Brett Kavanaugh's Confirmation Hearing

[JMarie]

2 hours ago, onekidanddone said:

@JMarie is my spirit animal 

I've been trying to figure out why I've been in a pissed off mood for the past few weeks.  I'm not sure if it's my lovely fluctuating lady hormones, family crap, or overexposure to the news.  And, I wasn't planning on drinking when I got home from work tonight.  I may have to if I'm to slug it through an hour of Praising and Defending Trump (AKA Sean Hannity's program).

[GreyhoundFan]

A good one from Dana Milbank: "This is what happens when you try to jam through a Supreme Court appointment"

Spoiler

Who is this man, and what have they done with President Trump?

One can imagine the quantity of supplies — duct tape? zip ties? sweat socks? — needed to get the job done, but somehow White House staffers managed it: They kept Trump quiet for more than 24 hours after The Post’s Emma Brown reported Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual-assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh.

And one can imagine what techniques of persuasion — hypnosis? medication? shock collar? — were employed to get Trump to speak, when he finally addressed reporters Monday afternoon, with peaceful equanimity. Though saying “I wish the Democrats could have done this a lot sooner” (as if they controlled when Ford decided to go on the record), he was preternaturally calm, taking no shots at the accuser.

“We want to go through a full process,” he said, “and hear everybody out.” He said that he wouldn’t be troubled by “a little delay” and that “I’d like everybody to be very happy.” Only when a reporter asked if Kavanaugh had offered to withdraw did Trump return to form, calling it a “ridiculous question.”

Republicans in the Senate were similarly, and uncharacteristically, mild. Many said nothing, and those who spoke did it gingerly. Roy Blunt, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins and even Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley said Ford deserves to be heard. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Republican, who previously mocked the “secret letter regarding a secret matter and an unidentified person,” shifted to saying, “the Judiciary Committee should treat this with the seriousness it deserves.”

And Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) was resolutely silent until late Monday, when the architect of the plan to deny President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, a hearing for 293 days went to the Senate floor and complained that Democrats didn’t follow “standard bipartisan process” by raising the allegations earlier. But he said the allegations would be reviewed “by the book.”

McConnell, like his colleagues, was careful not to defend Kavanaugh, and for good reason. Not only can Republicans hardly afford to do more damage to themselves with women on the eve of the midterm elections, but they seem genuinely caught off-guard by the allegation against Kavanaugh and not eager to defend him without knowing the details.

This is what happens when you try to jam through a nominee to the highest court in the land for a lifetime appointment. Republicans on the Judiciary Committee were so effective at keeping Kavanaugh’s pre-judicial paper trail under wraps that for Republicans, as well as Democrats, he’s a pig in a poke. This isn’t to say a more robust confirmation process would have uncovered Ford’s allegations, but the short-circuited process has left lawmakers in a position where they don’t know what they don’t know about Kavanaugh.

The Trump administration outsourced its vetting of candidates to the Federalist Society. And Grassley, Democrats complain, requested 15 percent or less of Kavanaugh’s records from his time in the George W. Bush White House — 937,000 of 6 million to 7 million. Of those 937,000, only 457,000 were produced, of which 86,000 were duplicates and half were declared “confidential” by committee Republicans. Six Democratic requests to subpoena Kavanaugh documents were shot down.

Kavanaugh’s answers during testimony, like those of previous nominees, were evasive, and his follow-up written responses absurd. For two questions about Roe v. Wade, for example, Kavanaugh replied: “See my answer to Question 5a.” His answer to 5a? “Please see my response to Question 4.”

A few Republicans mindlessly leaped to disparage Ford. Donald Trump Jr. posted on Instagram a crayon drawing mocking the “Judge Kavanaugh sexual assault letter.”

But even Trump mouthpiece Kellyanne Conway sees the danger in this, telling Fox News, “this woman should not be ignored and should not be insulted.”

Grassley, whose confirmation process might have been titled “Avert Your Gaze,” was inclined to continue his secrecy. Though both accused and accuser offered to testify, Grassley tried to satisfy his Republican colleagues by having private “staff calls” with both Kavanaugh and Ford, then continue with the vote.

He didn’t persuade them. Instead, they will have a public hearing in which 11 Republicans on the Judiciary Committee — all men — question a woman who has alleged attempted rape. It’s an unpalatable choice, but for a group that already tried hard to shield Trump’s nominee from scrutiny, sweeping the matter under the rug wasn’t an option.

The Junior posting is especially insulting (it's linked in the text).

[Rachel333]

Every man should be worried. At least, I’m worried.

Quote

Spoiler

“If somebody can be brought down by accusations like this, then you, me, every man certainly should be worried.”
— A lawyer close to the White House, speaking to Politico

Look, who among us?

If, apparently, a single alleged assault at a single party decades ago is to be frowned upon, then no man is safe, right?

What’s next? You can’t harass a colleague and serve on the Supreme Court? You can’t pick up high schoolers outside custody hearings and serve in the Senate? You can’t have a meat locker full of female femurs and expect to breeze through your confirmation as interior secretary?

How are we going to fill our offices if this is the new rule? I bet you will say I cannot shout at women as they pass on the street before dragging them to a concrete bunker and then still expect to become governor! What next? I’m supposed to make sure everyone I have sex with is willing?

This isn’t just my worry. This isn’t just something horrible I am now revealing about myself. This is an every-man problem.

If suddenly, as a country, we decide that violently attempting to assault someone is, like, bad, then that knocks out 98, maybe 99 percent of men, just going off the locker-room talk I’ve heard.

Look, which of us is 100 percent certain all his sexual encounters are consensual? That isn’t most people’s baseline, surely? You’re telling me I am supposed to encounter dozens, hundreds, thousands of women in my life, some drunk and some sober and some with really good legs and just … not assault any of them?

That sounds exhausting. A whole life of that would be excruciating. No, there ought to be some kind of punch card — say, if you treat 65 women with the respect and dignity you would accord any man, you are entitled to one freebie.

I mean, it’s not as though they’re people, are they? At the moment of conception, yes, but then they come out Daughters, not people! They grow into objects; some become Wives or Mothers, others Hags or Crones. Then they die! If they were people, we would not expect dominion over their bodies, surely; if they were people, we would not feel entitled to their smiles. If they were people, I could read a novel with a female protagonist and not be instantly confused and alarmed.

No. They are an unintelligible something else. They are to be put on pedestals, as John Kelly urges, or groped, as the president urges. They are impervious to cold, capable of wearing a bikini on the most frigid day to please us; they can run great distances in heels without discomfort; they were created for us from a rib and designed as our companion. If they have wants of their own, there is really no way of knowing. They say words people might say (You would be forgiven for thinking them people), but remember, they do not mean the words they say. If what they said was what they meant, then they have not wanted anything I have ever done to them!

It would just be too terrible if they were people. Then you could not harm them with impunity. Then if you made a mistake (Boys will be boys), you would have harmed a person. Then something else would be at stake in addition to your career, and that cannot be.

Besides, if this is wrong, if you have to go through life inconveniently believing that the other half of the world is made of people, too, then what will boys do for innocent amusement? Who among us was not once 17 and partook in a little roughhousing? How were we to know there was — purportedly! — a person in there? Who cannot, in retrospect, be accused of something dreadful? This isn’t just me, I hope.

No, if this is the rule, no man is safe. Not the man who shouts at you as you walk down the sidewalk, or grabs you, or puts something in your drink. As all men do, I think.

If assault renders a man unfit to serve on the Supreme Court, then how are we to discern the Founders’ intent? I mean, Jefferson, hello? And what is going to become of the presidency? Who wants to live in that world?

Every man should be worried. If boys cannot be boys, then how can boys be men who rise to the highest offices in the land? If this stops being something you can get away with, then will anyone still be above the law?

Every man should be worried.

At least, I’m worried.

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

6 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

Every man should be worried. At least, I’m worried.

 

I love Alexandra Petri!

[Mama Mia]

His high school yearbook is something else. Those upper crust boy’s prep schools are apparently every bit as god-awful douchey as the ‘80s movies made me believe. 

https://mobile.twitter.com/DerWouter/status/1041513215765696512

[AmazonGrace]

Bari Weiss: Why can't a rapist be a Supreme Court judge? 

 

[PreciousPantsofDoom]

5 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

Bari Weiss: Why can't a rapist be a Supreme Court judge? 

 

Uh.....? Is she forgetting that if he did what he is acc used of doing, then he has lied about it under oath, which most definitely should be disqualifying.

[fraurosena]

 

[fraurosena]

Oh, sweet Rufus my deer! He's just so transparently obvious. One serial sexual assaulter defending another assaulter. Because he's bought and paid for and will do the GOP's (and therefore Russian) bidding. 

What a wonderful coup that would be for Putin, to have a Russian asset on the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

I'm not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, it seems to be a logical an legitimate request. On the other, won't this be like putting Ms. Ford on trial? A hearing doesn't equal a trial... or am I wrong in that assumption?

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Because of course: "No. 2 Senate Republican sharply questions credibility of Kavanaugh accuser"

Spoiler

The No. 2 Republican in the Senate on Tuesday sharply questioned the credibility of the woman who has accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, as GOP leaders indicated they will limit witnesses at next week’s hearing to just the Supreme Court nominee and his accuser.

Speaking to reporters, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said he was concerned by “gaps” in the account of Christine Blasey Ford, a psychology professor in California, who told The Washington Post in an interview published Sunday that Kavanaugh drunkenly pinned her to a bed on her back, groped her and put his hand over her mouth at a house party in the early 1980s when the two were in high school.

“The problem is, Dr. Ford can’t remember when it was, where it was, or how it came to be,” Cornyn told reporters at the Capitol late Tuesday morning.

When asked whether he was questioning the accuser’s account — which Kavanaugh has repeatedly denied — Cornyn said, “There are some gaps there that need to be filled.”

His comments came shortly after Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) outlined a plan to limit testimony at Monday’s planned hearing to that provided by Kavanaugh and Ford — which brought cries of protest from Democrats.

They insisted that other witnesses also be called, including Mark Judge, a Kavanaugh friend who Ford said witnessed the assault.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the top Democrat on the committee, said it was “impossible to take this process seriously,” noting that 22 witnesses appeared at the hearing in 1991, when law professor Anita Hill accused Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment.

“What about other witnesses like Kavanaugh’s friend Mark Judge?” Feinstein said in a statement. “What about individuals who were previously told about this incident? What about experts who can speak to the effects of this kind of trauma on a victim? This is another attempt by Republicans to rush this nomination and not fully vet Judge Kavanaugh.”

Speaking to reporters later, Grassley defended his plan.

“We’ve had two people that want to tell their story and that’s what we’re gonna do,” he said.

Pressed about the precedent of the Hill hearing, Grassley said: “You’re talking about history. We’re not looking back. We’re looking forward.”

A spokesman for Grassley said that while no one but Kavanaugh and Ford have been invited to testify, committee staff are reaching out to other alleged witnesses mentioned in The Post reporting.

President Trump, meanwhile, said Tuesday that he has confidence in how senators are handling the nomination and that he remains “totally supportive” of Kavanaugh.

“We want to give everybody a chance to say what they have to say,” Trump told reporters at the White House, adding that he doesn’t think the FBI needs to get involved at this point.

Kavanaugh was at the White House on Tuesday for a second day in a row, but Trump said he has not spoken to him.

During a morning radio interview, Grassley said that Kavanaugh has agreed to participate in Monday’s hearing — and had been interviewed by committee staff on Monday night — but that his staff has not yet heard from Ford.

“It kind of raises the question: Do they want to come to the public hearing or not?” Grassley told syndicated radio host Hugh Hewitt. “We still haven’t heard from Dr. Ford, so do they want to have the hearing or not?”

During a television appearance on Monday, Debra Katz, an attorney for Ford, said her client is “willing to do whatever it takes to get her story forth,” including testifying publicly before the Senate. Katz declined to comment to The Post on Tuesday.

Grassley suggested that the hearing could be called off if Ford declines to appear.

As the day wore on on Tuesday, there was mounting frustration among Republicans that Ford had not confirmed she would attend.

“I don’t know how you can say I’m just not gonna appear,” said Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) “She has the option of a closed session, with cameras or without. We want her to appear.”

In Ford’s account to The Post, she said that Judge, a Kavanaugh friend and classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School in Washington, was present when Kavanaugh assaulted her.

Reached by email Sunday, Judge declined to comment. In an interview Friday with the Weekly Standard, before Ford’s name became public, he denied that any such incident occurred, calling the accusation “just absolutely nuts.”

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said Tuesday that he sees “no reason” for Judge to appear before the Judiciary Committee, on which he sits.

“He’s already said what he’s gonna say,’ Graham said. “I want to hear from her, if she wants to speak, and I want to hear from him,” he added, referring to Ford and Kavanaugh.

Grassley said he has not decided who would testify first but assumes Ford would. He said he does not know how many rounds of questions senators on the panel would get to ask.

In response to a question from Hewitt, Grassley did not rule out the possibility that a female lawyer could be tapped to ask questions of Ford from the Republican side.

All 11 GOP members of the Judiciary Committee are men, a dynamic that some in the party have acknowledged could work against them.

“Everything could be considered now,” Grassley said after Hewitt suggested tapping former Republican senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire to question Ford.

“You’re raising legitimate questions that are still on our mind,” Grassley said.

Graham said he doesn’t consider the predominantly male composition of the Judiciary Committee to be an issue because many women elected him and his colleagues.

“All of us got here by being elected by men and women,” Graham told reporters. “I earned my way on that seat. I’ve got a lot of women supporters in South Carolina.”

In a letter to committee leaders Tuesday, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), considered a key vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination, said that she is recommending that Ford’s lawyer get an opportunity to question Kavanaugh and that Kavanaugh’s lawyer get an opportunity to question Ford.

During remarks on the Senate floor, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the hearing will provide an opportunity for Ford to be heard, but he stressed that her allegation “is completely at variance” with what senators know about Kavanaugh.

“Judge Kavanaugh will have the opportunity to defend himself against this accusation, an accusation which he has unequivocally denied, and which stands at odds with every other piece of the overwhelming positive testimony we have received about his character from his close friends, colleagues, law clerks, from the distant past to the present day, including high school years during which this misconduct is alleged to have taken place,” McConnell said.

Speaking to reporters, Cornyn pushed back on Democratic demands for the FBI to further investigate Ford’s claims.

“The FBI has already done an investigation,’ he said. “They typically don’t investigate juvenile accusations, and they’ve referred what they did do to the committee.”

While many Republicans remain confident that Kavanaugh will be confirmed, there were private discussions among some lawmakers on Monday about whether the GOP should have a backup plan, should Kavanaugh withdraw from the process or fail to secure the necessary votes.

“He’s not going to withdraw,” Cornyn insisted. “I talked to him yesterday, and he’s determined to testify and tell his side of the story.”

He added, “Our Plan B is the same as our Plan A: Judge Kavanaugh.”

Lindsey needs to stop talking.

[fraurosena]

I was going to post this in the cartoon thread. After seeing @GreyhoundFan's post, I think it's rather more apt putting it here.

[Cartmann99]

In response to the article that @GreyhoundFan posted, I just wanted to note that Cornyn's term ends in 20200. I'm hoping that this disturbing episode will still be fresh enough to influence voters.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"A former sex-crimes prosecutor analyzed Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh. Here’s her take."

Spoiler

Soon after Christine Blasey Ford was revealed as the author of a letter alleging that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her decades ago, the responses ran along predictable lines. While some argued that she should be heard, others questioned how much of her memory can be trusted.

Amid a spate of speculation, The Washington Post published an exclusive account of the assault on Sunday, identifying Ford. Kavanaugh issued a statement denying the accusations, but after heated pushback from politicians and the public, Kavanaugh agreed to questioning by the Senate panel Monday. A second hearing, where Kavanaugh and Ford will both testify publicly, is scheduled for next week. The results threaten to thwart his confirmation.

Critics of Ford have taken to calling into question whether it’s possible for a 30-year-old memory to be credible.

Sex crimes prosecutors across the country forge ahead on “he-said-she-said” cases regularly.

“I stand to believe there’s no such thing as a ‘he-said-she-said’ case,” Linda Fairstein, former chief of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office’s Sex Crimes Bureau, told The Post. “As a prosecutor, it’s your job to break down every minute of the encounter so that details on one side pushes the facts over the edge.”

Prosecutors do that regularly, in large part by parsing what’s reasonable and what’s believable through corroboration, details that have the ring of truth and inconvenient facts that are subtle signs of credibility.

Ford’s account is credible, even though she can’t remember several details.

There’s no criminal trial, but Kavanaugh still has the presumption of innocence, said attorney Douglas Wigdor, a former prosecutor who now represents victims in sexual harassment and sexual assault cases against high-profile men.

“The reason we have statutes of limitations is because its difficult to defend yourself when someone makes an accusation against you from years ago. It’s difficult to have witnesses or forensics,” he said.

But, according to Fairstein, it was completely normal that Ford “didn’t remember” several details.

“If she testifies, I would expect her to say ‘I don’t remember’ scores of times,” Fairstein said, for two reasons: the passage of time and trauma. “She found this experience so upsetting that she felt her life was in danger. There might be 220 things she doesn’t know and then a very specific sentence about what happened that was so traumatic."

Ford has alleged that Kavanaugh pinned her down and clumsily groped her during a prep school party when Ford, 15, was a sophomore and Kavanaugh, 17, a junior. Now 51, Ford, a research psychologist, told The Post, “I thought he might inadvertently kill me.”

According to psychologist Anne Meltzer, it may be challenging to recall peripheral details of an assault years later — such as who spread word of the party, who was the designated driver — but that should not detract from a victim’s veracity “if she can clearly and consistently articulate central details of what happened, such as the who, what and where,” she told The Post.

Meltzer, who has not reviewed the details of this case, has testified as an expert witness hundreds of times in child sexual abuse cases, with victims up to 17 years old.

Are the details Ford did mention more telling?

Perhaps more striking are the details Ford did mention.

Fairstein said sexual assault rarely happens with witnesses present. Yet Ford puts two people in the room — Kavanaugh and his prep school classmate, Mark Judge, whom she called “an essential witness.”

“To me, it’s compelling that [Ford] puts someone else there, and that the person who happens to be in the room has a blackout drinking problem," said Fairstein. Judge, now a filmmaker and author, described himself similarly in his book “Wasted: Tales of a Gen-X Drunk.” “That’s sort of the intoxicated behavior she described that night,” she added.

“Ford mentioned details — like the pool party, the narrow staircase, that the house was in Montgomery County. There are enough facts for someone to remember it was their party and their house,” said Fairstein.

Wigdor echoed Fairstein, saying: “She put a third person in the room. If you were making something up, why would you do that?”

Wigdor also mentioned that Ford voluntarily took and passed a lie-detector test. “While not admissible in court, they’re used by various governmental agencies, and many people believe in their abilities,” he said.

It is not alarming that Ford waited this long to talk about the assault.

The vast majority of sexual abuse victims delay disclosing what happened.

“It’s one of the most common features of child sex abuse,” Meltzer said. Most victims of child sexual abuse fear retaliation, that they won’t be believed or that their family may be angry. There are often very intense feelings of shame, guilt and humiliation.

Statistically, teenagers are less likely than younger children to tell authorities about an assault, she said. Particularly concerned with how others view them, teenagers often feel like “damaged goods.”

“Another reason children don’t disclose is because they are sometimes threatened or pressured to keep it a secret,” said Meltzer, adding that although it may not apply to Kavanaugh and Ford, it is nonetheless a common reason.

Then why tell anyone now?

Often, Meltzer said, victims disclose abuse so that they can begin to cope with, and heal from, the trauma.

“Disclosure is a process. It’s possible that at some point a victim is unable to deal with the emotional burden of the abuse,” which frequently has long-lasting effects into adulthood.

Ford had long debated whether to come forward, feeling a civic duty to share her story, according to The Post. In the end, her cost-benefit analysis weighed against speaking on the record. Instead, she wrote a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), expecting it to be kept confidential.

Although Ford requested anonymity, Fairstein said that most sex abuse victims don’t want anyone to know, let alone put their private lives on display for the nation.

Instead, Fairstein was more focused on the initial disclosure, calling it a “corroborating detail.”

Ford watched the anonymous letter morph, garnering indignation from the right and serving as political fodder for the left. Then, she agreed to go public, she told The Post.

Ford disclosed the assault long before Kavanaugh was nominated to the high court by President Trump, telling her husband and marriage counselor in 2012. The therapist’s notes, which were reviewed by The Post, confirmed this.

“I think it helps [Ford] that there was an outcry to the counselor long before this nomination occurred. We always look for that to support an accusation wasn’t a newly formed complaint,” Fairstein said. Ford didn’t come forward to prosecute Kavanaugh but with a piece of information that, she believed, was relevant to his character before this became a very public issue, Fairstein said.

 

[fraurosena]

Can they please play speech on a continuous loop in the hearing next Monday?

 

[fraurosena]

It's a good thing Kavanaugh hasn't been instated yet. 

SCOTUS Denies Stay, New Disclosure Ruling Goes Into Effect

Quote

The Supreme Court today denied a stay, and lifted a temporary stay by Chief Justice Roberts, in Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington’s (CREW) landmark dark money case against Crossroad GPS and the Federal Election Commission (FEC). This decision, following similar decisive decisions by the district court and court of appeals this week, means that effective immediately, anyone making more than $250 in express advocacy ads — ads that tell viewers who to vote for or against — must now disclose the identities of all contributors who gave more than $200 in a year. They must also identify who among those contributors earmarked their contributions for express ads. Because of this decision, the contributors for a major category of dark money spending this fall will have to be disclosed to the public.

“This is a great day for transparency and democracy,” CREW Executive Director Noah Bookbinder said. “Three courts, including the Supreme Court, have now rejected Crossroads’ arguments for a stay, meaning we’re about to know a lot more about who is funding our elections.”

This is very good news: no more secret dark money spending before the midterms!

[fraurosena]

Ruh-roh, Bart O'Kavanaugh...

No Statutes of Limitations

Quote

Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged accomplice, does not want to testify in whatever hearing is slated to take place on Monday. Republicans clearly don’t want him to testify either, for a number of obvious reasons. But a friend, who is a member of the bar in Maryland, tells me that for assault, rape, attempted rape and a wide variety of other crimes there is no statute of limitations in Maryland. This surprised me greatly. But this person has practiced law in the state for 25 years and I think I’ve confirmed this with a bit of research on my own. This would appear to confirm this.

The point here isn’t that Brett Kavanaugh is going to be prosecuted for this alleged attempted rape and/or assault. But if Judge doesn’t want to testify before Congress, it would seem he has a reasonable fifth amendment basis for refusing to do so.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

[Rachel333]

https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-death-threats.html

She and her family are moving because of death threats. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Lindsey Graham’s bizarre defense of not making Mark Judge testify"

Spoiler

In politics, you can often tell how weak someone’s hand is by the tortured arguments they make. And judging by Sen. Lindsey O. Graham’s defense on Tuesday of his fellow Judiciary Committee Republicans, the GOP isn’t holding much.

The committee is planning a Monday hearing featuring Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and the woman accusing him of a decades-old sexual assault, Christine Blasey Ford. Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said Tuesday that they would be the only witnesses, and that has Democrats crying foul.

First on the list of people whose presence would seem important would be Mark Judge. He’s the other person Ford has said was in the room during the alleged assault 35 years ago. Judge is an alleged witness who has flatly denied Ford’s account. And yet, per Grassley, he won’t be there at the hearing.

When The Washington Post’s Seung Min Kim asked Graham on Tuesday whether Judge should be called, the South Carolina Republican demurred.

“No reason to,” Graham responded. “He’s already said what he’s going to say. I want to hear from her, if she wants to speak, and I want to hear from him,” meaning Kavanaugh.

This — is not really how it works. Judge can deny Ford’s allegations all day long publicly and never be held legally accountable for his words. The only setting in which his denials must be accurate, at risk of jail time, is if he’s testifying — in a courtroom or to Congress. Getting him on the record and under oath would seem to be good as a matter of course and when it comes to bolstering Kavanaugh’s defense.

Indeed, this is the very point of holding hearings, and Graham knows it. He’s not just a U.S. senator, mind you, but also a former officer in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps in the Air Force. Just because a witness may not personally be in legal jeopardy doesn’t mean you don’t need him under oath. Judge could provide extremely important testimony.

On Monday, Republicans, including President Trump, took pains to show that they wanted to take Ford’s allegation seriously, rather than disregarding it to push their nominee through.

“We want to go through a process,” Trump said. “We want to make sure everything is perfect, everything is just right.”

Ruling out testimony from Judge would seem to give short shrift to the “process.” As would Grassley’s own defense of not having other witnesses testify, like they did during the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings in the early 1990s: That this is about the future, not the past.

There may be reasons for Republicans not to want Judge taking the stand. Democrats would surely attack his credibility and character, given some of the things he has written. It might turn the hearing into more of a spectacle than Republicans want it to be and invite questions about whether other people at the party where Ford alleged the assault occurred should testify.

But those weren’t the reasons offered Tuesday by Graham. Instead, he suggested that the most important alleged witness of an alleged incident that could decide a Supreme Court confirmation isn’t worth putting under oath.

That’s a remarkable — and probably untenable — position for the GOP to take. And if this is the best defense it has of the process for dealing with Ford’s accusation, Kavanaugh’s nomination might be in more trouble than we realize.

 

[Cartmann99]

11 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-death-threats.html

She and her family are moving because of death threats. 

I hate this, but I'm not a bit surprised by it. 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I know it's The Onion, but they hit the Repug nail on the head:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

One more good one from The Onion:

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

 

[fraurosena]

Good for her!