“Kavanaughed”: Who Will Agree to Serve in Public Office After This Charade?

It is hard enough to find qualified, smart people to run for office as it is. I’d bet in the 70’s to 90’s, hundreds if not thousands of well-qualified people refused to run for elected office or judgeships due to worry about whether they could pass the FBI’s background checks on drug use. No one cares about drug use now, it’s ubiquitous and a fact of life, in large part due to our government’s backwards policies on drug laws. Now the issue is disqualification due to 35-year old groping and indecent exposure allegations dating back to high school and freshman year in college. People are so worked up about it, they are ready to bring out the firing squad. Even though the target of their socially or politically motivated hatred hasn’t been charged with a crime, convicted of a crime and there’s been no confirmation a crime ever happened.

In other words, people now think it’s just fine to assume the male is guilty of whatever accusation is hurled his way. Why? Because other women chose to suffer in silence at perceived indignities they suffered way back when and see this as a chance to get even? There’s a big difference between taking accusations seriously and assuming the accusation is true. The former calls for an investigation, which may be appropriate. But nothing justifies the latter (i.e., the assumption the accusation is true) prior to a hearing or trial before a neutral and detached magistrate or tribunal. That’s the law in America. For everyone. [More...]

Initially, I did not want Kavanaugh to be on the Supreme Court because of how the media portrayed his position on issues. And obviously, if Trump picked him, he’s not going to be good on issues I care about. But unless Kavanaugh is a masochist for the tar and feather treatment he’s gotten, I don’t see how he avoids withdrawing his name now that a second accusation has surfaced. Every day his reputation falls a little lower. And I do care about who will come next if Kavanaugh withdraws. Trump is the kind of revenge-filled person who will purposely choose someone worse so we all have to suffer through a radical right appointment for the next 40 years.

I think it is inevitable that the Kavanaugh imbroglio will scare off good candidates who have done nothing wrong but don’t want to be put through the wringer like Kavanaugh or take a chance some fly will buzz in off the wall and say they half remember a physical act that the candidate or nominee did to them or in their presence 35 years ago that they now want to reveal by telling the world about it on live TV while sitting in the hallowed halls of Congress.

On a lighter note, if there is such a thing in this mess, I think it should be acknowledged that marijuana is safer than alcohol and less likely to lead to out-of-character aggressive incidents like the two alleged against Kavanaugh. Maybe if the class of Georgetown class of ’82 and Yale freshman class of ’83 smoked more pot and drank less alcohol, there would have been no such behavior exhibited by anyone at house parties and dorm meetings and we would be deciding the qualifications of a Supreme Court nominee based on his record as a jurist rather than how many drinks he could imbibe before throwing up 35 years ago.

< Running Out the Kavenaugh Clock | Reports of Rod Rosenstein's Possible Resignation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Where there's smoke, there's likely fire. (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 07:03:50 AM EST
    The nomination of a candidate for Supreme Court justice or a federal judgeship was crafted by our founding leaders to be a political rather than legal process, in which the Senate's role is to advise and consent.

    That process has gone awry and astray whenever those senators, whose job is to duly consider and assess the candidate's qualifications and character, abdicate that responsibility. That's exactly what has happened here, just as it occurred 27 years ago in the wake of Prof. Anita Hill's allegations about current Justice Clarence Thomas.

    Rather than re-examine the candidate in light of new testimony regarding his character and fitness to serve a lifetime appointment as one of the nine final legal arbiters of justice in our land, a handful of senators have instead subverted the nomination process by turning it into a political power struggle and test of personal wills.

    It was obvious to many of us that Brett Kavanaugh was a terribly flawed SCOTUS candidate, even before these recent allegations of sexual abuse became public. It's now further apparent that numerous Republican senators were quite aware of these allegations well prior to public disclosure. But rather than slow the process down to consider their veracity, Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley instead sought to rush the nomination through before such disclosures came to light.

    But even before Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez went public with their stories, there was more than enough evidence to strongly suggest that Judge Kavanaugh knowingly and deliberately gave false and misleading testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on multiple points back in 2004 and 2006, in order to secure his present position on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington.

    Is lying to Congress while under oath now an acceptable standard for candidates who've been nominated for our federal judiciary? I certainly hope not. I don't consider it at all unreasonable that the public should expect honesty and forthrightness from judicial nominees in their testimony under oath before the U.S. Senate, and to further demand integrity, balance and due diligence from these judges in the performance of their official duties, once they're confirmed for their posts.

    But per the public record, Brett Kavanaugh hasn't delivered on much if any of that over the course of the past two decades. By failing to meet such basic and reasonable standards, he's really not owed any further consideration for SCOTUS and indeed, he ought to also forfeit his present job as a federal appellate court judge.

    And as I say here the other day, if Judge Kavanaugh had any sense of honor and decency left in him, he'd withdraw his name from nomination, rather than further subject his country to this absolute Republican mockery of our judicial selection process.


    Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 08:43:40 AM EST
    This cartoon sums it up rather nicely. (none / 0) (#33)
    by vml68 on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 07:38:43 PM EST
    "Kavanaughed" (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 08:04:28 AM EST
    It's a nightmare.  Truly it is.  Everything you say about good people serving is true.  But I think it's been true for a long time.

    But here's the bottom line.  This is where we are.  You can make an argument both sides are to blame but blame is really no longer the point.  This is where we are.

    This nomination is the most important one in my life.  It will change the country we live in for the rest of my life and the lives of pretty much every person reading this.  The republicans have crashed through every norm of the process and rubbed our noses in the residue.

    It's a terrible thing.  But this is the fight we are in.

    And we have to win it.  We have to.

    One reason (none / 0) (#5)
    by ragebot on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 09:42:54 AM EST
    I supported Amy Coney Barrett for this nomination is that it would have sailed through already.  If Kavanaugh does withdraw she is the most likely the next nomination, and my guess is that she will be confirmed in record time.

    From what I understand the reason some conservatives wanted to wait on her is to keep her nomination in reserve for when Ginsburg leaves the court.

    The Kavanaugh nomination fight will be nothing compared to what will happen if Trump gets to nominate Ginsburg's replacement


    I seriously (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 10:57:55 AM EST
    doubt Trump is going to nominate a woman.

    Why (none / 0) (#46)
    by ragebot on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 11:44:33 AM EST
    There were several women considered for this nomination, and Amy Barrett was considered the favorite by some.  After what seems to be the new standard for male nominees I would bet Trump would favor women for all SC openings.  Especially ones like Barrett who is more conservative than Kavanaugh with a lot less baggage.

    He has (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 02:52:23 PM EST
    had two chances and both times passed on women. He sees women as inferior in every way unless they happen to share his bloodline. You just can't see the misogyny that reeks out of him all the time apparently.

    Trump isn't nominating sh*t (none / 0) (#47)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 01:04:43 PM EST
    imo, when he pledged that loyalty oath way back when to the RNC, which was in-effect a loyalty oath to the militant libertarian and conservative Christian big money backers, a key part of the deal was that the important judicial nominees would come exclusively out of The Federalist Society stable.

    The Federalist Society, where they believe 19th century social darwinism begins at conception.


    I agree completely but (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 10:22:54 AM EST
    Your comment might get deleted because of the link.  If it does, or maybe anyway, you could repost it either using the link icon above the comment box or using the website "tinyurl" to make a shorter link.

    Peace out

    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by hardindr on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 10:38:21 AM EST
    I created a new comment and used bit.ly for the link.

    I really must object (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Towanda on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 12:15:21 PM EST
    to referring to this situation as a "charade."

    The Republicans' actions, yes.

    But the headline implies that the women's actions are a pretense. And that entirely belies the later statement that their claims deserve investigation.

    Agreed. and if (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 01:03:16 PM EST
    Republicans were trying for a "charade", they failed at that, too---it is, in fact, a blatant and transparent attempt to create a reputable appearance.

     Yes, taking accusations seriously calls for investigation, but the Republicans have blocked every opportunity to find the truth, as if what actually happened is not their friend.

    The confirmation has become a fiasco largely because the Republicans cheated the vetting process. Moreover, their political operatives, such as Whelan, have worked the deceit with Zillow frolicking that--not only alleged, but named another boy as an evil twin.

     And, it has not stopped.  It is reported that Kavanaugh has kept a calendar diary of the summer in question, that he has handed over to Grassley, which, is apparently, to be exculpatory---no attempted rapes scheduled during that period.  

    Kavaanugh is not seeking election to this position; he has been nominated by Trump for a lifetime position. Americans need to depend on the honest discharge of the constitutional obligation of the senate to advise and consent to this nomination.

    There will be a judicial radicalness  to any nomination by Trump and other right wingers, but, we should be able to expect the nominee to have been fully vetted so as to assure all American people that the next Supreme Court justice will not  de-legitimatize a branch of our government.


    1000% agreed (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 06:57:42 PM EST
    Moreover, it's not "the law in America".  For someone facing criminal charges in a court of law?  Absolutely.  For someone seeking confirmation to the SC or election to office?  Not in the least.

    I just want the whole thing to be over. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 03:20:12 PM EST
    There will be NO good nominees with Bone Spurs in office. If this smarmy a-hole isn't confirmed, it will just be another smarmy Republican a-hole. I agree with Ga6th. The Kavanaughs of this country come from a culture of entitlement. They believe they were bred for seats on the SC or the Senate or whatever.

    The only hope is that Dems can take the Senate.

    This (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 05:43:38 PM EST
    But nothing justifies the latter (i.e., the assumption the accusation is true) prior to a hearing or trial before a neutral and detached magistrate or tribunal. That's the law in America

    Of course no one would disagree with this.  But here's the problem I see with this approach to Kavanaugh.

    This is not a "hearing or trial before a neutral and detached magistrate or tribunal".

    It's a job interview.  For a very important job for life.  No one is entitled to due process in a job interview.  You look at the person and decide if they have the qualifications and character to do the job.  

    If you have any question about either of those the logical thing to do would be to investigate.  They will not do this.  They will not even consider this.  It makes absolutely no sense to me that you have two (so far) accusers or a typically begging for an investigation of their claims.

    To say there is nothing to investigate, as republicans are doing in chorus, is nonsense.  Ronaqn Farrow, Jane Mayer and others are investigating and finding sh!t.  Mayer say they discovered an email chain about all of this between people from before the first accuser came forward

    600 women (5.00 / 8) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 06:04:10 PM EST
    from Yale wrote a letter basically backing up Ramirez saying that was the culture of Yale in the 80's. Heck I could write a book on the stinking culture in the 80's and the junk I dealt with back then. You had that old fool Phyllis Schafly basically testifying before congress that women deserved bad treatment.

    I lived through the 80's. I have known Brett Kavanaugh's. They basically have gone through life with zero consequences. And they expect to continue to do so and anyone that attempts to hold them accountable will be tossed aside. It's just how they operate. Kavanaugh reminds of the preppy murder guy who killed that girl in NY. He felt entitled therefore he took what he wanted.


    Affuenza (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by FlJoe on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 06:51:51 PM EST
    is a terrible thing.

    I just heard (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 08:10:08 PM EST

    Must have (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 08:49:27 PM EST
    gotten more people to sign the letter since I read about it which is not impossible.

    I think it's absurd (none / 0) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 12:17:15 AM EST
    that Ronan Farrow is allowed to write on this topic at all given his family biases. I don't trust anything he writes. Stormy's lawyer is out for media attention. I don't listen to him either.

    Do you listen (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Towanda on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 04:46:15 PM EST
    to the women interviewed in Farrow's reportage? (I don't know him, so I use his last name.)  That is, you do read his work, and you don't trust what he writes -- but do you trust the women he quotes?

    And do you listen to Daniels, although you don't listen to Avenatti?

    Trying to figure out how you stay current. . . .


    Every time I see Ronan Farrow... (none / 0) (#78)
    by desertswine on Wed Sep 26, 2018 at 01:00:43 AM EST
    I am reminded of Ol' Blue Eyes.

    Really? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 26, 2018 at 02:33:53 AM EST
    I look at him, and find him to be every inch his mother Mia's son. I think his resemblance is striking.

    this would be a "charade", similar to (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by cpinva on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 05:39:31 PM EST
    that which got Bork drop-kicked from confirmation (having the audacity to read his own words to the committee, how uncivil!)? or, the actual charade of the Starr Report, resulting in BC's impeachment?

    hey, people want to know! last time I checked, being a virgin doesn't exempt you from being an attempted rapist, it just makes you an inept attempted rapist.

    Wasn't it Kavanaugh's (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 06:03:06 PM EST
    fraternity that was known for such pithy maxims as "No means yes, and yes means a*al"?

    It's laughably improbable that a fairly good-looking young guy who liked to party and was from an affluent family had to wait a few years before he had a chance with any of the Mrs-degree-seeking young Republican women at Yale.

    And I suppose even then he made them all wear rubber gloves, like Greg Marmalard in Animal House..


    Otoh (none / 0) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 05:52:33 PM EST
    While accusing no one...

    It's a fact "s€xual" assault is often less about s€x and more about power.

    Maybe it wasn't done for the s€x


    Ill say this (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 05:56:17 PM EST
    I think it was really dumb to try to paint this ridiculously righteous picture if himself as a college v!rgin

    All this flat denials are going to come back go bite him.


    I don't know enough about (none / 0) (#63)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 06:19:42 PM EST
    conservative Catholic doctrine, but maybe the rationale for the a*nal-fixation that's notorious in some quarters is that to some minds it technically doesn't count as sex.

    I'm going to have to go back and see what Augustine and Thomas Aquinas have to say about it.


    Ooh, how utterly primal. (none / 0) (#80)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 26, 2018 at 03:09:21 AM EST
    Back in the 1970s, my uncle and aunt had a male Philippine macaque as a pet. He was an ornery monkey, and if he was perturbed by your mere presence for whatever his reason, he would stare at you, make this low guttural growling sound, and masturbate furiously. It wasn't a sexual act; rather, it was a warning sign of aggression and intimidation.

    One time when I was 14 years old and we were visiting them in San Diego, their monkey was in his tree in their back yard. He immediately started wankin' it and making threatening noises when he saw me walk outside, only this time, my uncle had forgotten to fasten him fully to his chain. He leaped from the tree, charged me, fastened himself to my right leg and tore into my calf with his canines, right through my blue jeans.

    I still have the 3-inch-plus scar to prove it. It took eight or nine stitches to close. My uncle had him defanged after that incident. Wouldn't neuter him, though. So I experienced first-hand how testosterone can prompt aggressive behavior. Males in some higher species of primates will engage in sexual displays as a means to convey and assert their dominance.



    Randy Rainbow (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 08:34:38 PM EST
    Kaboom (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by FlJoe on Wed Sep 26, 2018 at 10:07:05 AM EST
    Avenatti delivers
    In a sworn statement posted on Avenatti's Twitter account, witness Julie Swetnick says that she saw Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge target women for sexual assault.

    "During the years 1981-82, I became aware of efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh and others to `spike' the `punch' at house parties I attended with drugs and/or grain alcohol so as to cause girls to lose their inhibitions and their ability to say `No,'" Swetnick says in her statement. "I also witnessed efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh and others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be `gang raped' in a side room."

    Jeralyn (2.00 / 1) (#4)
    by ragebot on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 09:35:07 AM EST
    Thanks for posting this.  Your integrity is the biggest reason I come to your site.

    Like his politics or not Kavanaugh is well qualified as a jurist.  But as you point out it must be terrible for him and his family to go through what is happening now.

    A big part of why some folks are upset about what is going on is it fails to pass the 'shoe on the other foot test'.  Both the women accusing Kavanaugh are Democrats who oppose him.  On the other hand both Clinton and Ellison were accused by members of their own party who were making statements against their interests.  All the accusations against Clinton and Ellison were much better documented than those against Kavanaugh in terms of time and place.

    The accusations against Kavanaugh also violate Rule 39.  The Democrats could have easily raised the first accusation much earlier and started any investigation much earlier; instead they waited to raise the issue till it would cause maximum delay.  The same can be said of the second accusation's timing.

    I would add that if you take the allegations seriously the implication is that Kavanaugh should be impeached; even if it is unlikely he would be convicted.  Yet I have seen several Democrats support impeachment; and if the Democrats retake the House it may happen.

    Bottom line is your analysis about living with the devil you know is spot on.  As much as his opponents dislike Kavanaugh it seems likely they will dislike even more what comes next.

    Don't agree... (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by hardindr on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 10:38:01 AM EST
    I am going to have to object here.  None of BC's accusers were credible: not Jennifer Flowers, not Kathleen Wiley, not Paula Jones, not Juanita Broaddrick.  They all either took lots of money to tell their stories, or said obvious untruths about their pasts or what they claimed happened, or even gave sworn statements that were at odds with the facts.  This was all covered exhaustively by Gene Lyons, Joe Conason, and Bob Somerby a long time ago.

    As for Ellison, the woman who accused him of assaulting her claimed that there was a tape that showed him doing it.  Later, she claimed that the tape existed, but was lost in a move.  I don't think that helps her credibility.  To be honest, I am a big Ellison supporter and I don't want the accusation to be true, so I maybe biased.

    For Kavanaugh, all I want is for there to be an open, thorough, complete, and fair investigation into these allegations.  There is absolutely no reason his confirmation has to be rushed to be completed before the midterms, other than for the most cynical reasons on the Republican side.  What an investigation into these allegations would show is anyone's guess.

    There were reasons that Dianne Feinstein didn't make the original accusation against Kavanaugh, the main one was her pledge of confidentiality to Ford when she initially contacted her office.  That is a tough decision for her to make, and I am not sure if was the right one, but that is why and it wasn't an 11th hour attempt to scuttle Kavanaugh.



    You totally missed my point. (2.00 / 2) (#14)
    by ragebot on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 12:51:09 PM EST
    Both Kathleen Wiley and Juanita Broaddrick were Democrats who worked for Clinton in a political sense.  Jones was an employee with no obvious political leanings.  Flowers was basically a woman scorned with no obvious political leanings.  All of Kavanaugh's accusers are Democrats.  The first scrubbed her online posts and the second is a 'never Trumper'.  Does the term admission against interest ring a bell.

    In all four cases there were well defined time and place where the accusations were made; not to mention they were made in a much more timely manner.  Alcohol was not involved in any instance.  In all the claims against Kavanaugh alcohol was involved.  Still remember the line from the Little Feat song Dixie Chicken

    that low down Southern whiskey began to fog my mind

    Flowers never claimed any criminal activity
    (kinda sure adultery was not a crime back then, maybe alienation of affection, is that still a crime), only an affair.  Jones had state troopers back up her claims.  While there may have been some crime involved (not sure what specifically and probably laws were different back then; especially stuff like hostile work place) her claim was again mostly being outraged and she never suggested Clinton should be criminally charged.

    Kathleen Wiley and Juanita Broaddrick did claim criminal activity.  But in both cases it was much more timely than in the Kavanaugh cases with specific time and place.

    One thing common to all these cases is how they violate Rule 39; along with Rule 39A and Rule 40.  The reason there has not been a criminal investigation in any of these cases is, in part, because they violate these rules.  I am reminded of the conversation in A Few Good Men between
    Lt. Daniel Kaffee and Lt. Cdr. JoAnne Galloway where Galloway say what do you believe and Kaffee says it does not matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove in court.  There is no way any of the claims against Kavanaugh can be proven in court.

    It is not clear just what Kavanaugh's opponents mean in terms of an investigation.  When I got back to the world after winning a second place medal in the 1967-68 Southeast Asian War Games I talked to several of my old friends from high school.  My main squeeze was questioned by the FBI related to the investigation for a Top Secret clearance.  So were several other male friends, teachers, and family members.  But they also talked to some girls I don't remember ever knowing.  I had dated a cheerleader for a short time and they talked to the entire cheerleading squad.  This was just because I was going to OCS.  I have to think Kavanaugh having six of these investigations for high level positions resulted in a much more intensive investigation.

    I do have to note that DiFi does not get a pass for keeping the letter from the Senate.  When Ford took a lie detector test and hired lawyers in August it was silly not to release the letter.  See Rule 40.


    Juanita (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 01:39:01 PM EST
    never worked for Clinton. The FBI found her not credible. You cannot like the results but you can't change the facts. As a matter of fact she has spent the last few years attacking all of Trump's accusers, Roy Moore's accusers and now Kanavaugh's. She has zero crediblity and frankly even the GOP wouldn't touch defending Roy Moore but she did. So basically she's been grifting you guys for years with her claims.

    The FBI investigated all of the claims against Clinton. They never moved forward with their claims because they did not find them credible.

    Clinton had a partisan investigation which still did not work in the GOP's favor. Why is Kavanaugh so special that he needs to be protected from a NONPARTISAN fair examination of these claims?


    It's actually a phrase (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 07:11:04 PM EST
    All of Kavanaugh's accusers are Democrats.  The first scrubbed her online posts and the second is a 'never Trumper'.  Does the term admission against interest ring a bell.

    ... not a "term" - and you shouldn't misuse legal phrases you don't understand.

    As far a Broadrick and Wiley - you're funny.  Broadrick actually issued a sworn statement that the allegations never happened.  So the question isn't IF she was lying, but when.  Wiley's allegations were investigated by Ken Starr, and her complete lack of credibility (including her acknowledgment that she lied to the FBI meant no charges were brought.  But if you're bringing her up because you want an Independent Counsel to investigate Cavanaugh for several years, ... that'd be fine.


    Thank you hardindr (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 11:12:31 AM EST
    for your comment. I agree with you.

    What is the Burden of Proof? (none / 0) (#10)
    by RickyJim on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 10:56:50 AM EST
    Obviously, that underlies the lead article.  It was discussed by panelists on "Morning Joe" this morning.  Joe had the best answer as to the standard that will be used: "Who presents best. ... Who is the most convincing on television.  And unfortunately Mika, that is no way to pick a Supreme Court justice."  

    I wonder if this whole thing (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 12:55:33 PM EST
    might initiate some backlash toward #MeToo?

    That was (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 01:40:44 PM EST
    the thought a few months ago but Kavanaugh is so odious that it won't happen with him. It might happen with someone else though.

    Maybe so. (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 02:29:13 PM EST
    Kavanaugh released a letter, looks like he is in agreement with Jeralyn:
    Last night, another false and uncorroborated accusation from 35 years ago was published. Once again, those alleged to have been witnesses to the event deny it ever happened. There is now a frenzy to come up with something--anything--that will block this process and a vote on my confirmation from occurring.

    These are smears, pure and simple. And they debase our public discourse. But they are also a threat to any man or woman who wishes to serve our country. Such grotesque and obvious character assassination--if allowed to succeed--will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from service.

    That letter (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 02:41:52 PM EST
    is full of entitlement. That is the crux of his problem. He believes he is entitled to whatever he wants. He's been that way his entire life it seems. Now people are attempting to hold him accountable for what he has allegedly done and he does not like it one bit.

    And he's shocked that the GOP propaganda machine that he helped build is not able to control the narrative regarding this.


    Ok (none / 0) (#21)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 02:59:26 PM EST
    Kavanaugh is (none / 0) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 03:29:34 PM EST
    taking his plight to FOX news tonight. And, bringing his wife along. The interview will be presented recorded.

    Matthew Gertz on Twitter (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by vml68 on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 07:44:29 PM EST
    WH comms director accused of covering up sexual misconduct at Fox chooses Fox host who defended network's leading perpetrator of sexual misconduct to interview SCOTUS nominee accused of sexual misconduct who was picked by president accused of sexual misconduct.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 04:49:25 PM EST
    The famous "I'm a nice guy, see my wife sez so" interview.

    I think this is a sign they are worried he won't make it to Thursday.


    Yes, sounds (none / 0) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 05:35:17 PM EST
    like desperation.  Surprised he hasn't brought his daughters and the girls basketball team. This Shine guy, formerly of FOX, is the perfect WH guide---has experience with Ailes, O'Reilly.  

    His numbers (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 06:06:01 PM EST
    are in the 30's. What the heck does he think going on Fox is going to do? If he really wanted to change minds he would be going on 60 minutes and pleading his case or another show that is not state media only watched by the Trump crackheads.

    The only Fox viewer who counts is Trump. (none / 0) (#34)
    by caseyOR on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 07:40:24 PM EST
    Kavanaugh's Fox interview is his way of pleading his case to Trump. He had no other way of speaking to Trump since White House staffers made sure Kavanaugh did not speak with Trump over these last several days.

    Fox is Kavanaugh's Hail Mary pass.


    Well (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 07:58:25 PM EST
    that makes sense. It still doesn't help him get through the senate though. Apparently there are 7 who are wavering on Kavanaugh.

    Very few of those closing (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 04:03:02 PM EST
    sentiments seemed to have occurred to Kavanaugh back when he and Ken Starr were cobbling together their indictment of Clinton, which read like a rough-draft of Tropic of Cancer.

    I jus saw Avenatti (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 08:48:26 PM EST
    On Rachel.  Holy hell.  The guy is P.T.Barnum reanimated

    That was totally (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 08:48:51 PM EST
    A compliment

    Considering (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 08:54:23 PM EST
    the behavior of the GOP Avenatti must really have something. They are going to pull Kavanaugh and they put us through all this crap too. I'm still mad even if they do pull him. And evangelicals like Franklin Graham can stuff it. Apparently trying to rip someone's clothes off but not raping them is a sign of "respect".

    he's got a story (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 12:18:23 AM EST
    about plying drugs and drink to a girl who was then gang-raped. Kavenaugh said tonight on Fox he was a virgin until years after college.

    Hmm, I hear that it is possible (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Towanda on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 04:50:19 PM EST
    that the ones providing booze and drugs are not necessarily the ones doing the rapes, these days, according to coverage of criminal cases in my locale. Maybe that was possible in the 1980s, too.

    ... isn't supporting his story, I'll take the SCOTUS nominee's claim to having led a chaste life of perpetual virginity in his youth with a grain of salt, a slice of lime and a shot of Cuervo 1800 Especial.

    Watched 2 hours of nooze (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 09:48:34 PM EST
    Somewhere Larry Flynt is laughing.

    Cosby gets "Kavanaughed"... (none / 0) (#48)
    by desertswine on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 01:27:35 PM EST
    3 to 10  -  hey, Hey, HEY?

    Bill Cosby's publicist Andrew Wyatt, ... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 06:51:17 PM EST
    ... in a lengthy public statement read off his cell phone, called the trial "the most racist and sexist in the history of the United States," and then further claimed later that both Cosby and Brett Kavanaugh are victims of a "sex war" in Washington.

    I'm sure Cosby's claim of mutual solidarity and victimhood with Judge Kavanaugh at the hands of swarming and vindictive she-devils in Washington will be really helpful to SCOTUS nominee's case for confirmation. Wouldn't you agree?



    Oh MAN (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 10:07:29 PM EST
    I missed it
    The original tweet said "acquisitions"
    I swear.  It will be noose.

    The Democrats are working hard to destroy a wonderful man, and a man who has the potential to be one of our greatest Supreme Court Justices ever, with an array of False Accusations the likes of which have never been seen before!

    This is our president

    Everything is the (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 01:46:38 PM EST
    Likes of which we have never seen before.

    To include the UN laughing out loud at our President.


    I'm surprised (none / 0) (#50)
    by Zorba on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 02:02:19 PM EST
    That he didn't announce that he wants the US out if the UN and the UN out of the US.

    Next time (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 02:53:43 PM EST
    You know he's probably going to be mad as hell about this as soon as he has some television time. Supposedly the thing that really sends him round the bend is being laughed at.

    I had the misfortune to watch that speech... (none / 0) (#53)
    by desertswine on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 03:10:53 PM EST
    it literally was the speech of a 14 year old.  I couldn't count the number of times that he contradicted himself.

    But his hair... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by desertswine on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 03:19:07 PM EST
    was impeccably folded..  this time.

    Mitch claims he has the votes (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 05:17:56 PM EST

    Mitch lies. (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 07:27:50 PM EST
    Our lady of perpetual handwringing Susan Collins says there are 7 people on the fence. And I'll believe her before I believe Mitch.

    Harry Reid's old aide said that Mitch tries to bluff his way through everything. Barbara Boxes said he did the same thing with Packwood. I will be eternally thankful the day that old turtle waddles out of the senate and into his own scum filled pond.


    Sen. Collins was questioned by a reporter ... (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 09:48:49 PM EST
    Ga6thDem: "Our lady of perpetual handwringing Susan Collins says there are 7 people on the fence. And I'll believe her before I believe Mitch."

    ... today about Brett Kavanaugh's yearbook entries and replied, "At the risk of sounding naive, I don't know what many of the references are ... I  don't know what to make of somebody's high school yearbook."

    As played by the late Jean Stapleton on the classic TV sitcom "All in the Family", Edith Bunker was an endearing character. But as played by Susan Collins in the U.S. Senate, meh, not so much.

    At this point in the process, Sen. Collins' repeated pretentions of ignorance are both entirely disingenuous and extraordinarily maddening. If she really doesn't know, then she needs to ask. After all, asking questions and soliciting answers is an integral part of a U.S. senator's job description.

    But please, Edith, stop insulting everyone else's intelligence by feigning your own.



    He tried it to bully through (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 07:33:16 PM EST
    An Obamacare repeal and it blew up in his face.

    I hope he's lying again (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 08:35:33 PM EST
    And I hope they pull the nomination tomorrow.

    I think Mitch (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 26, 2018 at 06:52:20 AM EST
    May actually force a vote.  Trump is whipping to do just that.

    I think he might give him what he wants because he will not accept anything else than a defeat.

    Not unlike Obamacare and for the same reason.

    Mitch may be so tired of hearing it he will do it.  Which, if he really doesn't have the votes, would seriously absolutely be the worst thing he could possibly

    I think maybe Mitch has no more f'ks to give.


    I think that's BS (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 05:49:41 PM EST
    Even today. And tomorrow is going to be a whole 'nother day.

    Accuser three is due tomorrow .

    And then there's Thursday


    I almost dread tomorrow (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 08:34:31 PM EST
    Republicans have taken this to a place that I don't know how we come back from it.

    And just like I said above, ... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 06:34:01 PM EST
    C'est Moi: "But rather than slow the process down to consider [the veracity of these allegations], Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley instead sought to rush the nomination through before such disclosures came to light."

    ... Grassley's office has publicly announced that a confirmation vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee has been scheduled for this coming Friday, one day after the hearing. In the immortal words of George Custer at the Little Bighorn:

    "Benteen: Come on. Big village. Be quick."

    It's their funeral.

    BREAKING (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 07:36:26 PM EST
    Republicans tap Jeanine Pirro to question the doctor

    It turns out (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 26, 2018 at 08:03:23 AM EST
    J/K (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 07:36:52 PM EST
    Just announced (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 08:25:55 PM EST
    Given the arrangement (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 09:48:13 PM EST
    laid down by Grassley, Rachel Mitchell for the full 55 minutes each for Dr. Ford and The Weeping Virgin, it is now important as to how the Democratic senators apportion the 50 minutes they are being allotted.

     I believe it would be both efficient and effective, if the Democratic senators yielded their time to selected Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee.

      That will be difficult in that there are many good questioners/former prosecutors. Never-the-less, I think no more than three for each session  and not all women. My vote for the Kavanaugh session would be for Senator Whitehouse, Senator Harris, and Senator Hirono.   For the Dr. Ford session, Senator Feinstein , Senator Kloubuchar, and Senator Booker.


    I love that Mitch called her (none / 0) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 26, 2018 at 06:56:30 AM EST
    An "assistant".

    After she will make them sandwiches and tidy up.


    yes (none / 0) (#84)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 26, 2018 at 09:57:49 AM EST
    he crowed about hiring a "female assistant". This sexual assault stuff is, to these Republicans, "woman's work".

    Perhaps someone should ask Ms. Mitchell ... (2.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 09:57:07 PM EST
    ... about the Aug. 2011 plea deal she offered to David Nelson, a Jehovah's Witnesses church elder who confessed to molesting a 14-year-old boy on multiple occasions. He received only a six-month sentence in prison, three years of probation, and a requirement that he register as a sex offender.

    I'm not sure why GOP senators are doing this. (none / 0) (#86)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 26, 2018 at 03:39:41 PM EST
    Rachel Mitchell was ostensibly chosen because she is a prosecutor who specializes in child sexual abuse cases. In any event, her professional experience is ill-suited to this occasion. Christine Blasey Ford is a well-respected 51-year-old psychology professor, and Mitchell's not in Washington to prepare her for trial.

    The conventional wisdom here is that because she's a hired gun for the Senate Republican majority, she'll do everything she can to discredit Dr. Ford. But the more I think about this, I'm wondering whether perhaps, just perhaps, we might be reading this all wrong.

    Consider what might happen should Mitchell's prosecutorial instincts prompt her to instead turn her guns on Kavanaugh, should she catch him in an obvious contradiction during her questioning of him.

    Given that Kavanaugh's nomination at this juncture has already been severely compromised, perhaps Rachel Mitchell was hired by Sens. Grassley and McConnell NOT to undermine Dr. Ford's allegation, but rather to apply to final coup de grace to Kavanaugh's crippled candidacy and prompt the Trump White House to withdraw the nomination, thus saving Republican senators the public embarrassment and spectacle of an up-or-down floor vote.

    Sounds crazy and cynical, I know. But such are the times we're in that we ought to at least entertain this possibility.