I continue to think that the Senate Judiciary Committee needs to have hearings of some sort of on the accusation levelled at Brett Kavanaugh. I think that some sort of hearing is politically necessary, required for Senate decorum, and important for the integrity of the Court. It should not be a public hearing. It could be via in-person testimony or by affidavit.
I think there are four interrelated but distinct questions involved:
- Is Brett Kavanaugh qualified to be a Supreme Court justice?
- Is the accusation leveled against him true?
- Is an unsworn accusation alone enough to disqualify him?
- Was Sen. Feinstein’s revealing of the accusation consistent with Senate rules and decorum?
and they’re being jumbled together. Each needs to be decided. My answers are I guess, I don’t know, no, and no.
I also confess to not understanding the thinking of most of those involved in this matter including the president, the Senate majority leader, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the nominee, his accuser, and Sen. Feinstein. I think there’s a lot of faulty risk assessment going on.
Yes, which is not to say he would be my choice.
Unless there is more to the accusations than we’ve heard, I think their truth is unknowable.
No, though I don’t believe that a sworn statement whose truth is unknowable would be enough.
No.
I would add my confusion as to why WaPo explained the four boys were at the party, not in the room, when they knew one of the boys was a girl? Or Ford’s lawyer said she wanted to testify, when she was actually reluctant? It’s almost as they, along with the Democrats, are conspiring to hurt her, not conspiring to help her. Or at least force her to go to hearing.
1) He is qualified.
2) Dont know
3) They should both testify
4) Even the slightest pretense at decorum disappeared when McConnell didn’t even give Garland a hearing. It didn’t involve sex, there wasn’t a lot of yelling and it was polite, but it meant that no such thing as decorum or adherence to rules existed. All that matters is having enough votes and the will to use them. IS there any doubt that McConnell would do it again?
Steve
It’s been commented by Conservative commentators that the statements by the 3 others alleged at the party to the Senate Judiciary counts as legal testimony – ie there is legal jeopardy to making false statements; hence why it is all done by lawyers.
Actually my feeling is it is unlikely Ms Ford will testify.
Here is a simple list of questions she maybe asked.
How many people did you tell the therapist were at the party; what were their gender?
How many people did you tell your Congresswoman were at the party, what were their gender?
How many people did you tell the Washington Post were at the Party? What were their gender?
Did you identify your friend as one of the people at the party?
Did you ever ask your friend before today about the party; when? What was her response?
Did you ever attend any event besides the party with Mr Kavanaugh? Did you ever attend any event with Mr Judge. Did you ever attend any event with Mr Smyth. Was your friend at any of those events?
My guess is based on what is already known; her answers would either be contradicted internally or by statements from others.
By the way; while she is not going to be charged with perjury whatever she says; she may well be sued by Mr Judge. He reputation is ruined that he conspired in sexual assault and had to hire a lawyer. I am sure a Conservative donor wouldn’t mind going through discovery to find out how much of this was planned.
I think it wise Dave preface this thread with “hope” it will be his last word on this subject,” as it appears to be an issue that won’t go away quietly or without extreme partisan rancor and cost to the 2 main participants involved in this confirmation fiasco.
PD’s response to the bullet point questions posed by Dave are similar to my own. However, my gut response as to how this inquiry started, and is now being managed/manipulated, is one of indignation. The very substance of this woman’s accusations is stupefying to me, in that it has been oxygenated enough to have gone on this long and with such blatant malice channeled through certain dems and the MSM at large.
Even what Professor Ford is describing, if true, is more or less “unwanted pawing” by some adolescent boy while everyone (including her) was drinking or drunk. Nonetheless, words used to describe this event vary from “sexual assault,” to implying Kavanaugh is a “sexual predator, even after he has vehemently denied these allegations, supported by 3 witnesses (supplied by Ford) who have disputed her story altogether.
Furthermore, should Kavanaugh be caught in a “lie” he would have so much more to lose than Ford, if her story was shown to have been politically fabricated. IOW, he has everything to lose by committing perjury compared to his accuser, who is being lauded as a heroine by the left and Hollywood.
Basically, the rule of law, truth, facts certainly seem absent in sorting out these old accusations. But what has become crystal clear is that, by creating such a “me too” drama at the end of these confirmation hearings, the dems have accomplished much of what they set out to do, which was to subvert Kavanaugh’s nomination by any means possible. After all, winning in the court of public approval is everything to the dems, and apparently they have succeeded.
1)Kavanaugh is certified, not qualified. I’m not sure a single Supreme is qualified.
2) Feinstein, so far as we know, reveales nothing. An investigative reporter named Ryan Grim uncovered the letter. He has states that Feinstein tried to hide the contents.
Given Ronan Farrow’s story tonight; it is unlikely the last of this.
What’s crazy is I think this accusation is even weaker then the last one; someone who suddenly remembers in the last month; cannot find anyone to collaborat (except someone who heard it second hand), again witnesses named defend Kavanaugh.
But it is enough; I am sure Republican senators won’t have the guts to push through in this kind of environment.
The voters will decide and Republicans shall lose the senate and the 2020 election will be insane. We will get the privilege of talking about this until then.
By the way; people reading the story from the right vs the left seem to be reading material from different universes.
Probably a good sentiment to hope to have a last word. My only real point would be that the hearings have no hope of shedding real light, but create a number of costs to reputations, process and institutions. Doesn’t seem a good trade.
At this point I think there’s no way that Kavanaugh gets out of this with a whole skin whether he’s confirmed or not. As you suggest there may be other casualties as well.
Maybe this will have some benefits for our institutions. Maybe you can no longer engage in whatever behaviors you want as a member of the privileged class and not expect to pay some price for that, if only occasionally and only for some jobs. Might go some ways to rebuilding trust.
Steve
All I can say is; may everyone reap what they sow.
Couldn’t help myself: Right on que, and with the benefit of delay Presto! Another accuser. Who coulda seen that coming.
I wonder what her price was. Of course she seems to have some memory problems too. Hard to script someone on short notice.
The observed phenomenon that that so frequently does not happen is the reason that Christians and Muslims believe in an afterlife and Hindus believe in reincarnation.
“All I can say is; may everyone reap what they sow.”
I Agree. I think that should also include Kavanaugh and all of the politicians on both sides. (Of course everyone here has decided that the women are lying.
Steve
Oh it’s not just politicians. The press; social media; the partisans.
I suspect not all of us will be in our afterlife’s before the consequences of the actions in the last few weeks are seen.
And I am not talking about who takes that Supreme Court seat.
“Of course everyone here has decided that the women are lying.”
I think my comments here and at OTB pretty strongly demonstrate that isn’t the case for me.
As I’ve said previously, I think it’s a cognitive mistake to think of this solely in terms of a binary that one side must be telling the truth and one must be lying. I think they are both telling the truth as they see it. Unless someone can both know the facts and see into the minds of the person, accusations of lying are mere opinion.