I wish more people would heed Kathleen Parker’s remarks in the Washington Post:
While many were horrified by Graham’s anger, I found it as cleansing and refreshing as a dip in the River Jordan. His points, meanwhile, were compelling.
Point 1: Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., sat on Ford’s July letter alleging the sexual assault until the eve of a scheduled committee vote on Kavanaugh. If she hadn’t, there would have been ample time to investigate the claim and conduct interviews, which Grassley did as soon as he knew of the letter in late September.
Point 2: If not for a leak that was likely from the Democratic side, Ford’s anonymity, which she deeply wanted, could have been preserved. But this wouldn’t have served the Democrats’ seeming strategy of delay or their apparent hope for an emotion-packed display.
Kavanaugh’s suffering was epic. By all accounts, he has lived his adult life as a model citizen, an exemplary husband and father, a beloved teacher and coach and an admired judge. Yet, our esteemed senators found it necessary to parse inscriptions in his high school year book. Read yours lately?
Dr. Ford has been treated worse by the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee than she alleges she was by Brett Kavanaugh who has been treated just as shabbily by them. Government by emotional outburst does not lead to good places. Neither does hailing women’s emotional outbursts as signs of sincerity while condemning the emotional outbursts of men as signs of weakness.
A point I haven’t seen made is the question of what Feinstein planned to do with Ford’s allegation. She’s maintained that she did not leak the info and that she intended to respect Ford’s request for privacy. If that is true then the logical conclusion is that Feinstein intended to allow Kavanaugh to be confirmed knowing that a somewhat credible claim of sexual assault existed.
I find that very hard to believe.
More generally, I think it’s pretty bizarre what Washington elites consider to be disqualifying.
Despite decades of history as a justice with no indications of being unbalanced, being subjectively too emotional during a divisive hearing after being accuse of multiple felonies when your family is getting death threats, is suddenly evidence for lack of judicial temperament and therefore disqualifying.
Kavanaugh is probably correctly criticized for not being fully forthcoming about his youthful excesses – at the very least he put as positive a spin on it as he could (and I tend to believe he was more of a partier than he lets on). But it seems bizarre to me that others have zero doubts and are completely convinced that they know exactly what Kavanaugh was like they when he was a teen based on hazy recollections read in news reports and uncharitable yearbook analysis. I think if those who say that (see just about everyone on OTB) actually had that conviction, they’d be seriously calling for criminal sanction or impeachment for perjruy. But nope, it’s merely “disqualifying.”
Whatever the case, the incentives are what they are. When there is a defacto zero-defect standard then no candidate can admit any fault, no matter the circumstances. James Joyner wishes Kavanaugh acknowledged more youthful indiscretions, yet we know that Kavanaugh would be given no credit for doing so – in fact, it would be used as ammunition to further assassinate his character. This isn’t a system Kavanaugh created and while I don’t condone lying, I think it’s perfectly understandable to spin given the stakes and the fact that so many have openly declared themselves to be his enemy.
The zero-defect mentality should go. We should not want perfect judges. We should not demand perfect judges. Judges are people and perfect people don’t exist especially as teenagers. Leaving aside allegations of felonies like sexual assault (which must be investigated), conduct as a minor should not be a part of any standard for any court position.
But as long as SCOTUS nominations are completely partisan affairs, with any defect seen as a chink in a candidate’s armor to be exploited to the fullest extent possible, we’re going to continue to have a dishonest process that focuses on heat and not light.
uncharitable yearbook analysis
It’s pretty charitable to say that the Renate Alumni thing was about having had sex with her. Nobody in their right mind thinks otherwise. Kavanaugh lying about that made him look worse than had he told the truth, which was that it was a dumb immature thing to do. That he’s lying about that is pathological.
I’m betraying my age but the behaviors put in Kavanaugh’s yearbook would have been grounds for expulsion from my high school and the two schools had much in common albeit widely separated in time and space. IMO that’s not a step in the right direction.
Captions under pictures in yearbooks are many times not serious, poking fun rather than relating factual content, about the person pictured, even insinuating devious behavior was afoot. After all being a “wild child” or “bad boy” was much more dramatic and popular label than being called a “nerd.”
This goes for inscriptions by friends, acquaintances who eagerly sign these yearbooks. At that age and stage in life bravado, boasting, exaggerated prowess is all too common. It’s called having fun and being care free before the ax of adulthood and responsibility falls on you.
“It’s pretty charitable to say that the Renate Alumni thing was about having had sex with her. Nobody in their right mind thinks otherwise.”
Sex with her is one possible interpretation of many. As far as I’m aware, Renate herself has publically and specifically denied having sex with Kavanaugh or any of the other “alumni.” Are we supposed to “believe the woman” or not? Because by leveling this accusation you are de facto arguing that she is also a liar as well as a high-school slut.
That people are completely certain of something they have no direct knowledge of, indeed when they further assert that “no right mind could think otherwise” despite the inconvenient fact that all of the individuals who do have the direct knowledge deny it, just makes my point for me.
They were teenage boys boasting about having had sex with her or having done something sexual. No other interpretation is possible. That was her interpretation as well.
“I learned about these yearbook pages only a few days ago,†Ms. Dolphin said in a statement to The New York Times. “I don’t know what ‘Renate Alumnus’ actually means. I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way. I will have no further comment.â€
It was just somewhat that teenage boys. They boast about conquests they never had in order to bond. That’s it. But he lied about it.
“No other interpretation is possible.”
Stating it doesn’t make it true.
Other references to Renate are “Chairman of the bored” and “Renate’s Suicide Squad” – maybe there’s a theory of how those are conclusively and incontrovertibly about sexual braggadocio, but I don’t have the imagination for it.
And it’s strange there are all these news reports where Renate is listed 14 times in the yearbook, but we only have about 4 of the actual references in the reporting. It would at least be useful to see all the ways this was used before passing judgment.
And just to be clear, your assessment may ultimately be correct – but the idea that there is no other interpretation at this point is hogwash.
Additionally, he did actually apologize to her in his opening statement.
Pouring over yearbooks to find the truth about someone’s character. If that becomes the absolute standard for judging one’s whole life by, why ever bother to grow up, if we could be doomed by all the goofy, shocking stuff written in our high school year books?
Andy says:
“I find that very hard to believe.â€
Correctomundo. And any thinking person, and I know you are, would have looked at that logic problem (I did) and immediately dismissed her explanation out of hand. She’s lying. She’s part of the con job.
And the reason you haven’t heard the point made is threefold. The media don’t do their job (some – but only some – are not stupid enough to have let her convoluted explanation pass), Republicans are shaking in their boots at MeToo and this collegial crap among the Senators.
Speaking of logic problems. It now turns out the logbook cites the date that this lying sack of shit Whitehouse, and accomplices in the media, have “cyphered†is the party date. And it says K was with the two named participants………and a guy called “Squi.†Uh-oh! But…….. So Ford claims she is absolutely 100% sure of K and two other participants, but not the last, who is Squi. So who is Squi? Turns out he and Ford dated. But she can’t place him there. Heh. Now that sounds logical. But are the media and Whitehouse giving up on their story? Hell no.
That is showing your age, Dave. Probably also for most here. My parents would have dismembered me. It may also reflect the nature of a St Ignacious or the like. We may have taken a step in the wrong direction, but the 30 some odd years of K dwarf the times and mores of his tenure in HS.
“By all accounts, he has lived his adult life as a model citizen, an exemplary husband and father, a beloved teacher and coach and an admired judge.”
Can we stop with this nonsense? He was a political operative who worked in the leakiest investigation in modern history, doing pretty much exactly what he is complaining about being done to him. A more complete picture might, based on what I think we have heard so far, is “drunken frat boy who became a political operative who used his connections to become a judge. Somewhere along the line he matured and became a decent parent, teacher and judge.”
“But as long as SCOTUS nominations are completely partisan affairs, with any defect seen as a chink in a candidate’s armor to be exploited to the fullest extent possible, we’re going to continue to have a dishonest process that focuses on heat and not light.”
Hence, while we have reason to believer the guy was not a saint as a teen and college student, and an extremely partisan operative in his earl career, he is presented as a candidate for sainthood.
Steve
Do you have evidence for those charges, steve? Or just convenient shitslinging. No need to answer. Your MO is well known.
And the former FBI agent makes the point I have made over and over:
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/09/29/cnn-heres-expect-fbis-expanded-investigation/
The FBI investigation is a diversion. It will resolve nothing. It is incapable of resolving anything. It’s a delay tactic period, full stop. There is not one person on the committee, I suspect few in the press and I doubt very few here who really believe it will do anything dispositive. Dave observed in an earlier comment it is a moral duty owed Ford and in recognition of a long period of failing to address women’s issues. I strongly disagree. She has and had every bit the moral duty to surface this and provide corroboration in a manner that did not play into Dem operatives hands and create such a circus. She failed miserably in that duty. And it is not Ks burden to bear when the music stops and MeToo is in vogue. That said, I at least can see how a reasonable person could disagree with me and adopt Dave’s stance. However, his posture is unlike the totally disingenuous rationale I see on blog sites and on the airwaves.
“Do you have evidence for those charges”
The same kind of evidence you have that he is a saint. The words of people who know him.
Steve
Oops hit send too soon. We have his own written words showing demonstrating his partisanship and extreme behavior when part of the Starr investigation. We also had the ABA downgrade him because of that.
Steve