole thing unscathed when her actions have done harm to Ford second only to what Kavanaugh is accused of doing.

I don't know the timeline of when Feinstein got the letter from Ford, but Feinstein seems to be getting into Hatch territory, cognitively. Which is a big problem, on both sides. I fear in the 2020 if the Democratic side boils down to Joe Biden, a bunch of nobodies and Avenatti... look out. Who could have predicted the Bernie Sanders movement?

Watching the re-runs of the Clarence Thomas hearings, it's like watching home videos. Everyone's younger, but it's the same damn people.

(I don't hold it below Dem Senators to take a page out of the McConnell-Reid playbook and delay to get maximum political impact right before the elections. Besides waiting for these people to die off, how do we start to put things back together? A formal rule requiring Dems & Republicans to eat lunch together twice a week?)

I'm glad the FBI is getting involved. If there are serious concerns, we should know about them. If there aren't, Kavanaugh gets his name cleared, the SCOTUS gets a small increase in legitimacy in the eyes of those not close to the epicenter of the our political dysfunction.

[sancho]

(I don't hold it below Dem Senators to take a page out of the McConnell-Reid playbook and delay to get maximum political impact right before the elections. Besides waiting for these people to die off, how do we start to put things back together? A formal rule requiring Dems & Republicans to eat lunch together twice a week?)

Term limits! The congress was never intended to be a career. If I can't get term limits, can we at least stop calling it "public service" after they've milked us for over $1 million in salary?

[LA Ute]

Democracy in action.

Jeff Flake confronted by protesters

https://youtu.be/3GnSn21ykWs

He doesn’t look happy but he’s a US senator and he isn’t paid to be happy.

What I find fascinating about this mess is how people on one side of the issue can look at a witness or protester or senator, whoever the person may be, and see outstanding courage and intelligence; and people on the other side look at the same person and see a pathetic liar and fool. That happens all the time, of course, but the passion seems hotter and more deeply felt on both sides in this case than in most. It seems really remarkable to me. I’ve been seeing it all day today as I’ve discussed yesterday’s hearing with colleagues.

[USS Utah]

I don't know the timeline of when Feinstein got the letter from Ford

Ford contacted both The Washington Post and her Representative Anna Eshoo in early July 2018, after Judge Brett Kavanaugh was reported to be on Donald Trump's shortlist. On July 20, eleven days after Trump nominated Kavanaugh, Eshoo met with Ford, becoming convinced of her credibility and noting that Ford seemed "terrified" that her identity as an accuser might become public. Eshoo and Ford decided to take the matter to Senator Dianne Feinstein. In a letter to Feinstein, Ford alleged that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when both were in high school, and stated that she expected her story to be kept confidential.


Owing to her confidentiality commitment to Ford, Feinstein did not raise the issue in the initial Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings. On September 12, The Intercept reported (without naming Ford) that Feinstein was withholding a Kavanaugh-related document from fellow Judiciary Committee Democrats. Feinstein then referred Ford's letter to the FBI, which redacted Ford's name and forwarded the letter to the White House as an update to Kavanaugh's background check. The White House in turn sent the letter to the full Senate Judiciary Committee.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford

[Ma'ake]

Ford contacted both The Washington Post and her Representative Anna Eshoo in early July 2018, after Judge Brett Kavanaugh was reported to be on Donald Trump's shortlist. On July 20, eleven days after Trump nominated Kavanaugh, Eshoo met with Ford, becoming convinced of her credibility and noting that Ford seemed "terrified" that her identity as an accuser might become public. Eshoo and Ford decided to take the matter to Senator Dianne Feinstein. In a letter to Feinstein, Ford alleged that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when both were in high school, and stated that she expected her story to be kept confidential.


Owing to her confidentiality commitment to Ford, Feinstein did not raise the issue in the initial Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings. On September 12, The Intercept reported (without naming Ford) that Feinstein was withholding a Kavanaugh-related document from fellow Judiciary Committee Democrats. Feinstein then referred Ford's letter to the FBI, which redacted Ford's name and forwarded the letter to the White House as an update to Kavanaugh's background check. The White House in turn sent the letter to the full Senate Judiciary Committee.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford

Good find.

I've heard one description of Ford & the other accusers as "willing dupes". That seems like a stretch, given the death threats, getting hacked, etc.

LA's right - the passions on both sides are slanting peoples' views beyond normal biases.

Republicans see Kavanaugh as rightly outraged and angry, and standing up for himself. Democrats see a nominee who is angry that his past now threatens a perceived entitlement to the highest job in the law profession.

A week and a closer look seem like the right thing to do.

[LA Ute]

Ford contacted both The Washington Post and her Representative Anna Eshoo in early July 2018, after Judge Brett Kavanaugh was reported to be on Donald Trump's shortlist. On July 20, eleven days after Trump nominated Kavanaugh, Eshoo met with Ford, becoming convinced of her credibility and noting that Ford seemed "terrified" that her identity as an accuser might become public. Eshoo and Ford decided to take the matter to Senator Dianne Feinstein. In a letter to Feinstein, Ford alleged that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when both were in high school, and stated that she expected her story to be kept confidential.


Owing to her confidentiality commitment to Ford, Feinstein did not raise the issue in the initial Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings. On September 12, The Intercept reported (without naming Ford) that Feinstein was withholding a Kavanaugh-related document from fellow Judiciary Committee Democrats. Feinstein then referred Ford's letter to the FBI, which redacted Ford's name and forwarded the letter to the White House as an update to Kavanaugh's background check. The White House in turn sent the letter to the full Senate Judiciary Committee.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford

I think we need to know more about all this than that Wikipedia piece tells us. Remember, Wikipedia is not an objective source of news, especially on politics. For example, I don’t think anyone knows exactly who leaked the letter to the major news media. During the hearing yesterday, Feinstein certainly didn’t know, and nobody seemed to be willing to take responsibility for that leak.

[Ma'ake]

Some reflection on how we got here, and how these battles have impacted the Justices that survived them. This is from the NYT, but it seems reasonably fair and covers the rising acrimony from Thomas to today, with impressively sage words from Roberts: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/u...eme-court.html

A couple of excerpts:

"Whoop-de-damn-do" was Thomas' reaction to the news that he'd been confirmed, and he's been open about how angry the experience made him, with a voting record more conservative than Scalia's.

"Every bit of research ever done on the subject concludes that judges are human beings with emotional reactions that influence how they decide cases. Research suggests Kavanaugh will be unable to set aside this experience when deciding relevant cases with or parties aligned with those he has today treated as personal enemies". - Jeff Rachlinski, law professor at Cornell

"His time in the executive branch, and his work for Ken Starr suggest he was one of the most partisan appointees in a long time" - Eric Segal, law professor at Georgia State.

I know if I was in Kavanaugh's shoes it would be tough to be objective when dealing with anything that could be related to what he's been through.

The whole process is broken, we need to wring the politics out of it, look for judges who have demonstrated abilities to be impartial.

I know Kavanaugh's emotional reaction yesterday resonated with his supporters and had others recoil that he might get that much power.

What about the attorneys here? Is that level of venom ever appropriate in a judge?

Klobachar's question about alcohol brought a "do you?" kind of snarky response (that he later apologized for), but I can't imagine half the country thinking he would even try to be impartial, but would be expecting him to be a judicial hitman, seeking revenge, and some portion of the electorate would want him to cheer lead at rallies where he could really rip the Democrats and turn the SCOTUS into an openly partisan "thunder dome" scenario.

Nominate the woman prosecutor who was brought in, or somebody without that level of scorn.

We need to get some respect and rationality back into the SCOTUS, it seems to me, not continue the descent toward SCOTUS as openly partisan.

[Diehard Ute]

I think we need to know more about all this than that Wikipedia piece tells us. Remember, Wikipedia is not an objective source of news, especially on politics. For example, I don’t think anyone knows exactly who leaked the letter to the major news media. During the hearing yesterday, Feinstein certainly didn’t know, and nobody seemed to be willing to take responsibility for that leak.

The reporter whom the letter was leaked to states it was not Feinstein or anyone on her staff. They also stated the letter itself wasn’t leaked. Merely its existence and basic cintends

It’s quite plausible it was someone outside of politics.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Some predictions:

We will see. Many on the right suspect that Democrats are not acting in good faith, and that in the coming days, we will see more implausible, evidence-free accusations such as that of Michael Avenatti’s client, more Da Vinci Code–level interpretations of Kavanaugh’s high-school yearbook, and more Democratic lawmakers making furious denunciations of the nominee as not merely a judge they disagree with but a dangerous menace to society.

We will see what happens, but it is entirely likely, based upon what we have seen, that Democrats immediately move the goalposts again and insist that the FBI investigation is “being rushed,” that it didn’t interview some key figure or ignored some other allegation or evidence, or that the whole investigation was “a fraud” because after all, FBI Director Christopher Wray answers to the president. They will always find a reason to delegitimize a process that gives them a result they don’t like.

And we can count on most Democratic senators to echo the argument of Chris Murphy: “Whatever they find doesn’t change the fact that Kavanaugh, especially after his performance yesterday, is the most dangerous Supreme Court pick of our lifetime.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...-confirmation/

[LA Ute]

The reporter whom the letter was leaked to states it was not Feinstein or anyone on her staff. They also stated the letter itself wasn’t leaked. Merely its existence and basic cintends

It’s quite plausible it was someone outside of politics.

seems to me the most likely leaker is one of Dr. Ford’s lawyers. It is extremely unlikely that this happened in some innocent fashion.

[LA Ute]

To vote against Judge Kavanaugh is to reject his certain, clear and unequivocal denial that this event ever happened. The logical implication of a “no” vote is that a man with a flawless record of public service lied not only to the public but to his wife, his children and his community. Any Republican who votes against Judge Kavanaugh is implying that he committed perjury in front of the Senate, and should resign or be impeached from his current judicial position, if not charged criminally.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-kav...le_gmail_share

[LA Ute]

Megan McArdle is a center-right pundit. I usually agree with her, and I think she got it right in this depressing peace.

The Kavanaugh-Ford hearing broke the committee

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.fbe7f47430e8

[sancho]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-kav...le_gmail_share

This quote is super dramatic. They can just say they certain, and they don't want to take risks with the supreme court. Say things that will help keep the few women they still have. And move on.

Confirming him at this point seems like a political disaster.

[Ma'ake]

The Kavanaugh nomination has mushroomed into a much larger airing of issues, some that we guys don't think about much.

- Gallup demonstrates the gender gap on the SCOTUS is at a high point. gallup.jpg

- Maybe Kavanaugh is getting caught up in a phenomenon outside himself in the larger public, but the furor of the #metoo movement is impressive in its intensity. Eg, the woman who confronted Flake in the elevator: https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.2a519ea75b8a

(Will the #metoo movement run out of steam? Not any time soon, it seems.)

- The subconscious yearning for "justice" is deep inside us. To me, a lot of what Kavanaugh is going through is directly attributable to Mitch McConnnell… in the same way LA seemed to view Merrick Garland's discarded nomination by McConnell as attributable to Harry Reid.

[Rocker Ute]

I'll just say this, there has been a lot of deplorable things that have happened with this whole process, but none more than how Feinstein handled this. If you are an advocate for victims what she has done to Ford is indefensible, and if you buy the narrative that she was just trying to protect her anonymity, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

This quote is super dramatic. They can just say they certain, and they don't want to take risks with the supreme court. Say things that will help keep the few women they still have. And move on.

Confirming him at this point seems like a political disaster.

His responses to Feinstein and Klobuchar probably help w/ his & Trump's base, but IMO they exacerbate the gender gap.

As Feinstein continued to talk more about the reasons to have an FBI investigation, Kavanaugh interrupted her saying "You're interviewing me! You're interviewing me! You're doing it, Senator!" "I'm sorry to interrupt, but you're doing it." (Does he think his own testimony is all that matters?)

The exchange with Amy Klobuchar was another pivotal moment. "If I had acted like he did, in his own court, I would have been thrown out", Klobuchar said later.

I'm sure his impassioned defense of himself reinforced the Trump base and Kavanaugh's supporters, but I get the sense he's absolutely the wrong candidate if the GOP wants to make inroads with women.

[sancho]

I'm sure his impassioned defense of himself reinforced the Trump base and Kavanaugh's supporters, but I get the sense he's absolutely the wrong candidate if the GOP wants to make inroads with women.

Yup, he's just not worth it. The testimony this week resonated with women in a way that should not be ignored. Pick a female judge, and move on.

[UTEopia]

I'm sure his impassioned defense of himself reinforced the Trump base and Kavanaugh's supporters, but I get the sense he's absolutely the wrong candidate if the GOP wants to make inroads with women.

I've spoken with several women this week about Kavanaugh and the responses were interesting. Those who lean left think he's lying. Those who lean right think he's rightfully indignant and courageously standing up for himself and his family. Dropping Kavanaugh will have little impact on women. Women, like men, are entrenched in their position or simply not interested or engaged.

[Ma'ake]

I've spoken with several women this week about Kavanaugh and the responses were interesting. Those who lean left think he's lying. Those who lean right think he's rightfully indignant and courageously standing up for himself and his family. Dropping Kavanaugh will have little impact on women. Women, like men, are entrenched in their position or simply not interested or engaged.

I might have missed something, but how has his family been damaged? He told Feinstein his family "had been destroyed".

Maybe this is part of a paternalistic mindset I'm ignorant of, or maybe the "sins of the father" thing persists beyond the attempts to de-emphasize it. (I could have a blind spot on this perspective, as my family growing up was marginalized, second class citizens because my dad was a jack Mormon who smoked, and we were Ute fans in a sea of BYU, LDS orthodoxy, etc. In hindsight, I don't think anything my dad did made any difference on my trajectory, for the worse. It helped me develop thick skin.)

[Ma'ake]

I posted this in the Trump era section, but maybe a winner in the hearings is Amy Klobuchar, who has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate before.

“Klobuchar has managed to become the one Dem on the judiciary committee who conservatives think was acting in good faith while also getting a damaging answer out of Kavanaugh and acquitting herself well with Democrats, which is quite a feat.” - Josh Barro (considered a centrist), NY Magazine

The nation desperately needs leadership that can unify. (The candidates in the last presidential election were sorely lacking in that skill, needless to say.)

[LA Ute]

"To the person who leaked Dr. Ford's letter, to the person who breached Dr. Ford's anonymity, and to the person who did not tell her she could have avoided this by testifying privately in her home in California, you know who you are. You should bow your head in shame, in my opinion, and you should hide your head in a bag every day for the rest of your natural life."

—Senator John Kennedy, R-LA.

[Ma'ake]

The 2 tribal lenses view Kavanaugh's testimony as either dangerously partisan, or justifiably passionate.

Apparently the ABA had some reservations about his demeanor, back in 2006, and downgraded his ranking: http://www.telegram.com/news/2018092...h-12-years-ago

He shaped up enough to get his ABA rating back up on top for this appointment, but the concerns from the past appeared to have re-emerged this week in the hearing.

[UTEopia]

I have very little doubt that the information discovered through the FBI investigation, unless it uncovers something totally unexpected, will disclose any information that will cause any Senator to change his/her mind, but I share Jeff Flake's reasoning for calling for an investigation limited in time/scope. The institutions of government are crumbling, and while this has occurred over 20, 30, 40 or 50 years, depending on your view, the pace has accelerated and the combatants are aggressive and confrontational. There are very few in political office today who care about Country over Party. If the FBI investigation creates even a little resemblance of acknowledgement that the process is still viable, that is enough for me. In a Polyanna world, I would ask the GOP to be the larger people and withdraw Kavanaugh. Certainly there are other conservative Judges who can get the job done. I understand this will never happen, but for this Country to ever get out of the situation we are in, one Party will need to be big enough to say enough is enough. The past is the past and we need to move forward.

Jeff Flake explains himself:


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...pAc?li=BBnb7Kz

[LA Ute]

I agree with Piers Morgan maybe 1/3 of the time but I think he nailed it here:

PIERS MORGAN: The day DC should have died of shame as it watched two broken souls be publicly tortured over their pasts in a viciously partisan bear-pit

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-tortured.html

Just my opinion.

[Rocker Ute]

I might have missed something, but how has his family been damaged? He told Feinstein his family "had been destroyed".

Maybe this is part of a paternalistic mindset I'm ignorant of, or maybe the "sins of the father" thing persists beyond the attempts to de-emphasize it. (I could have a blind spot on this perspective, as my family growing up was marginalized, second class citizens because my dad was a jack Mormon who smoked, and we were Ute fans in a sea of BYU, LDS orthodoxy, etc. In hindsight, I don't think anything my dad did made any difference on my trajectory, for the worse. It helped me develop thick skin.)

A lot of people on the left I talk to who have questioned how he or his family is harmed by this don't seem to get the gravity of the accusation.

This is a modern scarlet letter. Short of some incredible evidence yet unfound that completely exonerates him he is branded for life. The toll of watching a loved one get dragged through the mud is taxing.

On a minor level I've experienced this. My father was an attorney in a small firm. One of the partner attorneys got mixed up with some business deals and people in those deals were caught committing massive fraud. It was a high profile thing at the time in Utah, but basically three degrees removed from my father. Because this partner attorney in my dad's firm was associated with these guys, people attempting to get their money back sued anyone and everyone including my dad. He faced lawsuits for many years and spent countless dollars defending his good name. None of the lawsuits got anywhere but it took a massive toll on my family and an innocent man.

Keep in mind this is small scale stuff, and nothing on the level of what Kavanaugh has been accused of nor even remotely the same audience.

I think it is a fair assessment to say this thing has destroyed his family, if not emotionally and mentally.

The same could be said for Ford too, this is hugely unfair to all parties all the result of a disgusting political ploy.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

A lot of people on the left I talk to who have questioned how he or his family is harmed by this don't seem to get the gravity of the accusation.

This is a modern scarlet letter. Short of some incredible evidence yet unfound that completely exonerates him he is branded for life.

Think about just one tiny (but not really so tiny) detail, one among many others: Kavanaugh has to explain to his 10 year-old daughter what "gang rape" means, and how people have said her daddy was involved in it. They have to prepare her for what she'll hear at school about that, what she'll see online about it as she gets older, and so forth. Play that one down all you want, guys; you'll be on the wrong side.

[LA Ute]

This timeline is hard to explain as innocent. Does the writer have anything wrong?

*****

There was a moment during Thursday’s hearing when Christine Blasey Ford was asked, “Was it communicated to you by your counsel or someone else, that the committee had asked to interview you and that — that they offered to come out to California to do so?”

At which point, her lawyer Michael Bromwich grabbed the microphone to interrupt: “We’re going to object, Mr. Chairman, to any call for privileged conversations between counsel and Dr. Ford.”

A poker player would call that a “tell.” Among the many things we learned from Thursday’s hearing was that the excuse given for delaying Professor Ford’s testimony was a lie. She wasn’t afraid of flying. She was a frequent flyer, traveling to vacations around the world and, in point of fact, at the time the Senate Judiciary Committee was offering to fly to California to interview her, Professor Ford was not in California. She was already in the D.C. area, having flown there to strategize with her lawyers, who were recommended to her by Sen. Dianne Feinstein. She had also flown to the D.C. area in August, when she took a polygraph test at the Hilton Hotel near Baltimore-Washington International Airport.

This was all a set-up, a carefully planned ambush by Democrats, calculated either to force Judge Kavanaugh to withdraw his name for the Supreme Court nomination, or else to delay the process past the midterm elections, turning the nomination into a campaign issue.


Once you understand this, the coordination between Senate Democrats and Professor Ford’s lawyers appears highly significant. Anyone could look at the calendar and see how long Feinstein, her Democrat colleagues and the media prepared this ambush. On June 27, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and, within a few days, Professor Ford contacted the Washington Post to share her 1982 tale about Judge Kavanaugh, who was widely reported to be on President Trump’s short list of candidates to replace Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh’s name was announced July 9, and days later, Profesor Ford met with her Democrat congresswoman, Rep. Anna Eshoo, who recommended that Professor Ford detail her accusations in a letter to Feinstein. That letter was hand-delivered to Feinstein on July 30. The next day, Aug. 1, in an interview on the Hugh Hewitt radio program, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said:


“If we could get this all done by October 1st when the Supreme Court starts its new fall session, [that] would be ideal. But I think we can get it done soon after that if we don’t get it done by October 1st.”


Grassley explained in that interview that the hearing would likely be delayed until after Labor Day, because August was already booked up with the Senate committee scheduled to consider a series of votes on President Trump’s lower-court appointees. The clock was ticking, however, and Professor Ford’s lawyers wasted no time getting to work. By Aug. 7, Professor Ford was being polygraphed — and Feinstein didn’t say a word about this accusation to her Republican colleagues on the committee. That’s a crucial fact to keep in mind, now that the vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation has been delayed because Jeff Flake got harassed in an elevator by Soros-funded protesters.

The confirmation hearings for Judge Kavanaugh began Sept. 4. Feinstein had been in possession of Professor Ford’s letter for 36 days, and the accuser had been a client of the lawyers recommended by Feinstein for five weeks. Yet while Judge Kavanaugh sat for more than 30 hours of hearings in the Judiciary Committee, where Feinstein was the ranking Democrat member, she never asked a single question about this accusation and, most importantly, nobody on the Republican side of the aisle had any clue that Christine Blasey Ford existed, and was working with a team of lawyers hand-picked for her by Feinstein.


Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony ended Friday, Sept. 7, and the Judiciary Committee vote was already scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 20, allowing another week for the full Senate to debate the nomination and vote, thus to have the new appointee confirmed by the time the Supreme Court convened on Oct. 1. Feinstein, who had been holding onto Professor Ford’s letter since late July, waited until Thursday, Sept. 13, to go public with it, pretending that this delay was about protecting the accuser’s anonymity. Of course, the Washington Post had been talking to Professor Ford for more than two months by then, and they had a feature story ready to go for the front page of their Sunday edition on Sept. 16.


What happened here was all a result of Feinstein’s bad faith (mala fides) in handling the accusation from Professor Ford. She had an obligation to inform her Republican colleagues of this accusation, and her failure to do so in a timely manner is inexcusable. We have been repeatedly told, by Democrats and their allies in the media, that Professor Ford’s accusation is “credible,” and yet it was not until Sept. 13 — nine days after Judge Kavnaugh had begun testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and a week before the committee was scheduled to vote on his nomination — that Feinstein dropped this bombshell. Judge Kavanaugh has testified that, when the accusation first became public, before Professor Ford discarded her mask of anonymity, he had no idea who could be making such a claim against him. Everyone named as a potential witness to this alleged incident has disclaimed any knowledge of it. Leland Keyser, the accuser’s “lifelong friend” whom she named as a witness, said she “does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

Professor Ford’s description of the party at which the alleged incident occurred, near the Columbia Country Club, has been suggested as indicating the home of Judge Kavanaugh’s friend Chris “Squi” Garrett, whom Professor Ford briefly dated. Yet she didn’t name Garrett as having been present at the party, and no one else named by her — Kavanaugh, his friend Mark Judge or P.J. Smyth — lived near the country club. However “credible” Professor Ford may seem to anyone, the known facts simply don’t match her story. Can the FBI unravel this?


During Friday’s meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse focused on one date — July 1, 1982 — on the calendar that Judge Kavanaugh fortuitously had kept all these years. That entry indicates that Kavanaugh went to “Timmy” Gaudette’s house for a party where Judge, Smyth and Garrett were also in attendance. The problem, however, is that Gaudette lived 10 miles from the country club, and Professor Ford never mentioned him as being present at the party where this alleged incident occurred. Furthermore, as has been often noted, Professor Ford was 15 at the time — too young to drive — and the country club was some eight miles from her family’s home, but she has no memory of who drove her to this party, or who drove her home. If this is a “credible” story, what would an incredible story look like?

The discrepancies between Professor Ford’s account and the available facts, of course, were not known to Feinstein in July when this whole smear machinery against Judge Kavanaugh was set into motion. If Feinstein had informed her Republican colleagues prior to the Sept. 4 beginning of Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony before the committee, it would have been possible for committee staff to investigate this accusation, to obtain whatever evidence and testimony were available, and to have Judge Kavanaugh address the accusation during his four days of testimony. Why didn’t that happen?

Because Democrats didn’t want it to happen.

*****

http://theothermccain.com/2018/09/29...vanaugh-smear/

[Rocker Ute]

In the probable event that the FBI comes back and says that they can find no credible evidence to support Ford's claims (which don't get upset, it had been 30 years and finding any evidence will be near impossible - I'm surprised we have the evidence we do - they also won't be able to prove his innocence), will the Left join the Trumpistas in hating and being skeptical of the ethics and credibility of the FBI too?

I'll get a kick out of that unholy union.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

In the probable event that the FBI comes back and says that they can find no credible evidence to support Ford's claims (which don't get upset, it had been 30 years and finding any evidence will be near impossible - I'm surprised we have the evidence we do - they also won't be able to prove his innocence), will the Left join the Trumpistas in hating and being skeptical of the ethics and credibility of the FBI too?

I'll get a kick out of that unholy union.

lol.

What I'm hearing now are complaints that some accusers aren't being interviewed by the FBI, at all. (Maybe those accusers are somehow be related to Trump family finances, which are past the red line?)

Assuming these reports are accurate... what would be the rationale for not talking to them?

Here's an interesting angle - even though it's well past any statue of limitation time limit, supposedly the State of Maryland will investigate complaints. There wouldn't be any charges filed, but what if Maryland finds and investigates which characters were at "alleged" parties where industrial strength, Bill Cosby-level of debaucheries (allegedly) took place?

Wouldn't the US Senate be interested in information that goes to the heart of the principal complaints? It's not a trial. Hold a closed section to spare further damage to Kavanaugh, Ford, Ramirez, etc.

[Irving Washington]

This timeline is hard to explain as innocent. Does the writer have anything wrong?

*****

There was a moment during Thursday’s hearing when Christine Blasey Ford was asked, “Was it communicated to you by your counsel or someone else, that the committee had asked to interview you and that — that they offered to come out to California to do so?”

At which point, her lawyer Michael Bromwich grabbed the microphone to interrupt: “We’re going to object, Mr. Chairman, to any call for privileged conversations between counsel and Dr. Ford.”

A poker player would call that a “tell.” Among the many things we learned from Thursday’s hearing was that the excuse given for delaying Professor Ford’s testimony was a lie. She wasn’t afraid of flying. She was a frequent flyer, traveling to vacations around the world and, in point of fact, at the time the Senate Judiciary Committee was offering to fly to California to interview her, Professor Ford was not in California. She was already in the D.C. area, having flown there to strategize with her lawyers, who were recommended to her by Sen. Dianne Feinstein. She had also flown to the D.C. area in August, when she took a polygraph test at the Hilton Hotel near Baltimore-Washington International Airport.

This was all a set-up, a carefully planned ambush by Democrats, calculated either to force Judge Kavanaugh to withdraw his name for the Supreme Court nomination, or else to delay the process past the midterm elections, turning the nomination into a campaign issue.


Once you understand this, the coordination between Senate Democrats and Professor Ford’s lawyers appears highly significant. Anyone could look at the calendar and see how long Feinstein, her Democrat colleagues and the media prepared this ambush. On June 27, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and, within a few days, Professor Ford contacted the Washington Post to share her 1982 tale about Judge Kavanaugh, who was widely reported to be on President Trump’s short list of candidates to replace Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh’s name was announced July 9, and days later, Profesor Ford met with her Democrat congresswoman, Rep. Anna Eshoo, who recommended that Professor Ford detail her accusations in a letter to Feinstein. That letter was hand-delivered to Feinstein on July 30. The next day, Aug. 1, in an interview on the Hugh Hewitt radio program, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said:


“If we could get this all done by October 1st when the Supreme Court starts its new fall session, [that] would be ideal. But I think we can get it done soon after that if we don’t get it done by October 1st.”


Grassley explained in that interview that the hearing would likely be delayed until after Labor Day, because August was already booked up with the Senate committee scheduled to consider a series of votes on President Trump’s lower-court appointees. The clock was ticking, however, and Professor Ford’s lawyers wasted no time getting to work. By Aug. 7, Professor Ford was being polygraphed — and Feinstein didn’t say a word about this accusation to her Republican colleagues on the committee. That’s a crucial fact to keep in mind, now that the vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation has been delayed because Jeff Flake got harassed in an elevator by Soros-funded protesters.

The confirmation hearings for Judge Kavanaugh began Sept. 4. Feinstein had been in possession of Professor Ford’s letter for 36 days, and the accuser had been a client of the lawyers recommended by Feinstein for five weeks. Yet while Judge Kavanaugh sat for more than 30 hours of hearings in the Judiciary Committee, where Feinstein was the ranking Democrat member, she never asked a single question about this accusation and, most importantly, nobody on the Republican side of the aisle had any clue that Christine Blasey Ford existed, and was working with a team of lawyers hand-picked for her by Feinstein.


Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony ended Friday, Sept. 7, and the Judiciary Committee vote was already scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 20, allowing another week for the full Senate to debate the nomination and vote, thus to have the new appointee confirmed by the time the Supreme Court convened on Oct. 1. Feinstein, who had been holding onto Professor Ford’s letter since late July, waited until Thursday, Sept. 13, to go public with it, pretending that this delay was about protecting the accuser’s anonymity. Of course, the Washington Post had been talking to Professor Ford for more than two months by then, and they had a feature story ready to go for the front page of their Sunday edition on Sept. 16.


What happened here was all a result of Feinstein’s bad faith (mala fides) in handling the accusation from Professor Ford. She had an obligation to inform her Republican colleagues of this accusation, and her failure to do so in a timely manner is inexcusable. We have been repeatedly told, by Democrats and their allies in the media, that Professor Ford’s accusation is “credible,” and yet it was not until Sept. 13 — nine days after Judge Kavnaugh had begun testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and a week before the committee was scheduled to vote on his nomination — that Feinstein dropped this bombshell. Judge Kavanaugh has testified that, when the accusation first became public, before Professor Ford discarded her mask of anonymity, he had no idea who could be making such a claim against him. Everyone named as a potential witness to this alleged incident has disclaimed any knowledge of it. Leland Keyser, the accuser’s “lifelong friend” whom she named as a witness, said she “does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

Professor Ford’s description of the party at which the alleged incident occurred, near the Columbia Country Club, has been suggested as indicating the home of Judge Kavanaugh’s friend Chris “Squi” Garrett, whom Professor Ford briefly dated. Yet she didn’t name Garrett as having been present at the party, and no one else named by her — Kavanaugh, his friend Mark Judge or P.J. Smyth — lived near the country club. However “credible” Professor Ford may seem to anyone, the known facts simply don’t match her story. Can the FBI unravel this?


During Friday’s meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse focused on one date — July 1, 1982 — on the calendar that Judge Kavanaugh fortuitously had kept all these years. That entry indicates that Kavanaugh went to “Timmy” Gaudette’s house for a party where Judge, Smyth and Garrett were also in attendance. The problem, however, is that Gaudette lived 10 miles from the country club, and Professor Ford never mentioned him as being present at the party where this alleged incident occurred. Furthermore, as has been often noted, Professor Ford was 15 at the time — too young to drive — and the country club was some eight miles from her family’s home, but she has no memory of who drove her to this party, or who drove her home. If this is a “credible” story, what would an incredible story look like?

The discrepancies between Professor Ford’s account and the available facts, of course, were not known to Feinstein in July when this whole smear machinery against Judge Kavanaugh was set into motion. If Feinstein had informed her Republican colleagues prior to the Sept. 4 beginning of Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony before the committee, it would have been possible for committee staff to investigate this accusation, to obtain whatever evidence and testimony were available, and to have Judge Kavanaugh address the accusation during his four days of testimony. Why didn’t that happen?

Because Democrats didn’t want it to happen.

*****

http://theothermccain.com/2018/09/29...vanaugh-smear/

Can we just say that both sides of the aisle came out of this looking poorly, from the Republicans' initial efforts to ramrod this through before a trove of documents could be released, through the Democrats manipulation of Ford's story to the Republicanns' fear of asking Ford any questions and Lindsay Graham's tirade? The only two Senators coming out of this looking good are Flake, God bless him, and Klobuchar. I doubt we'll ever know what happened, whether Kavanaugh is a horribly wronged good man or an ambitious liar who was, overall, a disgusting criminal punk as a kid. He didn't help himself with his performance on Thursday, and it's interesting to note that the ABA downgraded his evaluation as a judge because of his demeanor. The will be some benefit to both sides in the November elections from this bizarre episode. It should be discouraging to all and no one should feel particularly righteous.
It's hard to see things changing soon in the Judiciary Committee. I don't know what will change it. It's been going on since the Bork nomination, with each side contributing equally and all rising with righteous indignation.
My prediction: Kavanaugh will become the fifth member of a strong conservative block, the work of the Federalist Society will be complete, many will tangibly and intangible suffer, and the Court will have a real impact on voting trends, in favor of the Democrats.