First some level setting.
Governing power is divided into three equal branches. Executive (President), Legislative (Congress) and Judicial (Courts). Executive is made of really one person, so arguably that person would be the single most powerful person in government. The Congress is made of 435 people, being an equal branch, makes each member 1/435th as powerful as the President. The Supreme Court has 9 Justices, dividing that equal branch into 9 equal parts, thus each Justice is 1/9th as powerful as the President. However, the President is limited to serving 8 years. The House has 2 year terms and Senate has 6 year terms but must be re-elected. The Supreme Court isn't accountable to the electorate, and its members serve until they die or resign. This makes a position in the Supreme Court extremely important as there is little recourse once a justice is confirmed. As such, confirmation process and hearings are very important as we the people really have no say. Therefore, the nominee should be of highest quality and character.
The confirmation process is controlled by the Senate once the President has made a nomination. There is no constitutional requirement, other than that the Senate advise and consent to the nomination. Process is whatever the Senate deems it to be, but typically, the Senate will request background information on the nominee, review the information and have a hearing where it asks about the information discovered in this process as well as the nominee's jurisprudence (philosophy on the law). There is no timeline set, just that the Senate advise and consent. Since the 50's the average time between nomination and confirmation was 67 days. Byron White was the shortest at 8 days. Potter Stewart was the longest successful confirmation at 108 days. The only time the Senate didn't hold hearings was for Merrick Garland, whose nomination was open from March 2016 to January 2017. The point of this paragraph is to establish there are no set timelines or guidelines. Thus, the claim that a strategy of a last minute bombshell to derail a hearing is just not possible. There is no last minute in what is an open time frame. What about the upcoming midterms? Well it looks like the House may go Democratic, but the Senate is not likely at this point - no polling is suggesting it will. The House has no say in the process. And do you really think there would be any difference in how this was handled and received if the allegation came out in August instead?
Now to the issues at hand....
The Democrats are conspiring to derail the nomination just because he's a Republican and they want to stop any nomination by accusing them of sexual misconduct. True, each party since the Bork and Thomas hearings, has tried to push back against confirmations. My personal view on the confirmation process is that each President should get his nominee confirmed, unless they are obviously unqualified (as was the case with Harriet Miers), too severe in their positions (Bork) or of really questionable character (Thomas). I'll also throw in their that they are unable to be impartial and/or lie under oath.
As mentioned above, the Republican Senate didn't even request information or hold hearings on Obama's last nominee, they simply ignored their constitutional duty until Trump took office. The Democrat's reaction to this was to aid in confirming Neil Gorsuch in 70 days or so. Where were the sexual misconduct allegations against Gorsuch? Why did some Democratic Senators vote in his favor? My speculation is that Gorsuch was an upstanding person, well qualified, wasn't an out of control drunk in high school and college and didn't try to rape someone.
Three reasons why I don't believe this is a last minute attempt by Democrats to derail the nomination
- Its not last minute as explained above. There is endless time to investigate
- Democrats didn't even try to derail the nomination of the Justice that should have been Merrick Garland
- Even if you derail Kavanaugh, there are a dozen other conservatives waiting for the position, its just delaying the inevitable.
Lets look at Blasey Ford - the following is a meme from Facebook.
- Blasey is a registered Democrat. That's about all that is true or not misleading.
- She is a donor to the Democratic party - but not a long time donor with less than $100 since 2013.
- There is no evidence she scrubbed social media.
- Mrs. Kavanaugh was the judge overseeing the foreclosure of the Blasey's home. However, the Blasey's worked it out with the bank and the judge ruled in favor of them to keeping the home.
- Her brother did work at Baker Hoestetler, which has about 1000 attorneys. Its also true that BH worked with Fusion GPS, but on a case involving another matter. Her brother left the firm in 2004.
- There is no evidence, other than random tweets, that supports her making or wearing Pink Pussy hats. There are a few images that are clearly doctored.
- There is evidence she attended anti Trump rallies. It would make her one of between 3.5M and 5M women to do so. Not very convincing argument
- Link for more info
Except that's not her. Its a Ukrainian girl. And its not her attorney, its Barbara Kinney, Clinton’s photographer. Nor is it her in these pictures that Snopes debunked
like this one
Nor as Snopes points out, has she been photographed with Clinton or Weinstein. These are all lies from your Republican friends.
Then there's the allegation that Ford works for a pharmaceutical company that makes an abortion pill and she is trying to stop Kavanaugh from being appointed as abortions will be made illegal. Two problems with that: First, if Kavanaugh is not confirmed, the next Justice will also be pro life, sooo why ruin your reputation for nothing. Second, Ford worked for Corcept Therapeutics which offered a drug to treat Cushings Syndrome called Korlym. When taken with misoprostol, it can induce an abortion. Actually its the misoprostol that induces the abortion, Korlym just blocks progesterone. Plus, she stopped working there in 2012. This allegation earned Politifacts Pants on fire award. Again more lies from your Republican friends.
There is no motive for Blasey Ford to testify against Kavanaugh other than her belief that he is the one who tried to rape her at the party. She is risking her reputation and career, opened herself to death threats and putting herself through hell for what purpose?
Things in favor of Ford's credibility:
No motive - at least that is credible at this time - other than what she alleges happened.
She has records of discussing her experience going back to 2012. While many of the records do not mention Kavanaugh by name, they do reference a Federal judge who went to Georgetown Prep. Did she do some amazing time travel to know that Kavanaugh would be nominated? Four affidavits also present evidence that her story was known prior to Trump's nomination of Kavanaugh or even Kennedy's retirement.
She places other people at the scene - why in a "he said, she said" case would you place a third person, let alone a friend of the accused, at the scene? Unless its the truth.
Her testimony names people at the party, who also happen to appear on Kavanaugh's calendar, to which she had no prior access. She and Kav both admitted they didn't know each other well, though she had been going out with Squi.
Her testimony was very credible, even to Trump, Chris Wallace, Orin Hatch, Sen Richard Shelby - R
Yet, I keep seeing posts about how much of a liar she is. Trump's comments were flat out strange and unexpected.
Things that could be used to damage Ford's credibility, but may not (most of which appear in a NY Post opinion piece and have been circulating in memes):
Memory lapses - number one complaint of the anti-Ford crowd is that she can't remember certain details. First claim is she couldn't remember who was at the party - well, she named a bunch of people, and some of those people actually turn up listed as going to a party with Kav. Second, she doesn't remember how she got there or got home - this one bothers me a bit. I think she'd remember who invited her or drove her. As to getting home, after you've gone through an ordeal like this, I don't fault her for not remembering. From personal experience, I remember a three HS/College parties where the police arrived (certainly not as traumatic as her experience though). I don't remember who attended, where exactly they were, though I can approximate which parts of town, or whose house it was, or when they were. I think I drove to one of them, which I remember actually talking with the police and driving people home as I either had just arrived or hadn't been drinking. The others we just ran. I don't remember how I got home.
Other witnesses not remembering the event - this one is more nuanced. Again I offer my own experience. During college, we had a lot of parties, both at Fairfield and during the summer in NJ. I don't remember every party/gathering - not because I blacked out, but because they were so common and happened 25 years ago. And I certainly wouldn't remember if someone was being molested in a bedroom that I wasn't in, cause I wouldn't have known about it. So do I recall going to parties? Yes. Do I remember what days they were and who was there? No, not unless something happened like unexpected guests, police or parents arrived or if something else odd happened like a fight, or pepper spray or a band was there. I'll ask those of you who use this against Ford - do you remember every party you went to in HS or college? Were you aware of everything that was going on in the house at the time? I doubt it.
Ford didn't tell anyone or go to the police - critics use this to discredit Ford. However, its not common to report sexual abuse. Estimates are 65-85% of sexual assaults go unreported. NSVRC fact sheet for reasons why click Why-Is-Sexual-Assault-Under-Reported. It would have been helpful if Ford did report this incident, but her not reporting it is typical of a sexual assault victim. In addition, the prevalence of false claims of rape is quite small: 2-10% based on studies. In fact since records began in 1989, in the US there are only 52 cases where men convicted of sexual assault were exonerated because it turned out they were falsely accused. So despite what your Republican friends say, false accusations are not rampant, young white men are not at risk.
Ford's own family doesn't back her - actually not 100% true. Her 83 year old father has has said: “I think all of the Blasey family would support her. I think her record stands for itself. Her schooling, her jobs and so on,” Other than the one statement from the father, they have remained out of the picture. The Blaseys are part of the same country club and social scene as the Kavanaughs. The Blaseys are registered republicans, as are most of their neighbors and friends. Once she graduated high school, Blasey Ford tried to escape the circumstances in DC by moving to California. This is where the Ford's took her in as their own and have vehemently supported her. While the lack of her blood related family's open support is odd, it doesn't prove she is lying.
Actually, none of the criticisms of Ford demonstrate that she is lying. The only out I see is that it wasn't Kav, but someone else, or it was at a different party. Two men came forward on Sept 27th saying they were the one's that nearly raped Ford, but since that announcement, there has been no further news. On the other hand, the only evidence in her favor is her own words.
Now let's look at Kavanaugh
Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell tried to convince Trump not to pick Kavanaugh early in the process citing multiple reasons, rape not being one of them, but believed he would be the most difficult to pass through the Senate. One of McConnell's concerns was the vast amount of documents that needed to be released - close to a million pages. It looks like about 400k of them were released and 100k are not going to be released in a historic claim of Executive Privelege. Not sure what happened to the other 500k documents. As of Sept 1 only 6% of documents had been released, though they number more than any other candidate.
Kavanaugh vehemently denies the allegations. Judge, the other person present at the scene, also denies this happened. There were no other people in the room, so its two vs. one in favor of Kavanaugh. His word vs. her word. This is one reason sexual assault cases are so difficult to prosecute. The only evidence beyond the accuser and accused words is a calendar presented which has on it what might be the party in question and its attendees. Remember though, its not a criminal or even civil proceeding. There is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. There's not even a preponderance of evidence standard - its a job interview.
Exculpatory evidence
Really there isn't any - just as there is no independent evidence in support of Ford's account, there is none for Kavanaugh. There are statements from his friends though. One letter in his support was signed by 65 women he knew since high school and was generated within 24 hours of the scandal breaking. Buzzfeed has the story how the letter came about - which seemed suspicious at first, but the article makes it seem plausible. While some of the women had enduring relationships with Kav, many on the letter were just acquaintances if they knew him at all. The letter doesn't mention the allegation nor were the women who signed made aware by the organizer that these claims are what the letter was meant to refute. Politico reached out to the women after Blasey was identified, during the weekend, and only found 2 that would back Kavanaugh. Granted, by then they were probably tired of answering questions, so I can't interpret it as being 63 women pulled their support. But other media outlets tried to contact the people, including those at Yale, who had gone on record as supporting him and also found very few people willing to talk about it. Again, not a glowing endorsement, but also not indicative of any wrongdoing. Kav wasn't the only one with a letter of support. Blasey Ford also had a letter from alumnae of the Holton-Arms School (with over 1000 names) and her class supporting her. While the letters of support are nice, they don't prove anything. Just because he was nice to 65 women doesn't mean he didn't black out and try and rape someone.
The calendar....The calendar presented ended up hurting Kavanaugh more than helping. We saw he drank a lot. The names on the calendar match the names put forward by Ford as being at the party. The calendar also contradicts testimony that he only drank on the weekend. More on that later.
Character and Credibility
While even the President has praised Ford's testimony as being credible, many are finding Kavanaugh as less credible. Even Trump fell short of calling Kavanaugh credible, actually saying of his testimony, it was an incredible moment in US history. A synonym for incredible is unbelievable.
Its awkward now watching this and how interested Sen Kennedy is in Kav's high school years (this is pre allegation). And I guess based on his near arrest for a bar fight in New Haven, he's neither John Boy Walton or Ferris Bueller, but a Doctor Evanzan (the guy with a mangled face who picks a fight with Luke Skywalker in Mos Eisley Cantina)
Also awkward now is this video:
Interestingly, Georgetown Prep line was left out of his transcripts forwarded to the Senate.
It is also his high school and college years that three of the alleged wrongdoings took place. So yes, his teenage antics are relevant.
Kavanaugh entered the confirmation process already having a history of lying...er um...misleading the Senate in past confirmation hearings.
"When George Bush nominated Brett Kavanaugh for a judgeship, Kavanaugh tried to distance himself from the extremely controversial Pickering in order to be confirmed. At his hearing in 2006, Kavanaugh told the Senate under oath that Pickering was "not one of the judicial nominees I was primarily handling,” and omitted Pickering from the list of appellate court nominees he assisted. Recently released emails show this was not the truth, by a long shot. "
"During his 2004 hearing, Kavanaugh denied ever receiving any of the documents Miranda stole. Asked if he “ever come across memos from internal files of any Democratic members given to you or provided to you in any way?” he replied, “No.” In 2006, also under oath, he again denied ever receiving stolen documents. But newly released documents show that Miranda had indeed sent Kavanaugh information from the stolen internal documents. The nominee continues to deny he knew the information was stolen. But he can no longer deny he received it."
"At a 2006 confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh told Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) that he knew nothing of the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program, launched under President George W. Bush, until the New York Times revealed it publicly in 2005. Kavanaugh insisted he’d heard “nothing at all” about the program before that, even though he was a senior administration aide. But a September 17, 2001 email provided to the New York Times this week shows that Kavanaugh was involved in at least initial discussions about the widespread surveillance of phones that characterized the NSA program"
Torture: During the same 2006 confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh told Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) that he “was not involved” in legal questions related to the detention of so-called enemy combatants. But Durbin said Thursday that records show that there are at least three recorded examples of Kavanaugh participating in discussions of Bush administration detainee policy.
For this hearing his "misleading statements" were one after another .
“Dr. Ford’s allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a longtime friend of hers" - this isn't exactly true. The people she mentioned don't recall the party. As previously discussed, it was one of many parties they had gone to, and was unremarkable for anyone but Ford and perhaps Judge. When corrected by Sen Booker, he again repeated “The witnesses who were there say it didn’t happen.”
“When my friends and I spent time together at parties on weekends, it was usually with friends from nearby Catholic all-girls high schools — Stone Ridge, Holy Child, Visitation, Immaculata, Holy Cross. Dr. Blasey did not attend one of those schools. She attended an independent private school named Holton-Arms, and she was a year behind me.” - this isn't true at all, unless you rely on the "usually". His friend Squi was "seeing" Ms. Ford. Also, two other schoolmates deny that Holton girls were left out.
"It's been investigated" he claimed to Sen Coons. In fact, the FBI background check didn't investigate the claim because the claim was unknown at the time.
“I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation.” - um, according to your calendar, you did.
“The event described by Dr. Ford presumably happened on a weekend because I believed everyone worked and had jobs in the summers. And in any event, a drunken early evening event of the kind she describes, presumably happened on a weekend. ... If the party described by Dr. Ford happened in the summer of 1982 on a weekend night, my calendar shows all but definitively that I was not there.” - but then there is that pesky calendar that you presented as evidence which shows you did go for brewskis in the middle of the week. And why are you limiting scope to the weekend anyway?
“My friends and I sometimes got together and had parties on weekends. The drinking age was 18 in Maryland for most of my time in high school, and was 18 in D.C. for all of my time in high school.” and "The drinking age, as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school, people were legal to drink, and we—yeah, we drank beer.” - except that by the time he was 17, the drinking age was 21.
Rachel Mitchell, the Republicans' prosecutor: “Dr. Ford described a small gathering of people at a suburban Maryland home in the summer of 1982. She said that Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth and Leland [Keyser] also were present, as well as an unknown male, and that the people were drinking to varying degrees. Were you ever at a gathering that fits that description?”
Kavanaugh: “No, as I’ve said in my opening statement.”
and this exchange:
Except the calendar says differently. There's even more denials that a party, or as Ford described, a pre party happened. It did. And why does Kav try to mislead by saying a party happened on the weekend? So he could then point to his weekends where he was out of town. Deliberate misleading.
Mitchell: “Is there anything [on your calendars] that could even remotely fit what we’re talking about, in terms of Dr. Ford’s allegations?”
Kavanaugh: “No.”
"Dr. Ford has said that this event occurred at a house near Columbia Country Club, which is at the corner of Connecticut Avenue in the East-West Highway in Chevy Chase, Maryland. In her letter to Senator Feinstein, she said that there were four other people at the house but none of those people, nor I, lived near Columbia Country Club. As of the summer of 1982, Dr. Ford was 15 and could not drive yet and she did not live near Columbia Country Club. She says confidently that she had one beer at the party, but she does not say how she got to the house in question or how she got home or whose house it was."Here is a map of the area. Kav lives 4 miles away, or an hour's walk. Blasey is about 8 miles or 2 hours walk.
“I know exactly what happened the whole night.” he claimed about a night where he and his friend had to piece together what had happened per a speech at Yale. Speaking of the speech given at Yale Law, who brags about how much they drank?
With regards to drinking and not remembering scores of a game...
The two games in question were at Georgetown/Louisville game, and an Orioles game which he attended with classmates. His excuse was he was distracted. But why would that make the yearbook? Could it be that he was bragging about how drunk he was, similar to how he bragged in the Yale Law speech? Is there a pattern of drinking, hanging out with people who drank heavily, bragging about drinking and then denying that's what he meant? Does bragging about being part of a club that hooked up with a girl, then denying that's what it meant also fit that pattern?To Whitehouse: “We in essence were having a party and didn’t pay attention to the game even though the game was the excuse we had for getting together.”“I think that’s very common. I don’t know if you’ve been to a Super Bowl party for example, senator, and not paid attention to the game and just hung out with your friends. I don’t know if you’ve done that or not. But that’s what we were referring to in those — those two occasions.”
“Senator, you were asking about college. I got into Yale Law School. That’s the number-one law school in the country. I had no connections there. I got there by busting my tail in college.”His grandfather went to Yale. That qualifies him as a legacy student, which accounts for 20 to 25% of the students at Yale. I'll take him at his word that his grades and hard work also factored in, but I'm not sure how valuable his word is at this point.
Then there are the yearbook questions. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to hold up a Supreme Court nomination because the nominee liked to drink. After all its American to drink beer. And to his credit, he did start to admit he drank, though he lied about it being legal.
Devils Triangle - Brett says its a drinking game. No reference existed that it was a drinking game until his testimony when someone with an IP address on Capitol Hill changed the Wikipedia reference . Popular reference refers to it as a threesome, two guys and a girl, with both guys entering different places at the same time.
Boofing.
Ralphing. Here's a mashup of how much he likes beer.
He really likes it but, spicy food and beer make him sick.
But the one that irritates me the most is the Renate Almnius. There is not a man, woman or teen out there that wouldn't think that when a team of football players say they graduated from a girl that it doesn't reference sex or sexual behavior. Its even more horrible, and showing of character, that he and his buddies put that in the yearbook 14 times. This, of course being his, formative years. Now he seemed remorseful, but continued to lie about its meaning. And yeah, he was probably lying about it in the yearbook.
Lastly, and one that isn't discussed much is the meaning of FFFFF - its described as a joke about a stutter by Squi.
He flat out lied about whether he was Bart - he signed the letter as Bart, but says you'd have to ask Mark
Simply put, he lies. He lies and doesn't need to - who cares (I do about the Renate part) about drinking in high school or college. But if he's lying about little things, what else is he lying about. These alone should disqualify him - particularly since we impeached a president for lying under oath.
So even if his accusers are proven to be lying, it doesn't justify his lying and dodging questions. Its not just one lie, its a pattern:
- Pickering
- Stolen Democratic Documents
- NSA program
- Torture
- Was asked by Sen Kennedy what type of person he was in high school. To be fair he dodged the question, but if he were honest, he could have used that question to talk about going to some parties and drinking beer, just like everyone else. But he didn't - lied by omission.
- Everyone refutes Ford's case
- He and his friends didn't hang out with girls from Holton Arms
- Claiming that these allegations had already been investigated by the FBI
- Never attended an event as Ford described
- Claiming he couldn't have been at the party since he only partied on weekends and the weekends in that time frame were spent away from home
- Saying he didn't live near Columbia Country Club (though Mark Judge's grandmother's house fits all the descriptions
- Claims to know everything that happened this one night at Yale, when in previous speeches says he had to piece things together the next day (yes we all do that, but we don't lie under oath about it)
- As for forgetting about who won two games, he claims he was socially distracted, like if you went to a Superbowl party but didn't pay attention to the game. But why brag about that in a yearbook? More likely he blacked or passed out.
- Said he drank while it was legal
- Devil's Triangle
- Boofing
- Ralphing
- Rene Alumnius
- Getting into Yale on his own
- (new!) Evades and lies about being Bart - signed a letter as FFFFF Bart
- (new!) Lied about not knowing about the Ramirez allegation before it was made public
- (new!) When asked if he attended a wedding with Ramirez, he answers "Probably." However his own team retrieved a picture of him with Ramirez at that wedding prior to the hearing. So he knew there was actual evidence that he was at a wedding, knew he took a picture with her and still answered "Probably."
- FFFFF Fourth of July.( Find them, French them, Feel Them, Finger them, F*ck them, Forget them )
Additional observations....
Judge Kavanaugh worked to prosecute Clinton for lying under oath about having a consensual affair. Said he disgraced the Presidency. Said he should be impeached. Wanted to ask him these questions, yet cries over the questions he has to answer:
This opens up the conspiracy he mentions in his opening speech that the Clintons are behind this. I thought it really conspiratorial at first, but its got me scratching my head. All they needed was one person to make the allegation, knowing that copycats would come forward and that anti-Trump witnesses would also chime in (over half the country hates Trump, so the odds of people making statements are pretty good).
Judge Kavanaugh said he agreed to a lie detector test, but called them unreliable. Yet in his own words, in a three judge decision, he wrote that lie detectors were an important law enforcement tool.
The Republicans hired a female sex crime prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, to question Ford, but was she supposed to also question Kav? That would make sense to do so the Senators don't look like they were hiding behind her. The timing of Lindsey Graham's outburst came at a peculiar moment. Ms Mitchell's questions were focusing on the calendar, and some specific dates and events. Her time expired, Lindsey had an outburst, she never returned.
(new!) There is now evidence that the Kavanaugh team knew that Ramirez was going to be a problem as early as July. Perhaps this is why McConnell urged the President not to nominate him?
Trump goes on tirade against Blasey Ford, lies about what she knows and doesn't know. Great mashup by Colbert.
There is a transcript (page 17) of Kavanaugh being questioned on the phone which references now 6 accusations against him. August 26th transcripts
