Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court nomination, and Kavanaugh & Ford's testimonies

[Blythe]

Trigger warning: The Kavanaugh issue deals with sexual assault.



Chrstine Blasey Ford, hearing, quite a bit of information on events, etc.

Update about the Senate Panel

Seemed like this needed its own thread at this juncture. Tried to pull a couple of useful articles--admittedly am avoiding CNN because I find them less than reputable--instead found a particularly in-depth article on WaPo and another recent-ish one about the senate judiciary from the NY times.

[Lyron]

Characterizing the accusations as a “calculated and orchestrated political hit,” Kavanaugh claimed that they were fueled by anger at President Trump’s election in 2016 and people seeking revenge on behalf of the Clinton family.

President Trump was “riveted” as he watched Kavanaugh’s defiant opening statement and told people in his inner circle, “this is why I nominated him,” according to a person close to the president who was not authorized to speak publicly.

A person close to Kavanaugh said the remarks were not “pre-cleared with the White House.” “This is 100 percent Brett Kavanaugh,” the person said.

Kind of unsettling that a Supreme Court judge nominee would entertain a conspiracy as a valid argument.

[HairyHeretic]

Kind of unsettling that a Supreme Court judge nominee would entertain a conspiracy as a valid argument.

If its the sort of remark that would play well to republican voters, why wouldn't he say it?

[Blythe]

Kind of unsettling that a Supreme Court judge nominee would entertain a conspiracy as a valid argument.

I agree.

On top of that, Kavanaugh's behavior is...strange. He seems determined to avoid answering actual questions, instead trying to question the personal lives of those questioning him instead. Instead of engaging directly, he seems more interested in smearing the integrity of people who query him.

Kavanaugh also interrupted Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) during his questioning about the judge’s drinking as a younger man, asking Whitehouse what he liked to drink.

“Drinking is one thing, but the concern is about truthfulness,” she said. “Was there ever a time when you couldn’t remember what happened or part of what happened?”

Kavanaugh tried to turn the tables, and asked Klobuchar whether she had ever blacked out. “I’m curious,” he said.

“I have no drinking problem, judge,” the senator responded.

“Neither do I,” Kavanaugh said.

Kavanaugh later apologized for his question.

[blue bunny sparkle]

There is this too.

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/nation-world/calls-to-the-national-sexual-assault-hotline-spiked-during-kavanaugh-ford-hearing/507-599077623

An article describing how calls to the National Sexual Assault Hotline are up 200% since the hearing on Thursday.

[Lyron]

If its the sort of remark that would play well to republican voters, why wouldn't he say it?

Oh yeah, there's no doubt that he was playing a political game, but on that note, it looks a bit hypocritical to stoop to that rhetoric when he previously stressed the importance of a Supreme Court judge being apolitical, doesn't it? Perhaps these are slightly different circumstances compared to his desired role, but it doesn't exactly set a good precedent.

On top of that, Kavanaugh's behavior is...strange. He seems determined to avoid answering actual questions, instead trying to question the personal lives of those questioning him instead. Instead of engaging directly, he seems more interested in smearing the integrity of people who query him.

It does seem quite defensive.

His behavior was also odd when Kennedy questioned him. I was hoping to find a video, but could only come up with a transcript from the Washington Post. He seemed confident when denying Ford's allegations, but he broke eye contact and stammered when asked about Ramirez's:

KENNEDY: Are Ms. Ramirez’s allegations about you true?

KAVANAUGH: Those are not. She — no — no — none of the witnesses in the room support that. The — if that — that had happened, that would have been the talk of campus in our freshman dorm.

The New York Times reported that as recently as last week, she was calling other classmates seeking to — well, I’m not going to characterize it — but calling classmates last week and just seemed very — I’ll just stop there. But that’s not true. That’s not true.

There is this too.

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/nation-world/calls-to-the-national-sexual-assault-hotline-spiked-during-kavanaugh-ford-hearing/507-599077623

An article describing how calls to the National Sexual Assault Hotline are up 200% since the hearing on Thursday.

If there is one good thing to come out of this hearing, it's that!

[Vekseid]

There's his breakdown with Feinstein a bit over 5 minutes in here:

https://youtu.be/l5BvL5uLrXU?t=348

I know people are comparing this to how Hillary handled her hearings, but compare this to Clarence Thomas on the Anita Hill accusations.

July 1st calendar entry, reports of drinking, etc. aside, I think if the Republicans vote for this man it is going to go down like the Dred Scott. Hell the very nomination might.

[TheGlyphstone]

At a glance, that could mean anything between the two extremes from 'confirming Kavanaugh will cause a financial panic' to 'confirming Kavanaugh will lead to the Second American Civil War'. What did you mean by that otherwise, because I dont quite follow.

[Oniya]

The Dred Scott decision is widely remembered as one of the biggest fuck-ups in the history of the Supreme Court.  That's pretty much the first thing that comes to my mind.

[elone]

The Republicans are so worried that the nomination will go past the midterms, that they would approve Donald Duck as a justice. Thank you Senator Flake for having a heart and enough courage to get some new investigations. Not sure they will be effective, but it is better than nothing, and keeps the
Republicans from cramming this through. Unfortunately it is a "limited" investigation, whatever that means. I hope they look into all allegations, interview all his former classmates, drive Dr. Ford through the neighborhood to find the house, and find when Mr Judge worked at the grocery to fill in gaps in the timeline.  I am familiar with this area, having grown up there, not too far from Georgetown Prep. The investigation needs to be done thoroughly.

I was an investigator in the military, and I can say that the background stuff the FBI did was inadequate. In their defense, I doubt they had reasons to look deeply, but that is no excuse. I have been interviewed by the FBI doing a background check on one of my neighbors, and I can say it was cursory at best.

For me, his demeanor, belligerence, evasiveness, and obvious political bias would disqualify him as a Justice whether or not he assaulted Dr. Ford. How this man ever got to be a judge is beyond me.

[blue bunny sparkle]

How this man ever got to be a judge is beyond me.

Connections.

[Callie Del Noire]

The American Bar Association has in the past noted his actions as a problem. During his prior judge nomination they rescinded their glowing recommendation and left his with a qualified for judgeship instead. Technically skilled but there have been repeated concerns about his ability to be neutral and nonpartisan on the bench.

That was my issue with him intially as well as this rediculous assertion of the presidents immunity to the legal consequences of his actions

While I’m of the innocent till proven quilty.  I find his behavior in front of the committee very disturbing

[HairyHeretic]

Realistically, how much investigation can be done in a week though?

[Oniya]

Realistically, how much investigation can be done in a week though?

Things I'd like to see looked into:  How his extensive debt got paid off.  Why the American Bar Association rescinded their 'glowing review' (and is now urging this very investigation!).  What do the several thousand pages that weren't provided in his initial nomination have to do with?

These are things that have paper trails.  They are things that speak to his fitness as a judge.

His behavior in college was appalling, don't get me wrong.  But from an investigative standpoint, given the limited time provided, these things should require less time (allowing for more individual points to be brought up) and provide evidence that is harder to twist.

[CrownedSun]

Unfortunately it is a "limited" investigation, whatever that means. I hope they look into all allegations, interview all his former classmates, drive Dr. Ford through the neighborhood to find the house, and find when Mr Judge worked at the grocery to fill in gaps in the timeline.  I am familiar with this area, having grown up there, not too far from Georgetown Prep. The investigation needs to be done thoroughly.

Looks like it's going to be a show "we did an investigation and didn't find anything" utter disgrace of an investigation.

Witness lists provided by the White House, no look at Julie Swetnick's allegations at all, no look at his drinking problems, and so on.

<.<

I'm not surprised but I can't help but feel this.

Just... what a disgrace..

[TheGlyphstone]

Looks like it's going to be a show "we did an investigation and didn't find anything" utter disgrace of an investigation.

Witness lists provided by the White House, no look at Julie Swetnick's allegations at all, no look at his drinking problems, and so on.

<.<

I'm not surprised but I can't help but feel this.

Just... what a disgrace..

I don't think it was ever going to be anything else. Control of the Supreme Court for the next few decades is at stake, which is far too important for questions like someone's personal integrity or fitness for the office they're being nominated for to get in the way.

[lustfulintentions]

I don't think it was ever going to be anything else. Control of the Supreme Court for the next few decades is at stake, which is far too important for questions like someone's personal integrity or fitness for the office they're being nominated for to get in the way.

I mean, what does integrity matter when you've got women's rights to take away, and corporate control of every element of our lives to enshrine in the law of the land?

[TheGlyphstone]

I mean, what does integrity matter when you've got women's rights to take away, and corporate control of every element of our lives to enshrine in the law of the land?

Though to be brutally honest, the man could be a saint pure as the driven snow who donates his time to orphanages and animal shelters, and the Democrats would still bitterly oppose him for those same ideological reasons. The fact that he (probably) isn't gives justification for that opposition, but they don't have a choice about fighting him any more than the GOP has for supporting him.

[lustfulintentions]

Though to be brutally honest, the man could be a saint pure as the driven snow who donates his time to orphanages and animal shelters, and the Democrats would still bitterly oppose him for those same ideological reasons. The fact that he (probably) isn't gives justification for that opposition, but they don't have a choice about fighting him any more than the GOP has for supporting him.

I'd argue that a man with those qualities would have a hard time finding a home in today's Republican party. You look at Kavanaugh's history, and it's not an accident that he was at the top of the list.

[TheGlyphstone]

I'd argue that a man with those qualities would have a hard time finding a home in today's Republican party. You look at Kavanaugh's history, and it's not an accident that he was at the top of the list.

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing there. But looking at it through as impartial a lens as I can, the stakes are too high for the Democrats to allow anyone Trump nominates to go through if they can possibly stop it. Anyone they could accept on the bench, by definition, would not be someone Trump would nominate in the first place. Either way, the applicant's character becomes an irrelevant sideshow - the sole factor that matters is their political slant.

[lustfulintentions]

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing there. But looking at it through as impartial a lens as I can, the stakes are too high for the Democrats to allow anyone Trump nominates to go through if they can possibly stop it. Anyone they could accept on the bench, by definition, would not be someone Trump would nominate in the first place. Either way, the applicant's character becomes an irrelevant sideshow - the sole factor that matters is their political slant.

I hear you. If anything, what this has laid bare, and I appreciate it, is that the Supreme Court is no less a partisan institution than any of the other branches of government.

Also, to be fair, Gorsuch pulled through, and pulled a few red state Dem votes. Merrick Garland couldn't even get a fucking meeting.

[TheGlyphstone]

Well yeah. Chuck Schumer has integrity. Mitch McConnell doesn't even know the meaning of the word.

[lustfulintentions]

Well yeah. Chuck Schumer has integrity. Mitch McConnell doesn't even know the meaning of the word.

He wouldn't know it if the word walked up and kicked him in the dick.

(It should definitely walk up and kick him in the dick)

[elone]

Back to the investigation.  I have seen that it is "limited" in scope, whatever that means. Also they cannot question certain individuals, and they are not allowed to talk to the store where Judge worked to ascertain a time that Dr. Ford said could nail down when the assault occurred.  I can hear it now, the Republicans saying "You got the investigations" and the Democrats claiming it was not thorough.  I think it would be a no brainer to check the yearbook people against a census of 1980 and find where they all lived. Then take Dr. Ford around and find the house. Question all his classmates in school, both Yale and high school. I think it would in the very least show he perjured himself in the hearing. The FBI could call up all the resources it needs, it just depends on what they are allowed to do. I have little faith that they will be given a free hand. Someone out there has the answers.

On top of that, this is a background investigation, not a criminal probe, so individuals can simply say they don't want to talk. No consequences to them for doing that.

We will see. I just hope the truth comes out, one way or another, with no uncertainty so it can be finished.

[Deamonbane]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna915061

White House limits scope of the FBI's investigation into the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh