Brett Kavanaugh's Confirmation Hearing

[hoipolloi]

5 minutes ago, Cartmann99 said:

Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from the Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years

Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer. Of course.

Heard them on the New Yorker radio hour last week and they were very tight-lipped but it sure sounded like more was coming out about Kavanaugh.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Kavanaugh’s Senate hearing isn’t a trial. The standard isn’t ‘reasonable doubt.’"

Spoiler

All week, as members of both parties jousted over Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school, we’ve heard calls that Kavanaugh is entitled to due process, with some suggesting that airing Ford’s claims in a Senate hearing is potentially unjust. Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) called the proceedings “very unfair.” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, averred that “this is no country for denying people due process.” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) proposed a courtroom-style examination of Ford and Kavanaugh by attorneys, in addition to questioning by committee members. The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway complained that the Senate is “an inappropriate place to litigate claims of sexual assault.”

Yes, Kavanaugh is entitled to fairness and impartiality. But when it comes to process, let’s be clear: If Ford testifies before the Judiciary Committee, if committee staffers interview her privately or if she puts her story on the official Senate record in some other way, senators aren’t tasked with measuring her accusation or Kavanaugh’s denial by the familiar “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard applied in criminal proceedings, or with rendering a verdict of guilty or not.

Rather, the purpose of Supreme Court confirmation hearings is to allow senators to provide “advice and consent” on the president’s nominees for the nation’s highest court. Whether or not there’s conclusive proof of the alleged assault, every senator is entitled to vote yes or no on elevating Kavanaugh from his current position as a federal appeals court judge to the pinnacle of American law based on their individual, subjective assessments of whatever testimony is provided. Senators also, properly, weigh their constituents’ views on the nominee and the testimony. Even if senators aren’t sure what, if anything, happened between Ford and Kavanaugh, if they think the accusation is probable, or even plausible, and decide that it’s too great a risk to put a maybe-sexual-assaulter on the high court, they’re entitled to vote no. If they believe that Kavanaugh lied under oath in answers to written or oral questions related to any part of the confirmation process, they’re entitled to vote no.

Any forthcoming testimony will occur as part of the confirmation hearing pursuant to Congress’s constitutional role. Under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, the president has the power to “nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . judges of the Supreme Court.” Normally, senators exercise this authority by delegating to the Judiciary Committee the task of conducting hearings. The committee then votes to forward the nominee for consideration by the whole Senate, where a majority vote is needed for confirmation.

Unlike for a jury, there’s no requirement for unanimity, and the Constitution doesn’t set a standard of proof by which senators must offer their advice and consent. It’s why there was, effectively, nothing President Barack Obama could do when Republican senators chose not to vote on his nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to fill the late justice Antonin Scalia’s high court seat in 2016 . Some argued that denying a hearing was a failure of constitutional obligation, resulting in a breaking of norms and a “stolen” seat; others maintained, as Michael D. Ramsey put it in the Atlantic, that “the appointments clause does not impose a duty to take formal action,” given that senators were aware of the nomination and thus considered it.

Kavanaugh’s public hearings, then, and any inquiry now into the accusations against him, are less like a trial and more like a high-stakes job interview — and this job comes with life tenure. The main point of the hearings is to determine the nominee’s fitness for the post. Senators evaluate judicial qualifications, record, demeanor and philosophy. Modern judicial nominees undergo in­cred­ibly thorough vetting in preparation because they know that senators may also explore every aspect of their past. Allegations of sexual misconduct fall well within the scope of relevant considerations. Because guilt or innocence isn’t the issue, but instead fitness for the Supreme Court, the burden of proof isn’t, and shouldn’t be, on Ford, the accuser; it remains on Kavanaugh.

Of course, fairness demands that Kavanaugh be allowed to hear Ford’s specific contentions and tell his side of the story. And any responsible senator will weigh the information provided by Kavanaugh and Ford without regard to a predetermined partisan outcome. But there’s likely to be uncertainty at the end of this, and that’s okay.

It’s why the founders didn’t just leave it to the president to install Supreme Court justices unilaterally. They gave him (or, one day, her) that power only with the Senate’s advice and consent.

Almost three decades ago, Anita Hill alleged that Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her. The Judiciary Committee heard testimony, including Hill’s allegations, and the FBI investigated. Ultimately, the Senate confirmed Thomas.

Since Ford’s allegations surfaced, Hill has lamented how committee members ( all men ) back in 1991 showed deep skepticism of her and failed to grasp the essence of sexual harassment; this time, she has urged them to “get it right ” when it comes to alleged sexual violence. That doesn’t mean the committee should favor Ford’s testimony over Kavanaugh’s, but it doesn’t mean Kavanaugh must be irrefutably proved to have assaulted her, either. “If there is a doubt,” the late senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) said when he voted against Thomas’s confirmation, “I say resolve it in the interests of our country, its future. Let’s not have a cloud of doubt for someone who will be on the court for many years.”

It’s within the committee’s discretion to await any FBI investigation of Ford’s allegations. Alternatively, the panel may move forward with the hearing as scheduled. If Ford declines to testify, the Senate could decide to exercise its subpoena power. To fulfill their constitutional role, senators should proceed thoughtfully and perform their proper advice and consent role. That includes a modicum of deference to presidential nominees — after all, they advise, but the president nominates. Whether we’re talking about Kavanaugh, Garland or Thomas, senators aren’t obligated to vote yes on any nominee, but they must consider the nominees, including the evidence for and against, in good faith and vote according to their conscience, their constitutional oath and their role as representatives of the people.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

[AuntK]

I'm not surprised that more women are finally coming forward. These scumbags usually offend multiple times! 

I'm sending postcards to every member of the committee and the undecided senators tomorrow! The message, written in large block lettering says :"I believe Dr. Ford. Vote NO on Kavanaugh!" Postcard messages WILL be seen!

[Rachel333]

Michael Avenatti posted this e-mail exchange. It involves some extremely disturbing new accusations against Kavanaugh.

 

He says there is evidence that Judge and Kavanaugh participated "in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs in order to allow a ‘train’ of men to subsequently gang rape them.”

[GreyhoundFan]

[Rachel333]

 

[AmazonGrace]

The fuck is going on in America?

Kavanagh gives me the creeps and that bit about what stays in prep was weird so I have no trouble believing that. 

But how goddamn dumb would you have to be to seek a Supreme Court nomination and national attention in the middle of #metoo if you know you have done this.

I don't credit the denials of the other guys who were allegedly there because that's what they'd say anyway if they didn't want to get in trouble themselves .

And how goddamn dumb and evil would Senate Republicans have to be to know Ronan Farrow has a story coming up and react, hey we have to confirm our guy faster. How's that gonna look to voters? He might be a gang rapist but he will rule to repeal ACA so it's a win-win

[AmazonGrace]

I am shocked that serial sexual offender doesn't care if his nominee is a sexual offender. 

 

[fraurosena]

Huh. If Steve King is of the opinion that no man would ever qualify if he is accused of sexual assault, he is actually saying ‘all men commit sexual assault’. Therefore, this article is also his confession to commiting sexual assault, as he too, is a man...?

Seriously though, I agree the accusation itself should not be the defining qualifier for confirmation. It should be the results of the FBI investigation into the accusation. But the GOP are the ones blocking that investigation from happening. And that in and of itself is quite telling and highly suspicious. 

[AmazonGrace]

Well I think if you stand credibly accused of being a gang rapist it should probably be enough not to give you the job of the highest arbiter of justice in a country.   It's not enough to convict you but it's certainly enough to make senators think, "hmm are we sure this guy's  really the best we could come up with? how will this reflect upon the court?"

But currently it's a perfect circle.

"Mere accusations are not enough to prevent confirmation in the absence of a conviction ".

"So how about an investigation then?"

"No, we are going to block that because it's not fair to investigate such old crap."

"But we can't  convict anybody without an investigation."

"Right. This is just a he said she said and mere accusations are not enough to prevent confirmation."

 

 

It's not like it's automatic. Nobody accused Neil Gorsuch of being a gang rapist, possibly because he is not one.

[formergothardite]

12 hours ago, nausicaa said:

The wide chasm of nuance refers to the idea that one can think the claims against Kavanuagh are horrific, despise rape culture and what Franklin Graham said, all the while still believing in rule of law and believing we should proceed with cooler heads.

4. One can listen to someone's claim and wait for more evidence to make a judgement. "You believe her or you don't" is another unfair, false dichotomy. 

I agree with @nausicaa, and I have really never gotten the Trumpster vibe from her.  From reading the rants of various actual Trump fans one of the things they keep bringing up to say this is all fake is that democrats are claiming he is guilty without an investigation. Do I think there is a high chance the man is guilty as sin of committing probably more than one sexual assault? Yes. But this has to be investigated and I think that is what @nausicaa, was saying, that we can't just end a confirmation over accusations. It should be brought to a grinding halt, though while there is a thorough look  into what exactly is going on. He has some serious accusations being thrown at him and this warrants investigating. And because yes, the GOP is right now so corrupt that if they don't get their chance to put a corrupt person on the SC, they will start attempting to end every single democratic confirmation by faking accusations. 

I really think the GOP knew all this about him, but they own him, he will do what they want and they will move heaven and earth to get him confirmed. Their base really doesn't care about men sexually assaulting women and if they own the court system they can make sure they stay in power even as their base shrinks.  

[SilverBeach]

Supreme court appointments are for life. What's the rush? The whole damn process here is suspect.

[formergothardite]

23 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

Supreme court appointments are for life. What's the rush? The whole damn process here is suspect.

ITA. I really think there should be some sort of mandatory investigation time for all nominees to prevent this situation where a party attempts to rush people in without proper time for a look into the person's life. 

[GreyhoundFan]

[AmazonGrace]

2 hours ago, formergothardite said:

@nausicaa But this has to be investigated and I think that is what @nausicaa, was saying, that we can't just end a confirmation over accusations.

Those are two separate things in my mind. It should be be investigated because the victims need justice and if he's a serial  CreepyMcCreepypants it's questionable if he should continue in his current job which he is pretty hard to fire from, if I understand correctly.

But as for the Supreme Court nomination, I don't see why it couldn't be ended over accusations. Merrick Garland's confirmation was ended before it got even started and he was never accused of anything. They've ended confirmations of other judges for various reasons not involving criminal allegations. If senators can vote no or refuse to vote at all because the judge appears incompetent or too politically extreme or too centrist or just because they feel like blocking everyone that the current president nominates they sure as hell  can vote no because the candidate is accused of crimes. It's not anybody's birthright to be confirmed.

[AmazonGrace]

There's never just one:

https://mont.thesentinel.com/2018/09/24/supreme-court-nominee-kavanaugh-faces-more-allegations/

Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh faces more allegations

Investigators in Montgomery County confirmed Monday they’re aware of a potential second sexual assault complaint in the county against former Georgetown Prep student and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Spoiler

 

While investigators weren’t specific and spoke on background, they said they are looking at allegations against Kavanaugh during his senior year in high school after an anonymous witness came forward this weekend.

This would potentially bring the number to four women accusing Kavanaugh of wrongdoing and comes after Deborah Ramirez, a former Yale college student, stepped forward this weekend to accuse Kavanaugh of exposing himself to her in college, and after attorney Michael Avenatti tweeted out a message saying he represents a woman with “credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge.”

In an email to Mike Davis, the chief counsel for nominations for the Senate Judiciary Committee, Avenatti said he had evidence that at house parties in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh and his friend Judge and others plied women with alcohol and drugs, “In order to allow a ‘train’ of men to subsequently gang rape them.”

Investigators say it is unclear if Avenatti’s tweet and email is in regards to the same woman they’ve interviewed.

Judge is a writer who wrote a fictional account of his time at Georgetown Prep and was allegedly involved in the sexual assault of Professor Christine Blasey Ford, Kavanaugh’s first accuser who is set to testify this Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Kavanaugh has denied any wrongdoing. On Sunday the White House released a statement in which Kavanaugh said of the new allegations by Ramirez, “This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen. The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so. This is a smear, plain and simple. I look forward to testifying on Thursday about the truth, and defending my good name—and the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime building—against these last-minute allegations.”

President Trump refused to direct the FBI to investigate the allegations, but Montgomery County’s Prosecuting Attorney John McCarthy confirmed this weekend he would direct the Montgomery County Police Department to investigate any complaint brought against Kavanaugh, “But no complaint has been filed or forwarded to this office,” he explained.

Montgomery County Police Chief Tom Manger said, “We are prepared to investigate if the victim wants to report to us, and we can determine it occurred in the county.”

One issue police will have to determine is whether the alleged assault described by Ford occurred in Chevy Chase, Maryland or in Washington D.C. “If it is in D.C. we would not have jurisdiction,” Manger said.

Police investigators, speaking on background, said Ford’s accusations – occurring approximately 36 years ago presented other difficulties to investigators. “There is no forensic evidence, there is a question of where it occurred and when and who was around. But we will do what we can if we are called upon to do it.”

Manger agreed and said that any investigation would have to respect the victim. “Some sexual assault victims do not want police involvement. We respect that. Typically, if we are aware of a case and the victim does not want to involve us, the hospital will collect the physical evidence and turn it over to us for safekeeping in case the victim ever changes their mind about prosecution.”

Investigators we spoke with over the weekend said they were particularly interested in the semi-autobiographical books written by Judge about his time at Georgetown Prep and Kavanaugh’s involvement in some of the events described in the book.

Those events, originally thought to be exaggerated by Judge for his novels were looked at in a new light, according to investigators after comments by Dr. Ford and others.

Judge has denied being involved in the events alleged by Dr. Ford.

However, Kavanaugh’s own admissions in his senior yearbook at Prep and references to “Beach Week Ralph Club” and being the treasurer of the “Keg City Club” apparently lined up with allegations leveled by at least one other woman who knew him at that time.

Meghan McCaleb, a high school friend of Kavanaugh’s who assisted in assembling a letter of support for Kavanaugh told CNN’s Jim Sciutto “this was not an accurate portrayal” of the Supreme Court nominee in the 1980s.

“I’ve been friends with him for years and I was one of the people who gathered women together . . . 65 women . . . all said that he always was a gentleman, always respected women and nothing like that has ever happened,” she said.

@BrianKarem

 

 

[fraurosena]

Follow up from Avenatti.

I don't think Avenatti has any standing with Congress, other than that he is representing someone who is accusing a nominee for the SCOTUS. He's nothing more than an attorney asking the Judiciary Committee the questions everybody in the general public also has, (which is good to see), but if it will actually lead to something remains to be seen. I'm rather sceptical in that regard.

[AmazonGrace]

Avenatti is saying that the woman in the Sentinel is not the same person he represents.

 

The only reason I think Kavanagh might be innocent at this point is that if he did it he's a super mega idiot to invite the spotlight on himself. If he was just a quiet little small town judge somewhere with two roads and a farm he'd have gotten away with it.

[formergothardite]

2 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

The only reason I think Kavanagh might be innocent at this point is that if he did it he's a super mega idiot to invite the spotlight on himself.

But he is also entering the world where Trump has an entire mountain of sexual assault accusations thrown at him and the GOP/republican base doesn't care and these things didn't matter to his political career. I can see that a guy who got away with sexual assault and now is in a party that is openly okay with it that he would think it wouldn't matter. There is also the point that he probably thought he would be confirmed in a matter of weeks with little to no scrutiny and that the women have stayed quite this long so there is a big chance they would remain quiet. 

[AmazonGrace]

Ronan Farrow makes the point that a lot of the defenders and naysayers do not actually look too good in this story, if true, and would have a motive to lie 

 

[fraurosena]

Unsurprisingly, Kavanaugh has dug in his heels and is in full on denial mode. 

 

From the other side, there's this:

 

[AmazonGrace]

I thought it was the police talking in the Sentinel story but the county PD denied that they're investigating anything and the reporter said on Twitter he was talking about some other investigators.  Reserving judgment for now.

Quote

Warning: My client re Kavanaugh has previously done work within the State Dept, U.S. Mint, & DOJ. She has been granted multiple security clearances in the past including Public Trust & Secret. The GOP and others better be very careful in trying to suggest that she is not credible

— Michael Avenatti (@MichaelAvenatti) September 24, 2018

Is this client's identity already known to the Senate/WH? Because these clues might help Kavanaugh guess who it is and attack accordingly. Unless he has lots of victims within those agencies.

[hope kelly]

9 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

I thought it was the police talking in the Sentinel story but the county PD denied that they're investigating anything and the reporter said on Twitter he was talking about some other investigators.  Reserving judgment for now.

Is this client's identity already known to the Senate/WH? Because these clues might help Kavanaugh guess who it is and attack accordingly. Unless he has lots of victims within those agencies.

That was my thought too.

[AmazonGrace]