At CNN Byron Wolf outlines six possible strategies for how Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination proceedings might unfold:
- Republicans rally, confirm Kavanaugh
- Pence casts tie-breaker, confirms Kavanaugh
- Kavanaugh fails, Republicans find a new nominee before Election Day
- Kavanaugh fails, Republicans vote on a new nominee in the Lame Duck
- Kavanaugh falters, Democrats win Senate Majority, find consensus nominee
- Kavanaugh falters, Democrats win Senate majority, but block a nomination until 2021
Of those I think the most likely are #2, #4, followed by #6.
Unless she testifies, #1, #2, then #4. So long as its process arguments, I expect the Republicans to be united. If she testifies, who knows what will happen?
I don’t think the FBI is getting enough scrutiny in this matter. I thought they were supposed to investigate Kavanaugh not just take depositions from people who came forward. Do we really need an FBI for that?
I do not believe that Dr. Ford understands the process. Unless she testifies, there isn’t anything for the FBI to investigate. Those who support Kavanaugh more than I do are busy saying it’s all as though the entire purpose of the accusation were to delay a vote until after the mid-terms. I think there’s a significant portion of those who oppose Kavanaugh who would oppose any individual nominated by Trump on the grounds that he or she was nominated by Trump.
BTW I think that Kavanaugh is handling all of this in a completely understandable fashion but incorrectly. I think that he should proclaim his innocence but also say that if he had done such a thing 36 years ago he would be sincerely sorry and that he is not the person he was 36 years ago, still immature and still too young even to vote, and that like most of us, he would not want to be judged by who he was 36 years ago when still a child but by who he is today.
From what I understand, the FBI does background checks to see if there are any issues of character or patterns of misconduct that would expose the official to corruption. They are not necessarily deciding whether an event occurred.
The Senate is holding an informational hearing. They take information offered and evaluate whether to give their consent to the nomination. I don’t know if Kavanaugh will testify at another hearing on this issue; he probably should and probably would express sympathy for the accuser in some fashion.
Ms Ford identifies 4 people at the party; Kavanaugh, Mr Judge, and two others.
One of the others has come out and stated what he recalls https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/pj-smyth-brett-kavanaugh/index.html . His recollection is pretty similar to Kavanaugh and Judge. Of course, it’s just a person’s memory of what happened 35 years ago.
We have one more person Ms Ford identified but not yet made a public statement. But I suspect many members of the media; many involved in the normination process already know who that person is and what they might say; my guess is it was known before the story became public.
Who knows how this will play out; raising the stakes sure is a game changer. Everyone will be talking about this and nothing else for the next few weeks.
I notice Mr Trump has not commented much since the new broke; unlike the Alabama senate race. What that portends I do not know.
Also, for everyone asking for the FBI to investigate these claims.
Here is what the FBI director sees. His predecessor was tarred and feather by partisans on both sides in the last election over a politicized investigation. He was then fired, officially for the reason of not “following proper procedures” (and he really did not), but really for investigating the President. Ever since, the President has been inching to fire the director’s bosses, the AG and deputy AG, to gain control of that very investigation. Now, he is asked to launch a politicized investigation in which the chances of finding credible crimes that could be proved in court is 0. If the FBI does launch an investigation, it would validate every claim the President has of a politicized and corrupt DOJ that conducts witch hunts, and have half the country agree with the President. Following a failure to find any provable crimes, the President would get the pleasure of firing the AG, deputy AG, the FBI director and turn the DOJ into a department of Trump Inc.
Its really too much to say; “be careful of what you wish for, because you might get it”. I know how Trump supporters used to say Trump is playing “10 dimensional chess”, and the past year has proven that claim to be laughable. But it turns out Democratic senators are maybe even worse in that regard.
BTW, the cruelest thing Sen McConnell could do would be to drag this out a little bit and force every incumbent Senator to state their position (not just their vote) on the nomination. They say loose lips sink ships…
If the woman is a credible witness or someone else confirms her story, then 4 (most likely) or 6.
If she is just OK and no one confirms, then 1 (by far) with 4 and 6 following.
I laughed for quite a bit after reading Drew’s rant the other day about collegiality being ruined in the Senate by this event. That went away long ago. There has been no collegiality for a long time, just pure power politics. McConnell will have absolutely no qualms about pushing this through in a Lame Duck session. If for some reason he cannot, the Dems will say if McConnell can hold off a candidate for a year, they can do it for 2 years.
Steve
By the way, that’s not to vindicate Kavanaugh, but pointing out handing this off to the FBI is not a magic bullet to kill the nomination.
I have yet to see a whip count showing 51 Republican votes committed to voting for confirmation. Consequently, I think it likely that either Murkowski or Collins but not both will break. That would leave 2, 4, or 6 as possibilities.
If they held the vote now it would be #2. If the woman testifies, I think that changes. OTOH, it would be interesting to see how Collins and Murkkowski are polling in their home states.
Steve
If either Murkowski or Collins breaks, the other will as well. Neither want to be the only Republican to vote no.
IIRC neither is up for re-election.
They’ll be punished later. The donors who own the Republican Party don’t ever forget a slight.
Collins seems pissed at Feinstein’s handling of this matter, but wants a hearing (public or private) and has asked Ford to reconsider her position. Murkowski appears to be stating the Republican position that hopefully Ford uses the opportunity to present her story under oath along with Kavanugh.
Sounds to me like Ford is being told she needs to testify under oath by the people she needs to persuade.
If I were in Mitch McConnell’s shoes I would be handling this totally differently than he has. I can only attribute his choices to California’s bizarre primary system.
There is also some scuttlebutt coming out of the DC suburbs that doesn’t reflect well on Ms. Ford. I don’t know whom to believe about what.
I thought there was a rumor that McConnell did not especially want Kavanaugh. If true, maybe his best outcome is that Kavanaugh goes away, then he tells Trump he can get someone passed in the Lame Duck, but only if McConnell gets to choose the candidate. AS to the latter point, by now I am sure nearly al the right wing blogs have Ford portrayed as a nympho on steroids.
Steve
That’s funny, I don’t recall claiming collegiality. Ever. Just blood sport. But then steve and truth are the null set.
In any event, according to FBI spokesmen their diligence job is national security oriented, not criminal charges of sexual abuse. They claim no jurisdiction.
I vigorously disagree with Dave’s suggestion of a Kananaugh addendum, even for political expediency. If I was charged and knew I didn’t do it I wouldn’t be giving an inch. I wouldn’t dignify these charges.
Wolf seems to assume that the Democrats take the Senate. Right now, Nate Silver has a 68.6% chance that Republicans retain control of Senate. (And his map seems to predict losses for both Ds and Rs in different parts of the country, in which the court issue will play differently)
And this is kind of important because a delay strategy fails if the Rs retain control of the Senate after the election, and it constitutes a huge failure if the judicial controversy contributes to loss of the Senate.
OTOH, Rs are playing with fire if the most partisan committee in the Senate conducts a televised interrogation of a woman complaining of an attempted rape. (I suspect this is why Collins proposed that the private attorneys conduct the cross-examination instead of a bunch of conservative guys. A less generous interpretation is that it was to scare off Ford)
He probably mistook a comment of mine for one of yours. The loss of collegiality in the Senate is relatively new. It is something that has taken place during the last 30 years. I mark the turning point from the treatment of John Towers by Senate Democrats when George H. W. Bush appointed him Secretary of Defense. It marked the first time the Senate had ever rejected a cabinet appointment of a newly-elected president.
It may be that the present downturn can be dated from the Senate Judiciary Committee’s treatment of Robert Bork. Some will date it from Newt Gingrich’s heavy politicization of the House but I think the problems in the Senate have been fomented by Democrats and the remediation is to stand down a bit and return to the status quo ante in which there was a presumption that a president’s cabinet and Supreme Court appointments would be confirmed unless non-ideological grounds for rejection were found.
Oops, I was referring to Byron Wolf; I forgot there was another Wolf in the house.
“He probably mistook a comment of mine for one of yours. ”
Actually, someone else’s, but I was wrong. I apologize for falsely accusing Drew of something he did not say.
“It may be that the present downturn can be dated from”
This seems like trying to figure out who started the Hatfields and McCoy feud, or who started problems with the Israelis and Palestinians. It disappeared a long time ago. They just keep upping the ante on the bad behaviors. I still think that the Merrick Garland decision is of much more consequence because I can see this leading to a party refusing to ever confirm the opposition’s candidate. You would have to hold the Senate and POTUS office to ever get anyone confirmed. We had another candidate go through misconduct allegations, and then we had a bunch where it didn’t happen. I just don’t see this happening with every nomination, while I can easily see delaying until the following election, be it one year, 2 years or 4, becoming the norm. Garland was just another big jump in a trend. You can do whatever your political numbers allow you to do. There isn’t much right or wrong about it.
Steve
“The loss of collegiality in the Senate is (not) relatively new. It is something that has taken place during the last 30 years. I mark the turning point from the treatment of John Towers by Senate Democrats when George H. W. Bush appointed him Secretary of Defense.â€
Indeed. Whether Bork, Towers or Thomas, it’s been pure bloodsport for quite awhile. In the current matter there are some who say it’s all about RvW. Perhaps. I tend to believe it’s about the loss of ability to legislate through the courts. That’s a real source of power. RvW is just a rallying tool.
BTW. I suppose I should put some meat on the bones of the Kavanaugh reaction comment. Simply put, if you categorically deny something I don’t think you follow it with, “but if I did I hope you understand I was a dumb kid.†That’s just logically inconsistent. But more practically, can you imagine the field day the Dems and media would have with that? It would immediately be recast as an iron clad admission of guilt.
Neither party is populated with angels. But I’d be embarrassed to identify as Democrat given this shameful episode.
Separately, I seem to recall steve chortling in another thread about how he hoped Trump declassified documents, and implying that it would work against Trump. I believe he finished with LOL.
Well. Now we have the documents ordered declassified. And who is screaming bloody murder, and openly requesting the DoJ to defy the order? Well, the Democrats of course. Clearly they want to protect Trump from damning evidence. LOL.
Who wants to start the pool on when we get to document destruction?
To follow up on that observation; if I was advising Kavanaugh, I would say let others make the arguments about the adolescents vs adults. That is one (but not the entirety) of the implicit points from all those RE-endorsements from Pres Bush, his classmates, his coworkers.
McConnell probably has 3 goals right now. First make sure there are the votes to confirm if it comes to that. Second, have a plan ready if Kavanaugh withdraws. Third take advantage of any political opportunists that arise. None of the three require overt action at this time.
“Well. Now we have the documents ordered declassified.”
Some documents, not “the documents”. The Amazing Kristin predicts selective release. Let’s continue to hope he releases everything. I predict that won’t happen.
#4- McConnell has already gone over the Federalist list and determined who could be passed most quickly by his caucus.
Steve
After reading this over at Hot Air:
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/09/19/poll-46-believe-accusation-kavanaugh-19-dont/
…I realized I was too far in the weeds. In the big picture when it comes to nominations, I think the credibility of the SCOTUS with the public is of paramount importance. If Kavanaugh’s appointment materially damages that credibility, then I think he should not be confirmed. I think he’s teetering on the edge at best.
Gentlemen’s bet, steve. Trump has suckered them again. He now just requests all the documents be released. And then the Dems will be left, once again, with the well worn but previously shown to be false national security argument for redaction.
However, your comment is not really relevant. It’s not a valid legal reason to not obey Trumps Constitutional authority to have documents released unredacted. If Wray and Rosenstein really believe they are protecting national security they really have no choice but to resign and leave the consequences of release on Trump. They of course won’t, because the side by side redacted unredacted view will show their squawking to be nothing but a delaying and diversionary tactic and they will lose any remaining control. As I’ve said, Yates, Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Strzok, Page, Ohr, Brennan and Clapper are all literally fighting for their stay out of jail card. If any start to sing then Clinton, Obama and Lynch are going to have a problem. McCabe and Comey have already pointed their fingers at each other. My guess is that Page or Ohr are the next most likely.
Andy
Lunz polling indicating that people are not buying the schizophrenic positioning of accusation/I’ll testify/ no I won’t testify / I’ll only testify on my terms. His inquiries indicate that people’s view that everyone deserves presumption of innocence and to face accuser are dominating the circumstantial.
Drew,
It’s definitely not over yet – both parties need to testify, preferably behind closed doors.
Lol–she asked for the FBI to investigate. To normal people, this is credible. There’s a guy with a Confederate flag and a faded Playboy calendar hanging over his workbench. He’s spitting dip into a styrofoam cup and he thinks this is a credible charge and Kavanaugh is lying through his teeth. He might not have cared about Trump’s multiple rapes, but he’s not going to believe a word out of this prep school douchebag.
That ship has sailed. There’s a sizeable fraction of Americans for whom no Trump appointee would have any credibility.
Andy
No, its not over. But the clock is ticking and I don’t think the Dems counted on pushback or the reactions of Collins et al. Throwing shit up against the wall does not appear to have worked, and they really have nothing. Their echo chamber failed them. I’ll bet the fallback position is just to grind away at it as a talking point political issue for the midterms.
Interestingly, Pat Buchanan dates the start of the “Judicial wars†to Lyndon Johnson’s normination of Abe Fortas in 1968.
Curiouser and Curiouser……..
So now the friend who claimed knowledge of the incident is recanting. Another fine mess. No wonder know one wants to go on record.
But I’ve got an idea. How about Trump nominate Hillary Clinton to the Supreme Court so an investigation of her can get started. You know, Uranium 1. Paid for fake dossier’s, news leak campaigns an’ sech…….. Mueller sure isn’t going to do it.
Drew- Trump won’t release the unredacted FISA court application. He will release more bits of conversations between Page and Strzok. He MIGHT release the application with more of it not redacted, but only if he thinks it will help him.
Steve
It is now reported that a Clinton cohort is quietly guiding Ford. This same person had something to do with vanquishing Bork, moving on to the Thomas/Hill event, leaking the Hill story to the press, and is now chomping on Kavanaugh’s judicial future. I feel this is such an orchestrated hit job and hope that #1 or #2 are the end results.
BTW, it has been said that the last thing Kavanaugh would want to do is “lie.” If he was involved in harassing this woman, 36 years ago, he would be better served to simply withdraw his name, like another jurist did years ago when pressed about smoking marijuana. However Kavanaugh is strongly defending himself, making himself available to the timetable of the Senate Judiciary Committee – not the behavior of someone hiding an ugly past.
Ding! Ding! Ding! jan wins conservative Bingo. She manages to work in the names Clinton, Thomas and Hill into her conspiracy theory. Of course no one can remember the name of this mystery person.
Steve
Steve, no conspiracies are being extended, only connecting the dots in this last minute accusation encompassing vague details. Politico ran one of the stories, and the Dem operative’s name, linking her up with Clinton, Anita Hill etc is Ricki Seidman (no mystery woman).
Along with Ford’s attorney, Debra Katz, who is on a board funded by Geo Soros, I would not be exaggerating by saying Ford has all the best dem operatives suddenly at her disposal to take Kavanaugh down…..Which is what this is all about, not justice.
Ding! Ding! Ding! jan scores another point with Soros.
Steve
And, without any need for dings, Steve tries to score points by pointless sarcasm and no substance. BTW, Debra Katz is actually Vice Chair for POGO (Project on Government Oversight), funded by your pal Soros.
Soros funds EVERYTHING!
No, only disruptive events involving smears, protests, violence — anything and everything to get his agenda of open borders, legalization of drugs, and more governmental/socialistic control secured in this country. His Open Society Foundation has been the source of funding for untold left wing projects. His latest goal is to get behind many of the social democrat candidates, on the ballot in the 2018 midterms, including Gillum in the FL governor’s race. He is also said to be funding Ford’s legal fees, which of course brings into play the role of Debra Katz, Ford’s attorney and legal strategist, a long time ally of his.