Brett Kavanaugh and His Accuser Say They’re Willing to Testify

[oldjones]

I guess it disqualifies Dr. Ford, then.

Thing is, she's not after any such job and he is.

Even if her testimony was 100% lies, he's the one trying to show the Senate he deserves to be appointed, because he has the qualities of a dispassionate Supreme Court Justice, someone who will see through untruths, and baseless arguments to arrive at wise and just decisions he can set out thoughtfully and clearly for the Nation.

What he showed the world was a public tantrum, fact-free, disconnected from the issues, and full of exactly the political partiality and prejudice that should disqualify even a lower-court judge.

 

[Frankfooter]

Huh?

If BK simply attended and answered questions without his tantrums and histrionics he would have done just fine. He would have kept the country's sympathy and everybody would have thought he was a decent human being.

He showed up and acted like a narcissistic, entitled, spiteful frat boy. No indication of maturity, reflection, humility and he showed massive partisan bias.

It would not have been difficult for him to say: "This is not fair and it's going to be a difficult day for me. But this is America's decision and it's about America. If I am not chosen for the USSC - whether that choice is a fair choice or a partisan choice - I will serve America in my present capacity or some other capacity. If the Senate says to me that there is doubt about my suitability - whether that doubt is well and fairly founded or not - it is better for America that I not be appointed. It is what is best for America that is important here. Not my feelings or ego. We all work for America and America is far more important than any and all of us."

I didn't hear him say anything close to that. And that's where he lost me. I have acted for drug dealers from the projects who have kept their shit together at a hearing better than BK and who have behaved with more dignity.

You and I both know that there are a hundred - make that a thousand - judges, law professors and top litigators who could do that job as well as BK could. They can read the precedents. The can be thoughtful and wise. They can mix an academic view of the law with a practical grasp of sociology and politics. BK has got very close GOP connections, including connections with Bush and Justice Kennedy. He's the in-house Republican Party up-and-comer. Why anyone would think he a "must have" candidate for any reason apart from the fact that he's a partisan GOP-er, I can't see. If this is your idea of the perfect candidate, you're missing something.

Well put.

The problem is that the GOP knows this is their last chance to fill that seat before the midterms and the dems take the house and possibly the senate.
So they have to stick with him, even at the cost of more seats in the midterms, just to tip the SC right for the next decade or so.

 

[oldjones]

Well put.

The problem is that the GOP knows this is their last chance to fill that seat before the midterms and the dems take the house and possibly the senate.
So they have to stick with him, even at the cost of more seats in the midterms, just to tip the SC right for the next decade or so.

I suspect that's it; with more time at hand, they might well have worked out a face-saving withdrawal and put forward a candidate who could make it all the way without help. But now the clock has determined that option is out, and they've little choice but to continue what they hope can still look like a hands-off, balanced process, by an 11th hour investigation.

Of exactly what we don't know, but hindsight says, if you must have criminal investigators look at your Supreme Court nominees, that should be one of the first steps not the last. And considering all the slagging and nasty comments and insinuations about them, isn't it ironic the GOP's asking the FBI to 'certify' Trump's nominee?

 

[onthebottom]

I suspect that's it; with more time at hand, they might well have worked out a face-saving withdrawal and put forward a candidate who could make it all the way without help. But now the clock has determined that option is out, and they've little choice but to continue what they hope can still look like a hands-off, balanced process, by an 11th hour investigation.

Of exactly what we don't know, but hindsight says, if you must have criminal investigators look at your Supreme Court nominees, that should be one of the first steps not the last. And considering all the slagging and nasty comments and insinuations about them, isn't it ironic the GOP's asking the FBI to 'certify' Trump's nominee?

Flake has said if he was running for re-election he would have agreed to vote yes. The FBI finding nothing will give all the GOP senators cover to vote yes. With Manchin a yes they can lose a couple. Mitch is very good at whipping the votes.

 

[jcpro]

I suspect that's it; with more time at hand, they might well have worked out a face-saving withdrawal and put forward a candidate who could make it all the way without help. But now the clock has determined that option is out, and they've little choice but to continue what they hope can still look like a hands-off, balanced process, by an 11th hour investigation.

Of exactly what we don't know, but hindsight says, if you must have criminal investigators look at your Supreme Court nominees, that should be one of the first steps not the last. And considering all the slagging and nasty comments and insinuations about them, isn't it ironic the GOP's asking the FBI to 'certify' Trump's nominee?

LOL! Any constructionist,pro life candidate will be dragged through the mud. Might as well show strength and resolve.

 

[Aardvark154]

The Mitchell memo analyzing Dr. Ford's statements.


https://www.scribd.com/document/389821761/Mitchell-Memo#from_embed

 

[oldjones]

LOL! Any constructionist,pro life candidate will be dragged through the mud. Might as well show strength and resolve.

Even better to already know where the mud lies, and coach your guy on how to slide through sounding like a Judge, not like a wannabe-rassler at home in the pit.

 

[oldjones]

The Mitchell memo analyzing Dr. Ford's statements.


https://www.scribd.com/document/389821761/Mitchell-Memo#from_embed

For a person who begins by pointing out the process is not a trial, she spends almost all her time and text identifying and listing ordinary areas of uncertainty common to everyone's daily doings, that would only be significant in the 'reasonable doubt' setting of a criminal trial. As she forthrightly says, that's her expertise, and all she can offer. So those doubts and quibbles (that might have been addressed in cross examination, had there been such) were what she produced.

However, the Committee and Senate have a greater responsibility than a trial. They must decide for their Country, and for its forseeble future, not just for Brett Kavanaugh. The safeguard of reasonable doubt is a standard of law to protect the innocent from dire consequences of punishment. It isn't Brett Kavanaugh who faces those consequences, it is the United States. Surely it is the appointment of one of its Supreme Justices should be sure, certain, and beyond any reasonable doubt.

And doubts there certainly are.

 

[Bud Plug]

I'm 100% sure (so I must be right) that there isn't a member here who is currently criticizing Kavanaugh's reaction to these allegations who would react to completely false and public allegations against them without indignation, anger and frustration. These were smears regarding Kavanaugh's personal character, not his judicial competence. His reaction was completely normal. In my view, he displayed a measured response (and generous heart) by at least allowing that something may have happened to Ford to account for her faulty memory, rather than just calling her a liar. Frankly, the behaviour of many of the Democrats on this committee deserves a far stronger rebuke than simply being publicly exposed for their indiscriminate partisanship. Those characters don't deserve any benefit of doubt as to their motives. Someone in Feinstein's office, at the very least, deserves to be exposed to the American public, and fired.

Isn't it ironic that the Dems and their liberal backers keep warning everyone about fascism? A typical behaviour of fascist/autocratic governments is the persecution (and prosecution) of one's political opponents. Yet, what has been going on in the first 2 years of the Trump administration while the GOP hold both Congress and the Senate? Perpetual investigation of the Trump administration and its appointees, and no investigations of Dems!

Just imagine how many more inquisitions against the GOP would be going on if the Dems had power!

 

[jcpro]

Even better to already know where the mud lies, and coach your guy on how to slide through sounding like a Judge, not like a wannabe-rassler at home in the pit.

You don't get to throw accusations without any evidence and then be surprised to get a blow back. Too, funny, actually. The Kavanaugh's defense completely unified the Republican Party and got the organization fired up for the midterms. The law of unintended consequences strikes again.

 

[onthebottom]

I guess it disqualifies Dr. Ford, then.

And every Senator and President

 

[danmand]

And every Senator and President

Lying under oath I believed was a felony in USA. Or is there an exception for republicans?

Or, more likely, is it that regular people get sent to jail for lying under oath, but those in high positions are excempted?

 

[oldjones]

I'm 100% sure (so I must be right) that there isn't a member here who is currently criticizing Kavanaugh's reaction to these allegations who would react to completely false and public allegations against them without indignation, anger and frustration. These were smears regarding Kavanaugh's personal character, not his judicial competence. His reaction was completely normal. In my view, he displayed a measured response (and generous heart) by at least allowing that something may have happened to Ford to account for her faulty memory, rather than just calling her a liar. Frankly, the behaviour of many of the Democrats on this committee deserves a far stronger rebuke than simply being publicly exposed for their indiscriminate partisanship. Those characters don't deserve any benefit of doubt as to their motives. Someone in Feinstein's office, at the very least, deserves to be exposed to the American public, and fired.

Isn't it ironic that the Dems and their liberal backers keep warning everyone about fascism? A typical behaviour of fascist/autocratic governments is the persecution (and prosecution) of one's political opponents. Yet, what has been going on in the first 2 years of the Trump administration while the GOP hold both Congress and the Senate? Perpetual investigation of the Trump administration and its appointees, and no investigations of Dems!

Just imagine how many more inquisitions against the GOP would be going on if the Dems had power!

However TERB isn't the Senate of the United Staes of Americxa, anmd no member here is seeking the high office and authority of a Justice Of the United States Supreme Court. That postion is supposed to lie beyond the pardonable human reacxtions of ordinary people in ordinarey situationsa. Thjets' why the nine justices sit inm thrones behind an elevated podium wearing robes unlike any other citizens just doing their jobs. What you choose to call normal reaction (I certainly wouldn't call that pugnaciousness, normal; even less so in a lawyer or judge) should be beneath any Justice worthy of their office.

Of course all the blithering about persecuting political opponents ignore the fact that it has been a feature of American politics since forever, was a prominent part of Republican behaviour in the last Administration and is the most frequently used tool of the current one. To say nothing of your posts and other statements in the general public. It may be a slow process but you get high-minded debate by refusing to be part of any other kind, not by demanding the other side go first.

 

[danmand]

"Brett Has Not Told The Truth" - Kavanaugh College Friend Details "Violent, Drunken Behavior" To FBI

Mon, 10/01/2018 - 08:13

I have been contacted by numerous reporters about Brett Kavanaugh and have not wanted to say anything because I had nothing to contribute about what kind of justice he would be. I knew Brett at Yale because I was a classmate and a varsity basketball player and Brett enjoyed socializing with athletes. Indeed, athletes formed the core of Brett’s social circle.

In recent days I have become deeply troubled by what has been a blatant mischaracterization by Brett himself of his drinking at Yale. When I watched Brett and his wife being interviewed on Fox News on Monday, and when I watched Brett deliver his testimony under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, I cringed. For the fact is, at Yale, and I can speak to no other times, Brett was a frequent drinker, and a heavy drinker. I know, because, especially in our first two years of college, I often drank with him. On many occasions I heard Brett slur his words and saw him staggering from alcohol consumption, not all of which was beer. When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive. On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man’s face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail.

I do not believe that the heavy drinking or even loutish behavior of an 18- or even 21-year-old should condemn a person for the rest of his life. I would be a hypocrite to think so. However, I have direct and repeated knowledge about his drinking and his disposition while drunk. And I do believe that Brett’s actions as a 53-year-old federal judge matter. If he lied about his past actions on national television, and more especially while speaking under oath in front of the United States Senate, I believe those lies should have consequences. It is truth that is at stake, and I believe that the ability to speak the truth, even when it does not reflect well upon oneself, is a paramount quality we seek in our nation’s most powerful judges.

I can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking, and in downplaying the degree and frequency of his drinking, Brett has not told the truth.

I felt it was my civic duty to tell of my experience while drinking with Brett, and I offer this statement to the press. I have no desire to speak further publicly, and nothing more to say to the press at this time. I will, however, take my information to the F.B.I.

Charles (Chad) Ludington

 

[mandrill]

I'm 100% sure (so I must be right) that there isn't a member here who is currently criticizing Kavanaugh's reaction to these allegations who would react to completely false and public allegations against them without indignation, anger and frustration. These were smears regarding Kavanaugh's personal character, not his judicial competence. His reaction was completely normal. In my view, he displayed a measured response (and generous heart) by at least allowing that something may have happened to Ford to account for her faulty memory, rather than just calling her a liar. Frankly, the behaviour of many of the Democrats on this committee deserves a far stronger rebuke than simply being publicly exposed for their indiscriminate partisanship. Those characters don't deserve any benefit of doubt as to their motives. Someone in Feinstein's office, at the very least, deserves to be exposed to the American public, and fired.

Isn't it ironic that the Dems and their liberal backers keep warning everyone about fascism? A typical behaviour of fascist/autocratic governments is the persecution (and prosecution) of one's political opponents. Yet, what has been going on in the first 2 years of the Trump administration while the GOP hold both Congress and the Senate? Perpetual investigation of the Trump administration and its appointees, and no investigations of Dems!

Just imagine how many more inquisitions against the GOP would be going on if the Dems had power!

I didn't think BK reacted normally. And especially so for someone involved in the justice system and litigation where allegations - sometimes well-founded and sometimes spurious - get flung all the time.

He's seen other people get zinged when he was a lawyer and a judge. He knows how it works. Now it's his turn and it's incumbent on him to behave with composure, dignity and patience when he is under attack. It's a character test thing. Instead, he's behaving in exactly the way you would expect Prof Ford to have behaved, given that she is a newcomer to the judicial process / political hearing process and didn't know what to expect.

She showed character. BK didn't. Whoever is telling the truth, she came across far better than he did. And he's the one up for the job. And the one who is supposed to be controlled and dignified - because that's what the job requires.

 

[canada-man]

Kavanaugh Accuser Dr. Blasey Ford Oversees Stanford CIA Program

https://brassballs.blog/home/christ...-too-and-so-was-her-grandfather-nicholas-deak

 

[Bud Plug]

However TERB isn't the Senate of the United Staes of Americxa, anmd no member here is seeking the high office and authority of a Justice Of the United States Supreme Court. That postion is supposed to lie beyond the pardonable human reacxtions of ordinary people in ordinarey situationsa. Thjets' why the nine justices sit inm thrones behind an elevated podium wearing robes unlike any other citizens just doing their jobs. What you choose to call normal reaction (I certainly wouldn't call that pugnaciousness, normal; even less so in a lawyer or judge) should be beneath any Justice worthy of their office.

The ability to dispassionately adjudicate legal disputes is a very different characteristic than ambivalence to serious personal allegations unconnected to your performance as a jurist. In my experience, psychopaths are the only people I've encountered who are impervious to all allegations concerning the morality of their behaviour.

My repeated comment that Judges are not superhuman, merely persons who are highly educated in the law and highly skilled at applying it, seems to fall on deaf ears. Odd, considering the appreciation shown for the occasional emotional outburst of judges (e.g. "crickets") in the course of their duties, where they really shouldn't be showing any influence of emotion.

Of course all the blithering about persecuting political opponents ignore the fact that it has been a feature of American politics since forever, was a prominent part of Republican behaviour in the last Administration and is the most frequently used tool of the current one. To say nothing of your posts and other statements in the general public. It may be a slow process but you get high-minded debate by refusing to be part of any other kind, not by demanding the other side go first.

It has been common (at times) for the party controlling the Senate and/or Congress to investigate the activities of their adversaries. What is odd is for the party out of power to be driving that agenda, to the exclusion of any examination of their own compatriots. Could it simply be that it takes more than 2 years to flush the system of the allies of the old administration? We'll only find out if Trump is re-elected. I don't even think he's properly purged the DOJ/FBI of liberal/Dem activists yet, never mind the entire federal bureaucracy.

As as slight tangent, I'm tired of reading the unconvincing argument that the presumption of innocence doesn't apply, because this is a job interview, not a prosecution. These HEARINGS are in no way a job interview. The Senators discover NOTHING about the qualifications of nominees during their 5 minute stints. These hearings are nothing more than political theater directed towards the larger struggle for power between the GOP and the Dems. While I understand what is going on, that doesn't dictate that any "job applicant" should have to subject themselves to whatever personal public slights, in the guise of "hearing", might suit a party's political objectives. The Judge would know that there are very serious consequences in the real world for bringing forward such allegations if they cannot be proven. Senators appear to be largely immune from any consequences for their behaviour, except at elections, or if their own party forces them out for reasons of political expediency (Franken).

 

[mandrill]

The Mitchell memo analyzing Dr. Ford's statements.


https://www.scribd.com/document/389821761/Mitchell-Memo#from_embed

Here's how I see it:

1. Ford is correct in her recollection and BK is lying. OTOH he was 17 years old and drunk and it was likely a 1-off. I would give him a hall pass. It was 30 years ago.
2. Ford is correct and BK doesn't remember because he was too drunk or he didn't think the incident was important enough to stick in his mind after all those years. I would give him a hall pass. It was 30 years ago.
3. Ford is lying, for whatever reason.
4. Ford is mistaken, possibly confusion or some type of "false memory syndrome".

I can't think of any other explanation. On all of the above, I vote "yes" for BK.

It's his character that now gives me pause and makes me think he is an inappropriate candidate for the position.

 

[danmand]

Here's how I see it:

1. Ford is correct in her recollection and BK is lying. OTOH he was 17 years old and drunk and it was likely a 1-off. I would give him a hall pass. It was 30 years ago.
2. Ford is correct and BK doesn't remember because he was too drunk or he didn't think the incident was important enough to stick in his mind after all those years. I would give him a hall pass. It was 30 years ago.
3. Ford is lying, for whatever reason.
4. Ford is mistaken, possibly confusion or some type of "false memory syndrome".

I can't think of any other explanation. On all of the above, I vote "yes" for BK.

It's his character that now gives me pause and makes me think he is an inappropriate candidate for the position.

I find it interesting that you are fine with BK lying under oath about his drinking.

I never thought of it, but maybe lying is so natural and common for lawyers that they are exempt from charges in that regard.

Come to think of it, if they were not exempt, they would all be in jail. And where would that leave all of us?

 

[Frankfooter]

I can't think of any other explanation. On all of the above, I vote "yes" for BK.

It's his character that now gives me pause and makes me think he is an inappropriate candidate for the position.

I don't think anyone would expect charges to on BK to come out this as it was always about establishing the character of BK and his suitability on the court.