- .
.
.
These confirmation hearings are pretty much the worst thing I’ve ever heard, and it’s mostly Committee Chair Chuck Grassley’s fault. The Republicans are right that it’s a national disgrace — but it’s not due to the Democrats, with the possible exception of Dianne Feinstein, who in her defense was put in a no-win situation once she received a report that she was not supposed to release. Note that she was attacked both for delay (due to her honoring the request for confidentiality) and for lack of delay (because it somehow — not at all clearly through her — became public anyway, most likely, it seems, due to her leaving a tip on the Washington Post’s anonymous tip line.)
I’ve been listening to part of this on the radio, so I’m going to try to catch up — and will add to this introduction as I go. I’m starting the overriding observations at #1, the point by point portions at #11.
(1) Kavanaugh does not belong on the Supreme Court because he has all but explicitly threatened retribution on his enemies if placed on the Supreme Court. He can’t even pretend to “call balls and strikes as they are.”
(2) Kavanaugh does not belong on the Supreme Court because he has no respect for process. He is refusing to answer questions — being evasive and misleading and maudlin as possible — and using his time to make (largely repetitive) speeches and specious legal and factual arguments, to ask questions of those ask questions of him. He’s being allowed to do this only because Sen. Grassley — the guy holding the gavel — is letting him do it, because he’s made his mind up that this committee will not try to get the truth but just to be a rubber stamp.
(3) Kavanaugh does not belong on the Supreme Court because, based on what he exhibits today, he doesn’t even understand the process of fact-finding, or the role of facts in reaching conclusions. Most of what he’s brought up is flat-out irrelevant to fact finding — a process that he’s thwarting. That he is also spewing out unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about the Clintons setting up an ambush for him is one examples — and further examples will follow as transcripts become available.
(4) The notion that because he (supposedly) hasn’t been accused of sexual misconduct as an adult is at all indicative of what he did previously in his life is preposterous and offensive. This is used to cover up sexual misconduct all the time — specifically because of how those bringing such charges are affected by them and how they are treated.
(5) The notion that an FBI investigation is useless because they don’t “make conclusions” is absurd. Here’s what the FBI can do that individual members cannot: they can seek out and take as long as long as they’d like to ask witnesses as many questions as they would like without their ability to filibuster. They can pose questions to the witnesses under a serious threat of prosecution — one that just isn’t present when someone’s lawyer is submitting a statement for them, and thus doesn’t as strongly deter them from perjury. And every Senator in the room, as well as Kavanaugh, knows it. What the FBI can do is collect asserted facts — which are then useful to the Senate (or others) in making credibility situations. They can ask more perspicacious questions than a Senator (most of whom are not professional investigators) can ask in five minutes. Watch how the investigator the Republicans used to hound and harry Dr. Blasey Ford was able to get information from her — such as about Sen. Feinstein recommending a law firm to her — over FAR more than five minutes.
(6) Part of the limit on the FBI’s ability to get deep into the history of Kavanaugh and the other witnesses is that there was no federal crime. Well, THERE SURE IS NOW! If Kavanaugh has lied to the Senate that IS, as Republicans have been noting, a federal crime — and FBI investigation of it would be entirely appropriate!
(7) As reporters have noted, Dr. Blasey Ford’s advance version of the testimony released yesterday pretty much matches what she said today. Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony was very different from the advance version. One possibility is that that was a feint intended to throw off questioners — after all, most people won’t know about the advance testimony. Another possibility is that this was an audible called after Dr. Blasey Ford’s testimony this morning turned out to be so compelling. His testimony was pretty much “red meat for the base” — and while one target was no doubt the Republican electorate, the main target by making this a partisan issue is the wavering Republican Senators Collins and Murkowski.
= = = = = = = = = = =
(11) “Kavanaugh was an immature high schooler.” Orrin Hatch, who is speaking as I write, is full of it. Why are we looking at Kavanaugh’s high school writings and actions? Because his high school years are when he supposedly tried to rape someone! His contemporaneous writings are some of the best evidence one can get without the ability to subpoena witnesses — which has been denied to them.
(12) Kavanaugh pretending that Sen. Blumenthal’s bringing up his seeming implying about sexual relations with “Renate” in his yearbook is dragging HER name through the mud is absurd. It says nothing about her and everything about him — and he’s hiding behind her skirts.
(13) Asking questions is not a “one-and-done” process, if you want to get the truth. One thing that happens is that one witness’s divulging of information raises new questions for other witnesses. So the notion that “this [questioning today] IS the investigation” that several Republicans have raised today is ridiculous.
(14) Senator Tillis’s complaining that Democrats are going to try to stop the next nominated judge as well is pretty rich from someone complicit in denying Merrick Garland any hearing at all. Boo-hoo, Senator. And Tillis reading anything into the fact that the Democrats did not raise the Ramirez accusation says NOTHING about their merits that accusation — it just means that this hearing was not set up to HEAR those accusations. Note that Ramirez was not invited to be a witness — and there would not be time to split between the Ford and Ramirez accusations if she had been!
(15) I didn’t know that Maryland had no statute of limitations on sexual assault cases. I hope that Dr. Blasey Ford does take advantage of that — especially if Kavanaugh is raised to the Supreme Court, but even if he didn’t.
(16) Saying that witnesses say that an event “didn’t happen” when they weren’t necessarily in a position to see it is ridiculous. The only person whose “testimony” is relevant to determining whether it happened is Mike Judge — and his was pointedly unsworn (and Kavanaugh says that he’s an unreliable witness.)
(17) The “I can’t believe that this is happening to you after a lifetime of public service” is pretty much what Bill Cosby’s defense has been. They sure didn’t grant this consideration to Clinton.
(18) If these allegations have “destroyed Kavanaugh’s family forever,” it would have to be because his wife believes that the charges may be true. If she believes otherwise, then his family will be fine. Lots of people get defamed in public — believe me on this — without the later benefit of the daddy in the family being placed to the Supreme Court.
(19) The “leak of the letter” is a red herring. Reporters came after Dr. Blasey Ford — they didn’t need the letter to do that, they just needed to know that she had made some charges. The could put 2 and 2 together with investigation of the message she left on the tip line and a little shoe leather — or, as was noted after I had written the above, from people in whom she had confided.
(20) Sen. Kennedy, if Kavanaugh is an attempted rapist, he as probably also not a God-fearing man.
He’s “too emotional” to be on the Supreme Court.
You need logical, calm, honest people who can temper passion with reason.
Someone like the woman who spoke out against him. Put under the same stress (worse, one could argue) she didn’t lash out. She didn’t act like an outraged baby.
He signed up for scrutiny and then acted like a victim. And so entitled.
Verbally, he tried to put a hand over the mouth of the women who asked him questions today and you could just see him physically silencing his victim in the alleged incident. The impulse and the rage to shut them up. It was all right there, And that’s all these years later. After practicing that mask of righteous man for decades. He must have been a holy terror back in the day. He can’t even control himself now.
Thanks for the comment As one lawyer examining his behavior today as a lawyer, I’d say that he’s closer to deserving to be disbarred than to being on the Supreme Court.
Wow. I watched the ENTIRE hearing. Did you? Here is what I think.
Dr. Ford had SOMETHING happen to her. She is clearly a damaged. IMHO, the level of damage (assuming she fell within ‘normal’ psych ranges to begin with) is inconsistent with the alleged incident. It seems to me that the level of damage observed is consistent with trauma earlier (earlier then 15yo that is) in her life. Very sad indeed.
Kavanaugh was PISSED OFF. That is consistent with someone who is innocent. He lost his cool many times. Unfortunate but understandable IF he is innocent.
“Kavanaugh was PISSED OFF. That is consistent with someone who is innocent.”
Strikes me more like someone who is indignantly self-righteous. A lot of those Republican senators followed suit who managed to pile outrageous hypocrisy onto their “outrage.”
Perhaps. Did you listen to his entire testimony? Try to put yourself in his position. IF you were ‘dragged through the mud’ with severe and significant allegations that you know are not true and you’re asked to prove that the allegations are false, how would you go about it?
How do you prove a negative?
Now, partially as you say, the politicos on both sides of the aisle ALL piled on outrage. That’s what politicians do. That is independent and distinct from the nominees testimony.
I, for one, hope that Ms. Ford gets the help she needs AND refers this to the Montgomery county PD, the proper venue to investigate these serious allegations.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven.
^^^ nicely put.
The entirely of the circus lacks empathy.
She’s a liar! BURN THE WITCH!
He’s a rapist! BURN THE WITCH!
It’s the Democrats! BURN THE WITCH!
It’s the Republicans! BURN THE WITCH!
Meanwhile, Bill Clinton sits at home collecting a government salary for life, free from accusations of actual violent rape because Kamala Harris and Diane Feinstein do not care.
Great system of process.
Hello? When was Kamala Harris in a position to do anything about Juanita Broaddrick’s accusation of rape by Bill Clinton? That accusation is barely even appropriate for Feinstein.
I don’t like Broaddrick’s attacking Dr. Blasey Ford’s credibility (solely out of anger that she wasn’t taken seriously, as if refusing to believe Blasey Ford would fix that, but as I’ve said I think that she had a legitimate claim and the Democratic rebuttals to it (which largely focus on — let me know if this sounds familiar to you — her having denied it at one point in a sworn statement) have been frustratingly weak.
Maybe Feinstein had the standing to say something about it when it mattered, although as I recall Bill Clinton never lied *to Congress or the FBI* about it, so (unlike with Kavanaugh now) there really WAS no federal crime there, so there was never an investigation and hearing that would call for her to do so. (As I’ve said: I’ve said for years — and believe me that this has been an unpopular position — that I think that he raped her, but that’s just my opinion and doesn’t have the weight that I can now place on my opinion regarding Kavanaugh.
But Ryan — for you to try to slam Sen. Harris about this is just playing politics. There’s no reason why she should even *have* an opinion about this, given that Clinton was last up for election over two decades ago. (Go ahead, I dare you to say that Harris should have had an opinion based on Hillary’s campaign. No, in HER position, without the means to force an investigation, she should have had an *publicly expressed* opinion and you would not hold a Republican to such a standard.)
Right now, Greg.
Right freaking now.
Greg, the idea that Kamala would do any actual work on an investigation is absurd.
I’m simply stating she can easily shout into a microphone to attack members of her own party.
That would require not using a bully pulpit to not explicitly advance her career.
(1) On Broaddrick: If I were asked to give my opinion AS A LAWYER as to whether Julia Broaddrick was raped by Bill Clinton, it would have to be “I don’t know.” The same responsibility would apply, with more force, to Sen. Harris giving her opinion.
I hold the opinion that I do as a political observer — and I can hold it specifically because it’s not INTENDED to carry much weight. If it were, I’d have to see the results of a real investigation — especially given that we know that both Clinton and Broaddrick have been willing to lie under oath.
(2) On Sen. Harris: uhhh, so you think that she should stand up today and say “I believe Juanita Broaddrick!” — despite your not knowing what she does and doesn’t know about the case?
Wow — any other demands that you’d like to make of her? Do you have any demands to make of Republican Senators — or is this sort of supposed responsibility something you reserve for promising Democrats?
If we are to go by appearances I would say that Dr. Ford appeared utterly trustworthy while the true Kavanaugh personality finally emerged: an entitled, spoiled, coddled frat bro who’s had his keg stolen by a townie; or when hauled in front of the campus judiciary committee turns to tears (it always worked with mumsie).
That’s why I like to see others opinions. Often says more about the author of the opinion then anything else.
I actually found both testimonies compelling.
It will be interesting to see what the FBI comes up with.
If nothing comes from that, the next interesting thing will be to see who’s endorsement that might sway……..
Maybe we can get Tobin or PJ or Squee to offer an opinion.
looks like the FBI did interview PJ, at least.
I would wager that the others were interviewed during background investigation #1.
Wow. She was saved from being raped because she was wearing a one-piece swimsuit under her clothes and one drunk teen seems to have had the presence of mind to get in the way of another drunk teen who, to prevent her screams, was in the process of smothering her to death. And you’re judging her “level of damage” to be appropriately high? I’m just going to leave that hanging there.
Kavanaugh is an intelligent man who was doing everything he could to avoid answering pertinent questions — and was clearly lying about some things (see the comments today from Yale classmates about his blackout drinking binges in college) that bring into question his lying about other things as well. That is consistent with someone who thinks that feigned anger can give him enough cover to get the appointment that can lead to a lifetime of exacting revenge from a seat on the Supreme Court.
Of course he was pissed off. In his circles, he’s not even to be held accountable to the point of public embarrassment, let alone of justice.
I wish the Democrats had delved into the issue of possible a gambling problem that would have explained those vast sums of money allegedly run up buying baseball tickets.
Good point — but of course (and by design) there wouldn’t have been time for that.
You simply cannot have a sufficient process in this time period (and especially with this atrocious chair.) So we’re going to have Little Lord Molesteroy on the Supreme Court as an arbiter of our civil moral code for the rest of our lifetimes — while we preach to kids about how they had better follow the law and not join gangs &c.
. Feinstein’s DELAY and her HONORING CONFIDENTIALITY are TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. A investigation without delay would and could have still remained confidential. Conflating those two separate elements is only an attempt to excuse the unexcusable by Feinstein. No sale.
We can be real proud of our senators, can’t we?
Feinstein and Harris. Now that is a (without inciting the gambling question) ‘a pair to draw to”.
God help us.
We can be quite proud of Harris. Feinstein is doing pretty well for a woman in her mid-80s, but I’m sure not going to vote for her to be a Senator into her 90s.
Harris did a fantastic job protecting women from being sexually harassed in the OCDA’s office.
Wait, no she didn’t.
She doesn’t do her job, Greg. She spends the entirety of her effort on campaigns.
That’s nothing to be proud of.
Ryan, she was not tasked with protecting women from being sexually harassed in the OCDA’s office. Show me one complaint that reached the AG’s office AT ALL and I may reconsider that — but even so, even if she became aware of such a complaint coming in at a low level within the AG’s office, she had no capability to impose reform given that the voters and most of the courts here have circled the wagons around the DA.
Do you want to discuss which party is more responsible for THAT, Ryan?
Your “she doesn’t do her job” attack is silly. She’s doing her job as a Senator very well — and we saw evidence of that yesterday and today. You’re just worried about her becoming President — and you should be, I suppose, although even you should prefer her to Trump.
Greg,
Bullshit.
Sincerely,
The Whole World
“The whole world”? Don’t play into my delusions of grandeur,
peonRyan.Thank you, Greg.
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am very much aware of my lowely status.
The whole world says to you: “Pish-tosh!” It’s like a guy can’t even be facetious here anymore.
(It occurs to me — if you read that on your phone rather than a desktop, it’s conceivable that you didn’t see that “peon” was published in strikeout type, i.e., to intended humorous effect.)
BigBox, I’ve tried to think through how she could have done other than what she did and it’s just not clear to me how she could have both impelled an investigation while protecting Dr. Blasey Ford’s confidentiality.
I don’t think that you’ve figured it out either, but let’s give it a try together.
The implication of Feinstein’s position is that she was willing to see Kavanaugh confirmed, overwhelmingly, while having information suggesting that he had attempted rape and was lying about it, if Dr. B-F hadn’t decided to make her allegations confidential. That’s a hell of a position to be in, but from what I can tell she was willing to honor that request. She only no longer honored the request when Dr. B-F had in effect retracted it by going public.
Now, what you seem to think that she could have done is to go to the FBI and said “I want you to investigate whether he assaulted and tried to rape someone during around this time, but I’m not going to tell you who it was or give you any clues that could establish the victim’s identity because she wants it kept private.”
No offense intended, but I have no idea how you think — let alone how the various Republicans insinuating the same thing think — that that would have worked. She would have been pilloried for that — and potentially been accused of herself obstructing an investigation by withholding information. I say again: based on what Republicans said yesterday — attacking her both for NOT releasing Dr. B-F’s identity AND for ultimately releasing it once keeping the secret was moot — she was in a no-win situation.
Furthermore, as a smart lawyer and judge, there is NO DOUBT that Kavanaugh understood this and was just pretending not to — which is another mark against his own credibility and against the honesty of his outrage.
Upon what definition of maintaining confidence would Sen. F contact the FBI for a confidential investigation and construe that to mean not disclosing the parties involved TO THE FBI ? How is that not NONSENSE ? Are you assuming that the FBI does not or cannot keep ITS investigations confidential ? That is my closes attempt at grasping what you are trying to infer. Or what is it ?
Don’t get huffy. As you’ll soon see, you’re the one who hasn’t thought this through.
So you think that Sen. Feinstein could have called the FBI and asked them to do a confidential investigation. OK, let’s go on from there.
This would not be what we call a “paper investigation” (or nowadays, one that could be done by internet.) It would be an investigation that would involve INTERVIEWS OF WITNESSES.
That would in turn include some divulging of information to witnesses that would either be overt — “Did you ever hear something from this particular woman about being sexually assaulted by this particular man?” — or (pointlessly) coy: “uh, this is the FBI: Did you ever hear anything about ANYONE in your high school ever sexually assaulting ANYONE ELSE?”
The more you move from coy to overt questions, the more likely it becomes that someone who has been contacted by the FBI is going to contact the media, which will then swarm like locusts. (Do you think that the FBI can prevent them from doing this? Even if you do, do you think that it can do so *effectively*?) If it had called people saying that it had questions about a high school sexual assault by Judge Kavanaugh, the media would have had it within an hour, tops.
That, in turn, allows a good reporter to narrow down a list of suspects who to hound — and Dr. Blasey Ford would likely have been on that list — in short order.
The more “coy” such discussions with witnesses are, on the other hand, the more ineffective such an investigation would be — because people are better at recognition and prompted recall than they are at “free recall.” “Did you ever hear about Brett Kavanaugh getting drunk in high school” is going to prod more and better relevant memories than “did you ever hear about *anyone* getting drunk in high school.
Now you have an excuse not to have thought this through before now: you’re not in the investigation business and you’ve never HAD to think it through. But Dianne Feinstein’s staffers (and more so the people to whom they’d go for guidance) ARE in that business, and they HAVE thought it through — probably much better than I have here.
Your error here is not that you didn’t think it through, but that you don’t think that they DID think it through. Here’s the bottom line: if you are TRULY INTENT on keeping a source confidential, you don’t call the freaking FBI and ask them to start a freaking investigation, because neither you nor they can control what THE PEOPLE THEY CONTACT do..
Does that seem less nonsensical now? Or do you want to try insulting me some more — in which case I can get into the mood for a rumble.
Apparently I can Insult you WITHOUT even trying- (wish I suddenly discovered a USEFUL super power).. I have no experience with FBI interrogations, but assume perhaps incorrectly they are competent enough to strike the right balance of “coy” to refine straight information from circular questioning, or would otherwise defer or reject the request.
Does the confidentiality request imply “and do nothing” (then why even send the letter ?) or ” confidential within the bounds of conducting the hearings” ? All academic now.
I’m going back to the hearings, the furniture will have to deal with any moods. Enjoy the afternoon.
The problem is exactly what I said it was: interviewees who would have become privy to this extremely lurid information would very likely have shared it with the media, taking away Blasey-Ford’s confidentiality. That’s why DiFi’s hands were tied — which is, not coincidentally, pretty much what she said, though without as much detailed explanation.
*OK, OK….(1) Lack of Judicial Temperment.(2) Over Acting…..(3) A total Bullly (3) A Big Cry Baby (5) Liar, liar, pants on fire! (6) A spoiled brat (6) Wouldn’t let this person baby sit the dog, much less underage kids (7) A serial Exposer (8) A criminal serial abuser of women (9) A died hard drunk.(10) A very bad Judge candidate. Of course we are only
talking about Lindsay Graham Cracker….but then Cornhole, Cruzmouse and Grass less…..probably qualify right up there along with the imminent Hatch Cover…. Wow, when Mr. Lee, Mr. Lee starts looking good….and the totally boring Ex-President Kennedy…..or whoever he is…..start looking almost tolerable…..you know our Republicants are in very serious trouble. When did the KAV MAN meet Prof. Ford again? Did he ever admit to meeting her? Once, twice, thrice? Pretty sad Serial Liar
Competitor! We need to bring him to Calaveras County for the annual Frog Jumping event. No one ever asked him what was the drunkest night of his life…up to this point?
I’m going to go with #4. (hahaha)
If I were “wrongly accused” and “dragged through the mud” What I would not want is an FBI investigation to clear my name. I would absolutely DEMAND it. That way the accusers who were part of this massive conspiracy that includes “the democrats” in general (really ALL of them are in on this?) and specifically the Clintons — the accusers would be held LEGALLY responsible for lying to the FBI. And then I would pursue punitive damages for my “destroyed family”.
I would also take a lie detector test.
The creep was caught lying already about many things. Some that do not even matter. He’s a liar. Under oath. That alone should be enough to not confirm him.
What is he SO “pissed off” about?! This has to be addressed. Period. Allegations can’t be ignored just because black out Brett’s delicate ego and sensibilities might be bruised. What a fragile, brittle, weak, sniveling little person.
He also revealed himself to be way too political and conspiracy minded to make a suitable supreme court judge. He shouldn’t even be a traffic court judge. What a freak.
Good comment. I agree — I’d want the FBI to pull the wings off of the bugs whizzing around me. (Not sure about “punitive damages,” though. He can mete out enough punishment from the bench.)
His credibility hasn’t been *totally* destroyed, though. For example, I believe that he really does like beer. In fact, I suspect that he likes it more today than usual.
https://www.ocvote.com/fileadmin/user_upload/elections/gen2018/2018_General_Election_Calendar.pdf
Hiding this here for now until the Weekend Open Thread opens.
*You look under “Stressed Out” in the Urban Dictionary and you want a serious Eubonics
reply to KAV MANs performance in front of the Judiciary Committee. Or as our dear friend from Oklahoma used to say: “That was two words for cool!”
PS. this was the #4….for Doctor D.
Oh the outrage from DPOC Women against Judge Kav. Are they equally out raged at Gil Ciceneros?
Double Standard much?
And meanwhile silence about the allegations against Santa Ana police/developer council candidate Phil Bacerra from his best friend Dan C at “Liberal OC,” the self-righteous defender of women against people he doesn’t like.
I don’t like anonymous attacks on people’s character, so — unlike Chumley — if Bacerra asked that this be taken down I’d put it in the freezer, on the condition that he allowed us to investigate and answered whatever questions we’d have.
Vern can, of course, overrule me. I am not one to defend Bacerra generally, but it seems like someone using a consistent name is making the charge, and we should be able to talk to that person. Do you know how to put us in touch? I’d take this to DPOC if I could identify the accuser in time — and I expect that “the women of DPOC” as you put it would take it seriously.
Oh, please. Check out our analysis of the Fazli story here: http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2018/05/ca-39-ad-55-fazli-blasts-cisneros-for-alleged-sexual-overture/. I plan to update it when time permits, or before ballots come out even if time doesn’t permit. Short take: LOOK AT THE ALLEGATIONS. What Blazey Ford alleges is clearly criminal. What Ramirez alleges is also criminal. What Fazli alleges is not criminal, or even necessarily harassment outside of a legal line of authority. Then you add to that that she seems to have misinterpreted what Cisneros was saying to her and why — and we see why you’re asking your question under a pseudonym.
What’s your take on the Kavanaugh allegations, by the way?
Oh, gosh darn! A test email sent to “Lindsey Valpicio” bounced. That’s probably not the author’s real name at all!
Just thought y’all might want to know — not only fake, but conniving!
*Let’s get this straight: Circle Jerks and Gang Rapes were just clubsy events at Georgetown Prep? Wow, we are impressed. Did anyone ever ask him if he had
met Christine B. Ford…..before the event? How many times does he remember? Was he drunk when he met her? Did he ever know another “Fall Down Drunk” at Georgetown Prep…or was he basically the poster boy? So, how many Priests got to participate in those clubsy events? Did he ever meet Jerry Sandusk or Joe Paterno? Things like that!
(The missing testimony!)