Kavanaugh/Blasey Ford Sexual Assault Allegations Hearing

[GreyhoundFan]

"Republicans have a strategy to save Kavanaugh. It exposes Trumpism at its worst."

Spoiler

Sen. Lindsey Graham, who has emerged as the contorted face of right-wing rage at the very idea that Christine Blasey Ford’s claims should merit a serious and thorough examination, has done it again. On Fox News on Monday night, the South Carolina Republican showcased what is emerging in some quarters as the last-ditch strategy to save Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination — a strategy that exposes Trumpism at its ugliest.

“This good man should not be destroyed,” Graham told Sean Hannity, speaking about Kavanaugh. Graham warned that if the Senate does not confirm Kavanaugh now — say, if two GOP senators end up opposing him — it will “end up legitimizing” the “destruction of a good person” by a “horrible process.” Graham argued that if Kavanaugh goes down, President Trump should renominate him, and push for another vote by barnstorming in states that Trump won. In other words, Trump should whip his voters into a rage over the profound injustice of such an outcome.

Graham’s basic claim is also at the core of a big new campaign to rescue Kavanaugh. Politico reports that the conservative Judicial Crisis Network is spending $400,000 on ads pressuring red-state Democrats — Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, both states Trump won — to back Trump’s nominee.

But note the message in the ads: They show footage of Kavanaugh describing the process as “search and destroy.” A narrator says liberals are trying to “ruin a good man with smears,” intoning that “Kavanaugh fought back, clearing his name, defending his honor,” and calling on Democrats to “stand with President Trump” against the liberal smear merchants.

In other words, at the core of the final push to save Kavanaugh is the idea that the real stakes in this affair turn on whether the destruction of a good man will be legitimized. If Kavanaugh is not confirmed, we will have destroyed him, and that would be terribly unjust.

But what this argument really means, inescapably, is that Ford’s claims should never have gotten the examination they are now getting. Note that Graham is claiming this whole process has been deeply unfair to Kavanaugh. The ads on his behalf claim that Democrats are trying to “ruin” him with “smears” — but what they’ve really done is insist on a fuller inquiry than Republicans wanted.

Unfair to Kavanaugh?

The question for Graham and those who agree with him is: What would a fair process for Kavanaugh have looked like? Republicans have answered this for us, by telling us what they wanted throughout. And that was the absolute minimum inquiry they thought they could get away with at each given point. Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) at first wanted Ford to be heard only via private calls with senators. Republicans then caved and set a hearing, but only if Ford attended on their timetable. When that proved untenable, Republicans pushed back the hearing, but agreed to serious public questioning of only Ford and Kavanaugh, and no one else.

Republicans almost pulled that off, but then Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) forced a reopening of the FBI background check. The White House and Senate Republicans conspired to place tight limits on that inquiry. But now we’ve learned that the White House relented under Democratic pressure and directed the FBI to mount a fuller inquiry.

The most charitable interpretation of all this is that for Graham and others, a fair process for Kavanaugh was on display with the Judiciary Committee hearing last week. We all know the idea that this constituted a genuine examination of Ford’s claims is a complete sham. Some Republicans — Flake, as well as Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — knew this, which is why they insisted on the reopened FBI inquiry. (In fairness, these Republicans and some others appear to be insisting on a more serious process than Graham is.)

So how, then, has this process been unfair to Kavanaugh? In some ways, it certainly has been unfair to him. There are still legitimate questions about how Democrats initially handled the allegations upon learning of them. Ford wanted them to remain confidential, and someone on the Democratic side leaked them. That is unfair to Ford and, one could argue, to Kavanaugh, since there might have been a way for the FBI to reopen the background check privately.

As a result of all this becoming public as it did, Kavanaugh and his family have been through a horrible ordeal. His recounting of this at the hearing appeared heartfelt. And if Kavanaugh did not do any of the things he is accused of, which is very possible, and goes down anyway merely because of those charges, that would be deeply unfair.

Trumpism in the raw

But this isn’t the sum total of what Graham and others are arguing. They are also claiming that what has happened since Ford’s allegations became known — that is, the public examination of those charges — is deeply unfair to Kavanaugh. Yet once the country learned of them, how could we not seriously examine them? What would it say to the large swaths of the country who take seriously these claims — and sexual assault generally, as many are survivors of it — if we did not? This is what the two women screamed in Flake’s face in that viral elevator video, and he plainly found it persuasive.

Graham’s argument can mean only one of two things. Either he claims to know Kavanaugh didn’t do what he is accused of — and Graham does not know this — which renders the current process unfair to Kavanaugh. Or Graham admits he does not know, but believes the current process is unfair to Kavanaugh, anyway. Either way, the real injustice to Kavanaugh is that Ford’s charges against him are now getting that fuller airing.

Trump has made versions of this argument himself on numerous occasions. It is Trumpism at its ugliest — we should presume in advance that the real victim is inevitably the one who is being subjected to an effort at accountability. By coincidence, that person often turns out to be powerful or privileged, just like Trump himself — indeed, Trump empathizes, if that’s the right word, with Kavanaugh on precisely this basis. And that effort at accountability can only be about tearing that powerful, privileged person down. This whole affair is messy and terrible, with no easy answers, but if there’s one argument we should all reject, it’s that one.

 

[thoughtful]

Here's what I think of Kavanaugh's life and personality:

(that's Dennis Weaver in Touch of Evil)

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I'm so freaking tired of people in power who just can't accept that ability is more valuable than race, gender or social class.

There's nothing wrong with white men -- I know plenty I like, respect or even adore. There's something terribly wrong with this particular group of white men, who seem to think they should run everything, and own everything, just by virtue of being white men.

They're cheating the country -- in some cases, the world -- by not opening their minds and our government to capable people of every race and gender. They're even cheating themselves, by not seeing past their need for money, power, and/or keeping the skeletons firmly in their closets.

I am also incapable of understanding, at a gut level, their need to keep acquiring. I get it, at an intellectual level -- I know that such ambition exists. But I can't imagine how that urge really feels.  How much money and power does any one person need?

[AmazonGrace]

The rapeologists make me sick

[fraurosena]

Hmmm....interesting...

 

[Cartmann99]

I originally read about this in an article that @GreyhoundFan posted, but it's crazy enough to deserve a second airing:

Lindsey, I get that you want to be the Attorney General, but you are just making a fool of yourself. The longer this shitshow rolls on, the more time there is for people who know Kavanaugh's secrets to decide to start spilling their guts.

[Howl]

1 hour ago, AmazonGrace said:

The rapeologists make me sick

Wonderful Libby Anne at Love, Joy, Feminism also clarifies how this works with Evangelicals:

White Evangelical Forgiveness Narratives, Brett Kavanaugh, and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford

[fraurosena]

Chuck Shumer is fed up with McTurtle's hypocrisy.

 

[fraurosena]

Benjamin Wittes' very measured and compelling reasoning why he wouldn't confirm Kavanaugh. 

I Know Brett Kavanaugh, But I Wouldn’t Confirm Him

From the article:

Quote

[...] To be clear, I am emphatically not saying that Kavanaugh did what Ford says he did. The evidence is not within 100 yards of adequate to convict him. But whether he did it is not the question at hand. The question at hand is how a reasonable senator should construct the evidence to guide a binary vote for or against elevation of a judge to a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. By my read, we have two witnesses who both profess 100 percent certainty of their positions—one whose testimony is wholly credible and marginally corroborated in a number of respects and the other whose testimony is not credible on a number of important atmospheric points surrounding the alleged event.

It’s not a tie, and it doesn’t go to the nominee.

[...]  “The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.” We all need to think it possible that we may be mistaken; we all need to be not too sure that we are right.

[...] faced with credible allegations of serious misconduct against him, Kavanaugh behaved in a fashion unacceptable in a justice; it seems preponderantly likely he was not candid with the Senate Judiciary Committee on important matters; and the risk of Ford’s allegations being closer to the truth than his denial of it is simply too high to place him on the Supreme Court.

We are in a political environment in which there are no rules, no norms anymore to violate. There is only power, and the individual judgments of individual senators—facing whatever political pressures they face, calculating political gain however they do it, and consulting their consciences to the extent they have them.

As much as I admire Kavanaugh, my conscience would not permit me to vote for him.

 

Edited October 2, 2018 by fraurosena
apostrophes matter

[AmazonGrace]

 

[fraurosena]

Sweet Rufus.

He's only doing this because this way they can obfuscate the contents of the report and go right ahead and confirm.

[fraurosena]

This is not a good sign. Not good at all. Restrictions are still in place, it seems.

 

 

More evidence it's a sham of an investigation.

 

Oh, but there's even more evidence it's a sham investigation.

 

[fraurosena]

Let's throw in some supposedly discrediting and outlandish non-information about a witness, just for good measure.

 

Sorry Tad, but I'm afraid the answer will be no, the committee is not interested in hearing more.

 

[Maggie Mae]

My usual  response to people asking "who should Trump nominate" is something along the line of "someone else." When I was admitted to law school, I had to take a character exam. You have to also submit to character assessment to be admitted to the bar. The Supreme Court should be the best of the best of the best. They should not only have the character exam  & background check, but things that are waived for law students and bar exam people with the terms "youthful indiscretion" should exclude someone from serving on the Supreme Court. Sorry, that's the way the cookie crumbles.  There are, in fact, people who haven't gotten into fights, tried to rape someone, or committed perjury. 

I'm a progressive, but its to be expected that any Supreme Court nominee will be more conservative that I prefer. What I expect is that they will treat the law with respect. That means holding up existing laws, looking at the laws under the constitution, using existing framework, and not overturning settled law. I'd also expect them to be smarter than me. 

[fraurosena]

Yeah... uh... how shall I put this, Mike? You're not gonna win this fight. 

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

They're not even pretending

 

[Jigsaw3]

I'm no fan of Neil Gorsuch, but he managed to get through his confirmation hearings without multiple substantiated accusations of sexual assault or revelations of a history of uncontrolled drinking. So yeah, Kavanaugh is not up to standard.

And the next time someone asks you "Who else?" just suggest Merrick Garland.

[AmazonGrace]

A letter from Kavanaugh signed "Bart" (he pretended not to know who Bart O'Kavanaugh in Judge's book was) saying they're a group of loud obnoxious drunks, and misogynistic references to Ford's school in the school paper.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/brett-kavanaugh-georgetown-prep.html

[47of74]

Yeah, like Sen Breadbags McCutyernutzoff would ever do the right thing...

Quote

Senator Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, said that she will continue to support Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court should the FBI not find additional evidence or corroboration of accuser Christine Blasey Ford's allegations of sexual assault. Ernst told "CBS This Morning" Tuesday that based off of Ford's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the "corroboration wasn't there" with the "witnesses she brought forward."

"What we want to see is, is there evidence  or corroboration that the FBI is able to find through the supplemental investigation that would corroborate Dr. Ford's accusations and if not, I will continue to support Judge Kavanaugh based on the information that I have at this time," Ernst said.

Asked what a vote of support for Kavanaugh sends to women, particularly from a female senator, Ernst said her positive vote shows women that "we are innocent until proven guilty."

"I have absolutely no doubt after reviewing Dr. Ford's testimony that she has suffered from something very traumatic in her lifetime, but simply the corroboration wasn't there with even the witnesses that she brought forward," Ernst said. 

 

[hoipolloi]

A perjury complaint against Kavanaugh will be heard by Judge Merrick Garland:

Quote

 

Donald Trump’s most recent Supreme Court Nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, is facing perjury complaints for his testimony before Congress during the Senate hearing for his confirmation.

The Democratic Coalition, in their initial complaint, alleges that Kavanaugh’s testimony, not only in this hearing but in other testimony before Congress, includes false statements about certain documents said to be stolen from Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The complaint will now be heard by none other than Merrick Garland — President Obama’s pick for SCOTUS, who was denied a hearing.

 

 

[MarblesMom]

Can we just refer to him going forward as Kavanot™?

[AmazonGrace]

 

[fraurosena]

Anyone who is feeling powerless and helpless to stop Kavanaugh's confirmation, I urge you to read this thread. It has an enormous amount of things you could participate in or contribute to, all of them aimed at making your voices heard.

The power of the people is stronger than you imagine.

 

[47of74]

Can we just refer to him going forward as Kavanot [emoji769]?

Yes. Along with the following;

Kavadouche[emoji769]
Kavabro[emoji769]
Kavaturd[emoji769]

[fraurosena]

Nice words, but has it convinced her to vote "NO" on his confirmation?

 

[47of74]

Fucking douche cannons in the Senste just did this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-on-senate-panel-release-explicit-statement-about-kavanaugh-accusers-sex-life/2018/10/02/714d8abc-c685-11e8-9b1c-a90f1daae309_story.html

I fucking hate these people.

And attention Apple for the last goddamn time I did not mean ducking.