When I first heard that a woman accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were both in high school, my first reaction was, “Kids do stupid things, and they can’t be held accountable many years later for what they did as teens.” Mind you, I am dead set against Kavanaugh joining the Supreme Court because he will provide the decisive vote to roll back civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights, abortion rights, and the “wall of separation” between church and state. I am also aware that the prisons contain many black men who did stupid things when they were 17, but got caught.
I was not indifferent to the situation of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. I too was a victim of sexual assault when I was only 12, and I never told anyone. I understand why she remained silent for many years. I also understand why this event was seared in her memory, even though the details were not.
What turned me firmly against Kavanaugh was his reaction. He insisted he knew nothing about the allegations. He was adamant.
That means that one of them is lying, and I don’t think it is Dr. Ford.
We now know that the third person that she said was in the room, Mark Judge, has a history of alcoholism and has written about binge drinking in high school. He refuses to testify. We have read that Kavanaugh laughingly said, “What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep.” That usually means the wild goings-on in Las Vegas do not get talked about in the world beyond.
I thought Kavanaugh would say, “I did stupid things when I was 17. Sometimes I drank too much. If I did what Dr. Ford said, which I can’t remember, I apologize.”
That would have been the end of it.
Instead, he chose to claim total innocence and cast her as a liar.
The issue now is not when the sexual assault occurred, but who is telling the truth. Right now. Today.
I believe Dr. Ford.
She had nothing to gain and everything to lose by speaking out.
I believe her.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
May I share this, Diane?
Of course. Whatever I write here is public.
Thanks! It’s an excellent explanation!
Diane,
I am sorry for your hurt.
An observation if I might: I do not want to discount the veracity of either side.
Guilty by accusation? Are Unproven accusations undermining democracy? Is due process lost?
Does a ‘Y” chromosome now makes you guilty of anything from the time of entering kindergarten up?
Do the polls replace our Constitution? What is meant by the call for fairness and can it be done for both – the accused and the accuser? These are some of the many questions confronting us.
Is evidence no longer a required factor –- for anything. Kirsten Gillibrand kept saying in her recent speech on Ford’s accusation, “I believe her. I believe her.” On the basis of what? Guilt or innocence’s now determined by “belief” not by evidence – without examining her testimony, without any specifics at all – logic and facts be damned –- every opinion is accepted just based on emotional reaction.
How is anyone – the accuser or accused – get a fair hearing under those circumstances?
The concept of innocent until proven guilty — beyond reasonable doubt has been disappearing with each accusation constantly repeated over and over in the court room of the media – our new judge and jury; the more sensational and politically potent an accusation is, the more likely it will be seen as true, and no amount of correction will undo that.
According to the Constitution the purview of the Senate is to “advise and consent” on SCOTUS appointees. The Constitution says nothing about setting IUDs made out of vague and ancient fictions. The determination of suitability of the candidate should be based on the education, the clarity, and the self-discipline to weigh issues brought before him/her.
SCOTUS can’t initiate lawsuits; they can only rule on what is brought before them.
Ford requested an FBI investigation. its not in their territory. The FBI can only do background investigations, investigate possible federal crimes- teenage fondling doesn’t qualify — unless the activity crosses state lines and involves kidnapping.
I want fairness for both.
The FBI should conduct an investigation. They did so in the Anita Hill situation. This is exactly what the FBI does as
Part of its background check of nominees for a lifetime post.
If you want to get to the facts, under oath, why fight an FBI investigation.
Only the guilty oppose one.
jscheidell Here is your STRAW MAN–it’s straw because it’s not real, you’re making it all up:
STRAW: “On the basis of what? Guilt or innocence’s now determined by “belief” not by evidence – without examining her testimony, without any specifics at all – logic and facts be damned –- every opinion is accepted just based on emotional reaction.” WRONG
Second, about the FBI:-WRONG AGAIN The FBI, as in “INVESTIGATION,” can do whatever the President wants them to do. They’ve done these sorts of investigations many times before–as a matter or course.
Third, the accusers WANT such an investigation. Why doesn’t Kavanaugh? . . who SAYS he wants fairness. Ha ha ha ha.
And fourth, a missing distinction: it’s not a CRIMINAL investigation. so the stringency of courtroom rules that you call for is relaxed–the Justices work for US, The People, and everyone should have their say in a public hearing.
The GOP has lost not only its mind but its moral compass. CBK
Diane, I am so sorry to know that you were hurt in this way. Thank you for your courage and for your support of Dr. Blasey Ford.
I believe Ford too, and I think Kavanaugh should get at least the same treatment Bill Clinton got when he “lied” about having an affair with Monica Lewinsky who was a consenting adult.
Clinton denied he had the affair and that was the reason he was impeached by the House of Representatives and tried by the Senate where the vote said he was not guilty.
The United States MUST drag Kavanugh through the same thing step by step.
“Lewinsky flirted with the president and the two had their first sexual encounter on the night of November 15 in the White House.”
Lewinsky never said no like Ford did to the “privileged” drunken Kavanaugh before he covered her mouth with his hand to shut her up.
Please don’t let Clinton off the hook. What he did to Lewinsky was unpardonable, even if not criminal. She was a 21 year old intern. He was president of the United States and much older. The power differential between them made his actions unconscionable and he knew it. Further, Lewinsky was hardly his first or only victim. Why can’t we admit that Clinton and Kavanaugh are both slime for the way they’ve treated females?
Clinton did not get off the hook. He was impeached.
And that is exactly what I want to happen to Kavanaugh. I want him impeached with an in-depth investigation that includes the release of those documents the GOP won’t let out.
I did not let Bill Clinton off the “hook” in my comment. My comment was about Kavanaugh getting the same treatment Bill Clinton went through.
There is a big difference when two consenting adults have an affair even if one of them or both of them are married vs a drunk teenager attempting to rape a younger teenager by force and covering her mouth with his hand to cut off her screams for help.
If I recall correctly Ford was 13 and Kavanaugh was 17.
Any rape allegations against Bill Clinton are still allegations.
“The rape allegations against Bill Clinton, explained”
“And indeed, the Juanita Broaddrick case is the hardest one for admirers of Bill Clinton. Her allegation has never been definitively refuted. Only she and Bill Clinton know what the truth of the matter in the case is. But if one generally believes it’s important to believe the victim, it’s hard to argue that this case should be an exception.” …
“As she tells the story, they spent only a few minutes chatting by the window — Clinton pointed to an old jail he wanted to renovate if he became governor — before he began kissing her. She resisted his advances, she said, but soon he pulled her back onto the bed and forcibly had sex with her. She said she did not scream because everything happened so quickly. Her upper lip was bruised and swollen after the encounter because, she said, he had grabbed onto it with his mouth.”
https://www.vox.com/2016/1/6/10722580/bill-clinton-juanita-broaddrick
She did not scream because everything happened so quickly?
Really!
How much time does it take to scream?
How long does it take to get your clothing off — that is unless she was already undressed when there were standing by the window?
I’m not saying she did not resist his advances. But what form did her resistance take if she didn’t scream, “NO! Don’t!”
I’m also not saying Bill Clinton did not force himself on her as she has alleged.
What I am saying is that Kavanaugh must not be let off that “HOOK”.
Ford was 15. Kavanaugh was 17.
Thank you for the correction.
dienne77,
Why didn’t you include Donald Trump, who is accused of raping a 13 year old and has been accused by far more women than Bill Clinton?
Why can’t you admit that what Trump did was far worse than what Clinton did?
And, despite your non-stop lies, let’s look at the FACTS. Ken Starr and Brett Kavanaugh were given unlimited time, money and subpoena power to PROVE the allegations against Bill Clinton. They used it to interview the women accusing Clinton and forced everyone who could add any information to the accusations to answer questions under oath under penalty of perjury.
For you to imply that the accusations against Bill Clinton are no different than the accusations against Kavanaugh, when the accusations against Clinton were investigated by a prosecutor whose power was UNLIMITED and whose sole reason for existing was to GET Bill Clinton means that you have truly jumped the shark.
When Al Franken is given the same power that Ken Starr has to subpoena anyone about Kavanaugh’s actions and after unlimited time and subpoena power cannot come up with anything to make Kavanaugh’s accuser credible, then you can make a proper comparison to Bill Clinton.
I don’t know if Kavanaugh is guilty but I suspect he is. I don’t know if Clinton was guilty, but I do know that a prosecutor with unlimited time and subpoena power could not prove it after trying everything he could to prove it (including threatening witnesses who did not say what he wanted them to say with perjury).
And I do know that people who keep bringing up Bill Clinton without mention that the accusations against him were thoroughly investigated by people desperate to prove them and given unlimited power to do so has an agenda that is designed to turn any accusations against Republicans into “but Democrats are so evil”. Especially when they conveniently forget to mention the accused child rapist Donald Trump.
Dienne77, how can the Clinton affair be compared with the Kavanaugh case? One is a potentially criminal act, the other one is a private affair, completely blown out of proportion by the public.
The allegations by women accusing Clinton of rape were thoroughly investigated by Ken Starr. The people who claim there is no difference conveniently seem to forget that fact. They imply that a woman accused Clinton and no one believed her.
Ken Starr had unlimited money, time and subpoena power to investigate the accusations against Clinton, including spending an inordinate amount of time and money trying to get any proof that Juannita Broaddrick was telling the truth and would make a decent witness. He could not.
The fact that the Clinton haters aren’t demanding that Kavanaugh be given the same treatment — having someone like Al Franken whose only goal is to get Kavanaugh be given unlimited money and subpoena power to investigate the charges against Kavanaugh — speaks volumes.
Lloyd, your account of what transpired between Mr. Clinton and Ms. Broaddrick doesn’t take into account that a common response to a brutal attack is “deer-in-the-headlights” freezing in fear and shock. The “she didn’t resist” argument is not acceptable.
resits by screaming
Bob,
Your comment doesn’t take into account that Ken Starr used his unlimited power to subpoena anyone he wanted (and unlimited time and money) to try to give credibility to Broaddrick’s accusations. He could not.
I think the rest of us are just asking that there be a Democrat given full subpoena power and unlimited time to thoroughly investigate and try very hard to give more credibility to these charges against Kavanaugh.
I think it is quite unfair to treat Broaddrick like Blasey when Broaddrick had a very powerful prosecutor using every means to prove her case while Blasey has powerful Republicans using every means to make sure no one is allowed to be interviewed under oath.
I did not “treat Broaddrick like Blasey.” I expressed no opinion regarding that investigation or charge except that sometimes victims don’t scream because of their shock and fear. I offered that as an explanation for the not screaming that Lloyd mentioned. That’s all I said. That’s it. Period.
But yes, there is a big difference. You are certainly right about that.
Our brains are literally connectomes–webs of connected neural pathways. One item of input lights up a whole constellation of stuff. Someone posts a pic of a chia seed pudding. Therefore, ipso facto, he supports universal, single-payer healthcare, drives a Prius, voted for Hillary, is “soft-on-defense,” does yoga, is “soft on borders,” wants to limit free speech on campus, demands trigger warnings in college classroom lectures, wants to tear down our beautiful statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest, and so on. The Commie snowflake! Some of this will probably be true, but all of it is unwarranted deduction (statistically, more-or-less unwarranted deduction) and doesn’t necessarily follow.
But because minds work like this–because they are connectomes–any comment, however slight–“Did you try the tempeh?”–blows up in seconds into a collision of worlds. My team. Your team. Go, team. Rah rah rah.
So much for the state of discussion in the United States today.
All this presents a problem for those who, as I have done all my life, write for a living and for all those, writers or not, who strive to be careful about their choice of words, even on a medium like a WordPress blog, which doesn’t allow for careful post facto editing and revision.
Bob,
I am sorry, you are correct about whether or not the victim screamed being irrelevant.
It really does bother me that the Juannita Broaddrick charges are often brought up whenever any Republican is accused of sexual improprieties without any mention of the fact that a Republican prosecutor had unlimited subpoena power, time, and money that he spent to try to prove that Broaddrick’s charges were true. The fact that Ken Starr could not turn Broaddrick into a credible witness has nothing to do with whether any Democrat believed her or not.
Republicans and their enablers will bring up Broaddrick as their excuse NOT to investigate any charges made against powerful right wing Republicans.
That saddens me greatly, NYC public parent. I emphatically agree.
With this caveat. I have no idea whether Ms. Broaddrick’s charges were true. You didn’t, ofc, say that they were false, and I’m definitely not saying that you did. Only that I have no deep insight into the matter.
Wanting to learn more about Broaddrick and her alleged accusations I found this:
“Though Broaddrick was resistant to talking to the media, rumors about her story began circulating no later than Clinton’s presidential bid in 1992. Broaddrick had confided in Phillip Yoakum, whom she knew from business circles and at the time considered a friend. When Clinton won the Democratic nomination, Yoakum, widely considered to have a Republican agenda,[12] contacted Sheffield Nelson, Clinton’s opponent in the 1990 gubernatorial race. Yoakum arranged a meeting between Nelson and Broaddrick, who resisted Yoakum’s and Nelson’s push that she go public.[1] Yoakum secretly taped the conversation and wrote a letter summarizing the allegations, which began to circulate within Republican circles. The story reached the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times in October 1992, but the papers dropped the story after Broaddrick refused to talk to reporters and Yoakum refused to release the recording.” …
“Because of the time elapsed since the alleged incident and the nature of acquaintance rape cases, there was limited corroborating evidence and so the allegations rested on Broaddrick’s testimony. Because she had filed and then recanted an affidavit saying there was no assault, some thought she was not credible.[13] According to the New York Times in 1999, the problems with Broaddrick’s accusations were that “There is no physical evidence to verify it. No one else was present during the alleged encounter in a Little Rock hotel room nearly 21 years ago. The hotel has since closed. And Mrs. Broaddrick denied the encounter in an affidavit in January 1998 in the Paula Jones case, in which she was known only as ”Jane Doe No. 5.” Through all those years, she refused to come forward. When pressed by the Jones lawyers, she denied the allegation. And now, she has recanted that denial.”[12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_Broaddrick
“Ms. Broaddrick”
I thought, Dienne77 referrred to the Lewinsky case.
I’m with you. I believe her too.
I think that there may be a great deal of truth in this woman’s story. I hope that she gets the opportunity to deliver her remarks under oath. No joke.
There was a news report this morning (22 Sept), that she did not wish to fly to WashDC.
Yes, apparently she has been permanently scarred after being dragged into a room, the door locked, and then being assaulted with a hand placed over her mouth. So she has a problem with being stuck in enclosed spaces like airplanes.
Do you have any solid information that Judge Kavanaugh will Q he will provide the decisive vote to roll back civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights, abortion rights, and the “wall of separation” between church and state. END Q
Has he stated, or written or given any indication that he will do these things?
I believe that this nominee will not do these things. In fact, he has gone on record, that he will stand by established constitutional law.
The court has a tradition of “Stare Decisis”, and is generally averse to going against standing law, and established decisions.
Are there cases that are coming before the court, that will serve to reverse these rulings? I know of none.
Charles, please. You can’t really be that naive.
It is not a question of naivete. I take the nominee at his word, during his sworn testimony. And I accept the fact that the Supreme Court operates by tradition and the established precedents in statutory and case law.
Can anyone seriously believe that the court would invalidate the civil rights laws? Or the voting rights act?
I believe it.
The Voting Rights Act has already been eviserated, Charles.
Charles seems to think it is OK that the Republicans have
–withheld from the full committee hundreds if not thousands of documents that shed light on Kavanaugh ‘s legal career and opinions,
–refused Dr. Blasey’s request to allow for FBI investigation of the matter,
–refused to acknowledge that their timeline of demands for “closure” on the hearings are entirely without precedent,
–released ugly “take it or leave it” demands into media channels before sending the same demands to Dr. Blasey’s lawyers,
–failed to acknowledge that Dr. Blasey has received death threats and been bullied for daring to report on this matter, and more.
The Republicans have corrupted the confirmation process and are so chicken that they are, as I write this, planning to outsource their interrogation to a female staff member who is a lawyer.
The Republicans have been determined to make this a matter of “she said” followed by “he said.“
Remember this:
Brett Kavanaugh began his path to confirmation with an blantant lie. Quote below:
Brett Kavanaugh: “Mr. President, thank you. Throughout this process, I have witnessed firsthand your appreciation for the vital role of the American judiciary. No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a supreme court nomination.”
That was a lie. Kavanaugh knew he was on a carefully “curated” list of candidates for Trump. All nominees came from the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society, both advocates for “originalism” in the legal system, meaning that the Constitution should be interpreted according to what the words of the document meant when they were written.
There were 11 names on the first list put together by White House counsel Donald McGahn, but that was expanded to 25 as part McGahn’s role in “leading an aggressive campaign to reshape not only the Supreme Court but the entire federal judiciary.” https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/17550910/brett-kavanaugh-nomination-transcript-supreme-court
According to a July 2018 report from the Pew Research Center, “Trump has already put his stamp on the judiciary with the lifetime appointments of at least 43 federal judges. Trump’s total of 22 successfully appointed appeals court judges — as of last month — is more than either of the last two presidents at this point in their terms.”
The Heritage Foundation boasts that Trump has already acted on nine of its policy recommendations. Read the list. https://www.heritage.org/impact/trump-administration-embraces-heritage-foundation-policy-recommendations
For one, Trump said he would appoint only judges committedto eliminating Roe v. Wade. That sounds conclusive. Kavanaugh has made his view clear on all of these issues in his writings. The White House refuses to release his writings when he worked for Ptesident George W. Bush. He probably justified torture or something else he is ashamed of. We will never know because nearly 100,000 documents with his name on them were withheld.
When women die because of back-alley abortions or clothes hanger self-abortions, the blood will be on the hands of these men. And Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski.
I also take the president at his word. He has nominated an individual who is opposed to the ruling (Roe v. Wade). Notwithstanding this fact, the nominee, if confirmed, may be convinced that the ruling is solid constitutional law.
Legal abortions existed long before the ruling. If the ruling is reversed or modified, legal abortion will not simply vanish. The states would just have more power to regulate the procedure, during the first trimester.
And I do not believe, that when the entire senate considers the nomination, that the confirmation will go solely on party lines. There may be some dem senators, who will consent to the nomination.
My only “beef” with this nominee, is that if he is confirmed, that will mean that every SC justice on the bench, will have gone to either Harvard or Yale law school. We need some “academic affirmative action”, and some justices who have been to other law schools, so we can get some diversity.
(BTW- I support reproductive rights. I think that Roe v. Wade is solid constitutional law, and the proper ruling. I do NOT support reversal of the ruling)
Diane is spot-on and Charles is naive. The stakes of this nomination are very high — women’s health and rights of conscience, the fate of our public schools, civil liberties. A very conservative SCOTUS cannot be trusted not to roll back many precedents — and that is what Trump, McConnell and too many GOPers want.
“I also take the president at his word”
lololol!!!!!
I’m sorry, I shouldn’t laugh. Lots of people paid good money to Trump U. because they “took the President at his word”.
Laugh all you like. When Ann Coulter suggested that Donald Trump would be the next president, people laughed. When some people suggested that Ron Reagan would get elected president, people laughed, at the thought that a has-been actor could be elected.
This president has made it quite clear, that he was going to appoint people to the courts, that were opposed to Roe v. Wade.
Why are people surprised that he is doing exactly what he said he was going to do?
Who could predict that a lying conman would be elected president and humiliate the nation on the international stage?
Simple. When the Dems nominated Hillary Clinton, who could not secure a majority in the interior states, and obtain the required 270 electoral votes, the election of Donald Trump was assured.
Hillary never even campaigned in Wisconsin.
Charles,
You were the one who said “I take the president at his word”. So I assume you think Ted Cruz’ dad killed JFK and Trump has a copy of Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate, too.
I assume you changed the subject from the fact that you insist Trump’s word is all you need to believe something to suddenly bashing Hillary.
You are the one who just made it clear that you accept Trump’s word as the truth. People like you who took Trump at his word believed the con just like they believed Trump when was shilling Trump U.
Just because more Americans in the midwest chose to sit out the election after hearing that Hillary Clinton was an evil lying criminal than vote does not make Trump more believable. Except to you.
Q You were the one who said “I take the president at his word”. So I assume you think Ted Cruz’ dad killed JFK and Trump has a copy of Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate, too. END Q
Your assumption is incorrect. Remember, that when you assume something you are making an ass out of you.
I do not think that the father of Cruz was involved in the assassination of JFK. I do not think that Pres Trump has a copy of the birth certificate you mention.
You are applying my remarks to a subject that they were never intended to be.
When the current Pres was campaigning, he stated repeatedly, that he was going to appoint judges, that were opposed to the Roe. V. Wade decision. He has done exactly that. I am astounded that so many people are just “shocked, shocked” to see the views of this president’s appointees.
The Pres has done exactly what he said he was going to do.
In the comment that started this thread, you asked for evidence that Brett Kavanaugh and a Trump majority would erode and eliminate Roe v Wade. You wanted proof. Now you say you knew that the malevolent Trump pledged to appoint only judges committed to taking away a woman’s right to control her own body (Roe). You like to play the fool to annoy others. Do you have nothing better to do? You can’t wait to see that five man majority eliminating women’s rights, gay rights, worker’s rights, etc. you like to say that you support X, but you actually support not-X. I should ban you forever for the sin of constant lying.
Who is the ass. Charles?
If Charles said, ““I take the president at his word”, how can he call someone else and “ass” when Charles was responsible for not clarifing what he meant when he wrote, ““I take the president at his word”?
Charles, if you don’t take the fake president at his word for everything he says and tweets, then don’t come out and write “I take the president at his word.”
Q you asked for evidence that Brett Kavanaugh and a Trump majority would erode and eliminate Roe v Wade. You wanted proof. Now you say you knew that the malevolent Trump pledged to appoint only judges committed to taking away a woman’s right to control her own body (Roe). You like to play the fool to annoy others. Do you have nothing better to do? You can’t wait to see that five man majority eliminating women’s rights, gay rights, worker’s rights, etc. you like to say that you support X, but you actually support not-X END Q
I apologize if I misled anyone. For the record, I have stated repeatedly, that I support reproductive rights. I do NOT support a reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision.
It is a small distinction, but it is a distinction. The Pres has stated for a very long time, since the campaign, that he wishes to appoint judges that are “pro-life”. He has done exactly that. No one, on any side of the issue, should be surprised.
I have never read of any specific plans, for this current nominee, that he was going to vote to overturn the Roe decision. As I stated previously, he may decide that the precedent is solid constitutional law. Who knows? I don’t.
I tend to agree, that once there is a five-person majority on the court, that the court will be voting more on conservative lines. We are in agreement.
I have consistently supported LGBT rights, I have demonstrated in a parade in Louisville KY. I support same-gender marriage. I do not want to see the Obergefell decision reversed.
I don’t believe you.
A few months ago, Janus reversed 40 years of stare decisis, Charles.
A supreme court decision can be reversed, any time that five(5) of the justices decide to do so. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) reversed decades of precedent, when it reversed Plessy v. Ferguson (1895).
Gideon v. Wainwright reversed Betts v. Brady, reversing precedent.
As a result of these decisions, the USA now has school integration, and poor people have appointed counsel in criminal cases.
The Supreme Court does not always get it right. Nevertheless, reversals of previous rulings, are very rare.
“Has he stated, or written or given any indication that he will do these things?”
We cannot know since the majority of his past record is being withheld from public scrutiny and not being released. But this might give you a clue as to how he would “rule” (I certainly hesitate to call it decide):
https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/religious-right-orders-gop-to-put-kavanaugh-on-the-supreme-court
Charles If not, why would the GOP want Kavanaugh SO BADLY as to break all their own rules and to wallow around in such an obvious state of DOUBLE STANDARD?
Let’s never forget Merrick Garland when anyone defends or attacks Kavanaugh. Remind them of Garland and what happened in 2016 about NINE months before the 2016 election.
“What Happened With Merrick Garland In 2016 And Why It Matters Now”
“Widely regarded as a moderate, Garland had been praised in the past by many Republicans, including influential senators such as Orrin Hatch of Utah.
“But even before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia’s death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president — to be elected later that year.”
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now
When Mitch McConnell led to the GOP and blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination from reaching a vote, he deliberately subverted the Constitutional process. Garland should be sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court as a justice.
Charles, the “compelling evidence” is that evangelical leaders like Ralph Reed and Franklin Graham desperately want Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, and so does the arch-conservative Federalist Society.
The desperate Ed Whelan-concocted-story — prepared with the aid of a top conservative PR firm, and circulated to top Republican leaders — is further evidence that Republicans want Kavanaugh on the Court to fulfill their rigid, nasty agenda.
I find myself in agreement, that many fundamentalist Christians (and their leaders) want this nominee confirmed. As we say in Kentucky “Stop the Presses!”
Kavanaugh is a conservative. The fact that conservative organizations want him confirmed, should come as no surprise to anyone either.
What is your point?
My point is that you play dumb and you are a rightwing anti-union, sexist, racist zealot.
I am none of these. I was in an interracial marriage. I do not belong to the KKK. I have nothing against labor unions, my wife used to belong to the Machinists’ union. I am not a chauvinist.
I am generally conservative on most topics. Stipulated.
Charles, correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t you said several times you are married to a Russian.
I’m confused. Please go into detail and explain how being married to a Russian is an interracial marriage.
I think the point is that we also wanted Merrick Garland confirmed. No one tried to do underhanded actions to get him confirmed.
You seem fine with the Republicans claiming that another teen in the school attempted to rape a 15 year old instead of Kavanaugh, even though they don’t have a shred of evidence that it is true. It’s all fine you say because we know their views so therefore they should be allowed to use any dirty and unethical tactics and lie under oath if necessary — as Kavanaugh did — to achieve their goals and the public must accept it.
You seem to misunderstand democracy. Richard Nixon won both the electoral college AND the popular vote by one of the largest margins in history. Everyone knew what his positions were.
That did not mean that the public should condone unethical and illegal actions by him.
Did you grow up in a democracy? I don’t think you understand what a democracy means. Once elected, someone doesn’t get complete power to do illegal and unethical things and say “but I was elected so shut up and let them do it”.
Brett Kavanaugh made sure his very close friend Ed Whelan pointed the finger at someone else. Whether he did it through a 3rd party doesn’t matter, because he condoned it and there was unethical behavior in why he had the name of the woman before it was public.
This shouldn’t surprise us from the nominee who looked the American people in the eye and said that this was an absolute truth: ““No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.”
There is a reason that we have a confirmation process. In America, we don’t believe a President nor any nominees are above the law.
It used to be the case that confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice for life required 60 votes. That forced presidents to choose moderates and reputable people. Eliminating the 60-vote majority was a terrible mistake.
Wikipedia:
The nuclear option (or constitutional option) is a parliamentary procedure that allows the United States Senate to override a rule – specifically the 60-vote rule to close debate – by a simple majority of 51 votes, rather than the two-thirds supermajority normally required to amend the rules. The option is invoked when the majority leader raises a point of order that only a simple majority is needed to close debate on certain matters. The presiding officer denies the point of order based on Senate rules, but the ruling of the chair is then appealed and overturned by majority vote, establishing new precedent.
This procedure effectively allows the Senate to decide any issue by simple majority vote, regardless of existing procedural rules such as Rule XXII which requires the consent of 60 senators (out of 100) to end a filibuster for legislation, and 67 for amending a Senate rule. The term “nuclear option” is an analogy to nuclear weapons being the most extreme option in warfare.
In November 2013, Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments (except for appointments to the Supreme Court). In April 2017, Senate Republicans used the nuclear option to eliminate the exception for Supreme Court nominees, after the nomination of Neil Gorsuch failed to meet the requirement of 60 votes for ending the debate.[1][2]
As of January 2018, a three-fifths majority vote is still required to end debates on legislation.[3]
@NYC Teacher: You have some interesting points. Most Dems wanted Merrick Garland to get a hearing, and a vote. This did not happen. Personally, I thought he was a fine jurist.
Don’t put words in my mouth. I support Dr. Ford’s getting a public hearing, and testifying under oath.
I do not need any lectures on democracy. I have lived under communism, and under Islamic Sharia law. I am a veteran, I have defended our republic and sworn an oath to defend our constitution. I let most of the defamatory comments here slide. This assertion of yours, makes me both angry and sad.
I fully support the nominating, and confirmation process. I think that the accuser is entitled to fully air any facts out in public, and under oath. I have never said otherwise.
@Diane: I am with you, on requiring a super-majority to obtain confirmation (for the Supreme Court). The 60 vote requirement, forced bi-partisanship and compromise.
It was the Dems who made it possible to get a confirmation with a simple majority. The Repub leader at the time (McConnell) counseled against it.
As I pointed out, the Dems and Republicans were both responsible for eliminating the super majority. That was a terrible mistake.
The Republicans failure to give Merrick Garland a hearing when he was appointed year before the election was outrageous. He should be on the Supreme Court, not Gorsuch, who is a radical extremist. Nor Kavanaugh. Both went to the same elite prep school. Shame on Georgetown Prep.
See my post at 1:53pm. I said WAS married to a Chinese (past tense). From 1977 through 1993, I was married to a Chinese woman. I married my current wife (Russian) in 2000.
Kavanaugh’s second accuser lives in Boulder. Note that 2nd accuser, Ramirez, is no slouch.
QUOTE from news article: “According to media reports, Ramirez lives in Boulder and is a Family and Children Services volunteer coordinator for Boulder County and a board member at Boulder’s Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Nonviolence.”
Representing Ramirez is former DA for Boulder County, Stan Garrett. (Stan Garnett is from Boulder and graduated from one of our local high schools.) One of the educators who was influential in Garnett’s life is: retired teacher/educator/counselor Dorothy Rupert, woman extraordinaire, who was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. We have Dorothy Rupert Day as designated legally … 10/23 of every year is Dorothy Rupert Day.
The below is in the Boulder Daily Camera this morning, 9/24/18.
Kavanaugh accuser emerges in Boulder
By Lisa Mascaro and Mary Clare Jalonick
Associated Press
WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled a hearing Thursday for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, a woman who says he sexually assaulted her as a teenager, as a claim of sexual misconduct emerged from a Colorado woman.
The New Yorker magazine reported Sunday night that Senate Democrats were investigating a second woman’s accusation of sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh dating to the 198384 academic year, Kavanaugh’s first at Yale University.
The New Yorker said 53-yearold Deborah Ramirez described the incident in an interview after being contacted by the magazine. Ramirez recalled that Kavanaugh exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away, the magazine reported.
Ramirez is being represented by Stan Garnett, the former district attorney in Boulder County, the New Yorker reported.
According to media reports, Ramirez lives in Boulder and is a Family and Children Services volunteer coordinator for Boulder County and a board member at Boulder’s Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Nonviolence.
‘I didn’t want any of this,’ she told the New Yorker. ‘But now I have to speak.’ In a statement provided by the White House, Kavanaugh said the event ‘did not happen’ and that the allegation was ‘a smear, plain and simple.’ A White House spokeswoman added in a second statement that the allegation was ‘designed to tear down a good man.’
Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, called Sunday night for the ‘immediate postponement’ of any further action on Kavanaugh’s nomination. She also asked the committee’s chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, to have the FBI investigate the allegations of both Ford and Ramirez.
The New Yorker said it contacted Ramirez after learning of a possible involvement in an incident with Kavanaugh and that the allegation came to Democratic senators through a civil rights lawyer. She had been considering speaking to the magazine for at least a week. Meanwhile, Republicans were pressing for a swift hearing and a vote.
The magazine reported that Ramirez was reluctant at first to speak publicly ‘partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident.’ She also acknowledged reluctance ‘to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.’ The magazine reported that after ‘six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections’ to recall the incident.
The new information came hours after the Senate committee agreed to a date and time for a hearing after nearly a week of uncertainty over whether Ford would appear to tell her story.
The agreement and the latest accusation set the stage for a dramatic showdown as Kavanaugh and Ford each tell their side of the story. The developments could also determine the fate of Kavanaugh’s confirmation, which hangs on the votes of a handful of senators.
It had seemed assured before Ford, a 51-year-old California college professor, went public a week ago with her allegation that Kavanaugh assaulted her at a party when they were in high school. Kavanaugh , 53, an appel late court judge, has denied Ford’s allegation and said he want ed to testify as soon as possible to clear his name.
Michael Avenatti, the attorney representing porn actress Stormy Daniels in her legal fight with President Donald Trump, inserted himself into the maelstrom Sunday night when he claimed to represent a woman with information about high school-era parties attended by Kavanaugh and urged the Senate to investigate. Avenatti told The Associated Press that he will disclose his client’s identity in the coming days and that she is prepared to testify before the committee, as well as provide names of corroborating witnesses.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, wrangled with Ford’s lawyers for the last week over the exact terms of her appearance. She made several requests, some of which were accommodated – a Thursday hearing, three days later than originally scheduled, and a smaller hearing room with less press access to avoid a media circus, for example. Grassley’s staff also agreed to let Ford testify without Kavanaugh in the room, for there to be only one camera in the room, ‘adequate’ breaks and a high security presence.
The committee said it would not negotiate on other points, though, including Ford’s desire for additional witnesses and a request to testify after, not before, Kavanaugh.
‘As with any witness who comes before the Senate, the Senate Judiciary Committee cannot hand over its constitutional duties to attorneys for outside witnesses,’ Mike Davis, Grassley’s top nominations counsel, wrote in an email exchange with Ford’s lawyers obtained by The Associated Press. ‘The committee determines which witnesses to call, how many witnesses to call, in what order to call them, and who will question them. These are non-negotiable.’ Ford’s lawyers said it was still unclear who will ask questions, as Republicans were trying to hire an outside female counsel who could take over the questioning. The 11 senators on the GOP side of the dais are all men, which could send an unwanted message on live television against the backdrop of the #MeToo era. They could also use Republican staff attorneys on the committee.
Democratic senators were expected to ask their own questions.
‘We were told no decision has been made on this important issue, even though various senators have been dismissive of her account and should have to shoulder their responsibility to ask her questions,’ the attorneys for Ford said in a statement.
As he builds a case for his innocence, Kavanaugh plans to turn over to the committee calendars from the summer of 1982 that don’t show a party consistent with Ford’s description of the gathering in which she says he attacked her, The New York Times reported Sunday. The newspaper reported that it had examined the calendars and noted they list basketball games, movie outings, football workouts, college interviews, and a few parties with names of friends other than those identified by Ford.
This is about more than “letting the accuser testify under oath.” This is about the committee protecting Kavanaugh by controlling who else can speak. Despite their claims that Kavanaugh’s best friend Mark Judge denies it, the Republicans absolutely refuse to let him or anyone else testify under oath because that would subject him to actual questions from Democrats instead of making a self-serving carefully worded statement and that being considered the same as testimony. Given the Republicans are happy to call witness after witness after witness whenever they want to, their insistence that no one but Kavanaugh and his accuser can testify is absurd. When Clarence Thomas had similar accusations, he called many witnesses in support. But it is obvious the Republicans know that any witnesses for Kavanaugh would not stand up to scrutiny.
Please don’t blame the Democrats for getting rid of the 60 vote requirement for judges. That was after the Republicans used their 40 votes to prevent Obama from appointing almost any federal judges at all and leaving seats unfilled for years. The filibuster existed because both parties used it when it was IMPORTANT. Then the Republican Party decided to use it to block everything, period. Expecting the Democrats with their 59 seat majority to say “okay we will spend the next 8 years doing nothing despite our large majority” is really disingenuous of you. if you want to blame someone, blame the abuse of the filibuster by the 41 Republicans in the Senate.
If you want to change a rule, you abuse it over and over again until the other party has no choice but to change it. This is why our regulations must be frequently changed as unethical people with no moral compass at all take advantage. Republicans under Obama proved they could not be trusted to handle the filibuster in the moral and ethical way that it was assumed normal Americans who believed in democracy and not power would treat it. And then came our current Republican party — the same one embracing Trump who will do anything — including shut down Mueller – that threatens their power.
Blaming anyone but the Republicans for the demise of the filibuster is like blaming honest people because they were stupid enough to believe Donald Trump’s promises about Trump U. People expect other people to behave in reasonably ethical ways.
**NYC public school parent: Nicely stated, about the change of rules. Somehow, I smell Karl Rove at the background of this somewhere. CBK
For what it’s worth, I’m with you on this one. Good explanation. We certainly don’t need more predators on the Supreme Court, whether or not they “remember” being predators. The whole thing is Anita Hill 2.0 and we now know thanks to the confessions of hit man for hire David Brock, that Hill was truthful all along.
BTW, though, I believe she goes by Dr. Blasey, not Ford.
The young Ford, by her account, was pushed into a room with the door then locked, had a hand over her mouth that she thought might kill her from suffocation, the weight of two men on top of her and music so loud she felt helpless to get aid. When she found an opportunity to escape, she ran to the nearest room and immediately locked the door to prevent Kavanaugh and Judge’s entrance.
If the account is true (there is no reason for her to lie), Ford was extremely lucky that she didn’t die nor was physically harmed. Having read Mark Judge’s views, I fear for vulnerable people in his path.
Ed Whelan’s scapegoating of an innocent man to rid Kavanaugh of the taint which met no denial from Kavanaugh nor Judge, reflects a win at all costs attitude which is characteristic of the Republican mindset.
Surrounding himself with enough attractive female law clerks that it attracted note is not an endorsement for Kavanaugh nor are his judicial opinions. His entire life is one of privilege and his entire record reflects a sense of entitlement.
She was 15 years old.
I believe her also. Kavanaugh said that he wasn’t at that party, but Professor Ford hasn’t even identified to what she is referring. Also, it is the innocent person who asks for a full investigation and asks the friend who was said to be a witness to testify.
Sent from my iPhone
>
I believe her, too.
BTW, I’m not as prepared as you are to forgive him for youthful transgressions, and I don’t think the comparison with black men in prison for crimes as adolescents is fair. It’s a whole different ball game to come from wealth and power and influence and get into drinking and debauchery because you can and feel entitled to female bodies on one hand, vs. coming from the hopelessness of poverty and racism and doing desperate, if stupid and wrong, things as a result.
People like Kavanaugh are protected cradle to grave for practically whatever they do. Even if Dr. Blasey had accused him at the time, no one would have believed her, Kavanaugh would have had the best lawyers money could buy, nothing would happen to him and her life would have been ruined. Those black men in prison, on the other hand, have probably done less than Kavanaugh, it’s just that they’ve been caught, tried and convicted (or, more likely, plea bargained and convicted) without recourse to any benefit of the doubt much less proper representation.
Here’s a good analysis of that wall of protection built around men like Kavanaugh and his sponsor, Trump. (Apologies for some of this language in Diane’s living room.)
You got this right: “People like Kavanaugh are protected cradle to grave for practically whatever they do.”
This is why the entitled get away with lying, murder, rape, and thievery, ss well as human and child trafficking. But, many still go to church on Sundays … ACTING. The left hand hides while the right hand ….!
Like Kavanaugh I am also a grad (witj honors) of an all-male Catholic high school. But I also attended three years of summer school at a fine public high school (to be in the concert band and take academic classes so that I could start college a year early). So I can contrast the culture of an all-male Catholic HS with that of a coed public school. The cultures were rather different. The public school culture was more respectful and calm, less boisterous and vulgar, and girls were not treated as “things.” So am inclined to believe Dr Ford rather then Kavanaugh. And Diane is right: A Justice Kavanaugh would be very bad news for civil liberties, women’s rights of conscience and health, public education, and religious liberty.
Thank you for providing the viewpoint.
Thank you, Edd.
I believe Professor Ford also. Judge Kavanaugh said that he wasn’t at “that party”, but Professor Ford hasn’t even identified to what party she is referring. Also, it is the innocent person who asks for a full investigation and the innocent person who asks the friend who was said to be a witness to testify.
At the end of this, will there be any governmental institution in which we can trust? Certainly not the Senate. Certainly not the President. And maybe not the Supreme Court.
Where will we be at the end of this? In what governmental institution can we have trust? Certainly not the U.S. Senate. Certainly not the President. And maybe not the Supreme Court.
“In what governmental institution can we have trust? Certainly not the U.S. Senate. Certainly not the President. And maybe not the Supreme Court.”
We ca not trust the “current” GOP and/or Corporate dominated U.S. Senate and Supreme Court, but both are not set in stone. Every election and nomination can change both of those government institutions.
The people of this nation elected the congress and the president. They are our political servants, because the people are sovereign under the constitution.
If you have some problem with your political servants, go to the polls in six weeks, and vote for alternate candidates.
(The supreme court has life tenure, and the presidency will be up for election in 2020).
We have to trust the government, they are our government. Nevertheless, we must watch and observe carefully. If your political servant is operating in a fashion that is not satisfactory to you, then contact them and set them straight. They work for you.
“Government is like fire, a dangerous servant, and a terrible master”- George Washington.
We will.
Charles: “If your political servant is operating in a fashion that is not satisfactory to you, then contact them and set them straight. They work for you.”
Really? My Senator Todd Young [R-IN] was given $2,896,732 by the NRA. Trump was given $30 million. Guess where they stand on gun control.
I write comments regularly to my state and federal Congressmen. So far, they don’t work for me. They might work for someone who wants Roe vs. Wade eliminated and for gays to all be put in jail if they continue their evil deeds. It’s okay for children of immigrants to be taken away from their parents. It’s an abomination to me.
I don’t have enough money for my ‘political servant’ to work for me. I contact them regularly and I’m lucky if I get a form letter that says nothing.
I always vote.
Carol,
It is news to Charles that your senator is influenced by a contribution of $2 Million from the NRA and that it matters more to him than your vote. Charles is a provocateur.
Charles is an ignorant, fumbling provocateur. I suspect he is sleep deprived and is suffering from some form of Alt-Right dementia.
I understand your frustration. I am not at all surprised that politicians who receive contributions will more likely to vote in a manner that is acceptable to their contributors.
That is why, I have advocated public financing of campaigns for many years.
If anyone proposed campaign financing, you would oppose it.
Really, Charles, “We have to trust the government, they are our government.”
No, Charles, we do not have to trust out government. In fact, we should doubt everything that are alleged government does and question them every step of the way and hold them accountable when we catch them lying.
In fact, for every lie, a cut. Imagine if our elected representatives were cut, sliced, each time they lied.
“Death by a Thousand Cuts is a book by the historians Timothy Brook and Gregory Blue and scientific researcher Jérôme Bourgon which examines the use of slow slicing or lingchi, a form of torture and capital punishment practised in mid- and late-Imperial China from the tenth century until its abolition in 1905.”
How many cuts would Trump have by now and would he have any skin left?
I would love to get the big money, and the resultant influence out of politics. I strongly support public financing of campaigns, and I have been supportive for many years.
Please don’t overlook my post Q Nevertheless, we must watch and observe carefully. END Q
I remember Vietnam/Watergate well. One good thing that came out of the Watergate scandal, is a healthy cynicism about government. The citizens must keep vigilant and on guard against the excesses of government.
Charles, you contradict yourself so regularly, you rely so heavily on rightwing sources, that I have given up. I don’t believe you.
Diane I think Charles likes to see his name in print, regardless of what’s being said–a total waste of everyone’s time. CBK
As you sometimes do, you captured my own thinking on this issue more clearly and succinctly than I could have myself.
Diane – so sorry to hear you are another in our sisterhood of silence…
if falsely accused of attempted rape (you weren’t in the place it was said you were and had never met your accuser) wouldn’t you want the authorities to investigate to clear your name? meanwhile Kavanaugh sits idly by as an investigation is blocked…
Kavanaugh could publicly ask Mark Judge to testify under oath to help him clear his name, yet he sits by as his corroborating witness refuses to back him in any venue where lying is a crime…
remember Kavanaugh’s gross yearbook comments; his unwillingness to answer under oath about whether he was “trouble” as a kid; remember Judge’s book describing Kavanaugh as blackout drunk in high school…
Then wonder how every GOP Senator bar none appears to believe Kavanaugh…
what sort of major a-hole would want to come by their appt to SCOTUS in the way all this is going down. an honest, good intention person who was innocent would defend his reputation or if he couldn’t, withdraw his nomination…
If Kavanaugh wanted to be cleared, he would insist ona thorough FBI investigation.
Instead, he and his supporters are fighting it.
Some people conveniently forget that the accusations against Bill Clinton were thoroughly investigated by Ken Starr, a prosecutor with unlimited power to put anyone under oath who could help prove the accuser’s allegations were truthful. As hard as Ken Starr tried — and he tried very, very hard — he could not prove it.
I think Kavanaugh should get the same treatment as Bill Clinton. And that means that an anti-Kavanaugh prosecutor is given unlimited time, money, and unlimited subpoena power to see whether Kavanaugh or his accuser is more believable.
The fact that the Republicans don’t want even the Republican FBI to investigate nor are they willing to call the one witness who was also said to be there to testify under oath demonstrates how frightened the Republicans are that this is true.
Maybe it’s the fact that Kavanaugh was a huge defender of sexual harrassing right wing Judge Alex Kozinski that has the Republicans so worried. When a sexual harrassing federal judge that you vouched for turns out to be entirely different from what you claimed he was, the public starts to wonder what Kavanaugh’s definition of what is “appropriate” might be and start to wonder whether Kavanaugh has a very, very warped view of what is appropriate behavior for powerful white men.
Exactly right, Diane.
Thank you.
“Blaming the Victim” is an old game.
There is no allegation of any violation of federal law. Therefore, the FBI has no jurisdiction. see
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/factors-dont-favor-criminal-charges-against-kavanaugh/2018/09/19/0356ba7c-bbc4-11e8-adb8-01125416c102_story.html?utm_term=.317ee3d62397
There might be a possibility of the FBI re-opening the background investigation on the nominee.
The FBI investigated Anita Hill.
In case you didn’t see this.
I agree and I think Kavanaugh should have handled it exactly as she suggested. Regardless of what happens his reputation is tainted.
Sent from my iPhone
>
Thank you, Diane, for sharing. So sorry it happened to you, too.
I believe Christine Blasey Ford. She’s brave.
Okay, here’s me going public for the first time ever. Diane gave me courage.
I was also sexually molested at age 9 soon to be 10. I tried to not think about it and thought that if I didn’t think about the sexual abuse, it would just go away. NOPE. I struggled with this for years and years and years trying to pretend this never happened.
I finally told my mother when she was in her late 80’s and I was in my late 60’s. And I told my husband only after we were married for several years.
Many females (all ages) are sexually molested and NEVER say a word. It’s SICK.
We certainly don’t have signs on us that read: “Molest me.”
Thank goodness for the “Me TOO” movement.
Thank you, Yvonne, for finding the courage to share this today. I’m so sorry.
I stared at the screen for a LONG time before I commented. People need to know how vast this problem really is.
You are brave, as is Diane, and all the others who speak out.
Yvonne,
I’m so sorry to read this. I wish our experiences were unique. Sadly, they are not.
Thank you for being brave, Diane. Your post helped me to tell … on this very public site.
I am sorry for what you have gone through, Yvonne. I too believe Dr. Blasey Ford. She is not a public person. She is an academic. She has nothing to gain from the public exposure. She is taking a stand at great personal risk. I believe she is acting on the courage of her convictions.
Yvonne, thank you for speaking out. I’m sorry that you had to live through such abuse.
It makes me sick that GOP Senators, who know nothing about sexual abuse, have already made up their minds that Dr. Ford is making all of this up. Of course there is the political end of it. They all want our rights to be abolished and Kavanaugh is a good candidate for that to happen. It will take years to undo the damage that an ultra-conservative Supreme Court will do.
So very ugly that you had to live with this, Yvonne. Thank you for speaking out.
Thanks for this, Diane, but I can’t believe you are naive enough to think that “that would have been the end of it” if Kavanaugh had simply acknowledged that he tried to rape Ford and said he was sorry. Unless you mean “that would have been the end of Kavanaugh’s nomination.” In which case I would agree.
I wrote what I believe.
I would actually have more respect for a man who admits his mistakes and takes responsibility for them and shows he has learned from them. We have all made mistakes. The question is have we learned from them and has that learning changed our behavior?
Exactly my reaction. Lying is not a good response. If he wanted to prove his innocence, he would demand a thorough FBI investigation.
Ford believed her life was in peril. Youthful transgressions don’t take victims to that point.
In the alleged situation, Kavanaugh assumed Ford would want a witness to observe his coupling with her which shows his character.
The same lack of restraint is shown in his alleged gambling.
Why would a woman come forward with a fake story against a powerful man knowing that her life will change mainly for the worse in many ways? Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh deserve an independent investigation and witnesses need to be subpoenaed to testify under oath. Murkowski and Collins should REFUSE CATEGORICALLY to vote yes on this nomination until this happens.They should be outraged that Mitch McConnell presumes to know their vote and speak for them. They should aggressively challenge him and shame him for speaking for them. A woman said to me today, “Nothing seems to change for women.” Things don’t change because women don’t hang together and be tough and aggressive as nails. They say they do but they don’t. Men have always supported each other, protected each other, lied for each other and elevated each other to powerful positions. It’s time for women to do the same.
Oops. Of course I didn’t mean women should lie for each other. They should, however, support, protect and elevate each other.
I agree with you. This is horrible and makes me want to move to Canada. So sad to hear of you experience.
In a he said, she said it is the credibility of each person which is used to weigh the testimony.
On one side we have a woman who is not known to lie.
On the other side, we have a man who – as very first action as nominee – told the American people a blatant lie because he figured as an entitled white man he could get away with it: “No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.”
I don’t know which party is telling the truth. But I do know that Kavanaugh has proven to the American people that he is more than willing to “stretch” the truth – even under oath – to get this job. Did Kavanaugh help Judge Pickering? Kavanaugh insists under oath that he did not, despite all the e-mails from that time showing he did.
Kavanaugh is like the boy who cried wolf. He made his own bed by demonstrating a very unattractive willingness to tell blatant untruths. And when it comes to he said, she said, Kavanaugh’s word is as worthless as the boy who kept crying wolf.
Thank you, Diane, for speaking up about this.
Another breathtakingly thoughtful, wise letter!
On one point addressed early in this: There are more black men in prison right now than there were enslaved black people in 1855. During a recent election, there was a marijuana initiative on the California ballot. The Sacramento Bee did a study and found that white teens in California smoked pot a little more than did black teens there, but black teens were 17 times as likely to be arrested for it. The US still LEADS THE WORLD in incarceration rates, having more people, as a percentage of its population, in prison, jail, or on probation than does any other country except the tiny island of Seychelles. All this Diane knows, and it informed her commentary, for which I, for one, am grateful.
Recently, a young African-American friend of mine was stopped at random on the streets of Tampa and searched by a policeman. She had on her person a “roach” (a tiny stub of a joint). For this, not a crime at all in much of the US now, she endured months of probation, confinement in her apartment, court appearances, random police checks, and general harassment, as well as the costs of her defense.
About this business when you were 12. How utterly awful!!! Most women I have known well enough for them to discuss such matters with me have reported experiences like this. It’s utterly mind-blowing how common such ugliness is. I hope that all that is changing, that there is an awakening occurring. It seems that way. That’s always wrenching, these phase transitions, but Lord, is this one needed!!!!
The other day, the African-featured son of a friend (I call him that because she has done enough genealogy to ascertain scotts-Irish blood ) was pulled over for having a new car with a temporary tag. The pretense was that the tag was mounted incorrectly, defined as pretense by his immediate relatives who are in law enforcement. When asked for his driver liscence, he slowly reached in his pocket, watching the policeman all the time.
The real issue here is not whether Kavanaugh committed this crime or not. It is whether he will require that Auhoritarianism penetrate society no further. It is time that we demand consistent justice for all people. If the justice was serious about this, he would simply withdraw his name from consideration now that a sizable portion of the population does not trust his word.
Aside from this issue, it is fascinating to see the Republician leaders suggestion that this is simple obstructionism. Can you say Merrick Garland? What do they expect in hardball? Coach pitch?
It is time that we demand consistent justice for all people. If the justice was serious about this, he would simply withdraw his name from consideration now that a sizable portion of the population does not trust his word.
and
Can you say Merrick Garland? What do they expect in hardball? Coach pitch?
LOL. I emphatically agree.
Horrified to hear that you, too, were a victim as a child, Dr. Ravitch! Sickening.
Thank you Diane and I’m so sorry for your past; I share that past as well. The horror of this, beyond what I believe happened to Dr. Blasey, is that the Senate Republicans care more about their party than about investigating whether the likely next Supreme Court Justice tried to rape a girl. They’d be fine with a presumed rapist on the Court as long as he votes with the religious right and with big business. They disgust me to my core. And btw, it looks as though attempted rape in Maryland has no statute of limitations and a 17 year old can be tried as adult…
Diane The problem with senators saying that Ford “got things mixed up” is that they won’t apply that same so-called reasoning to Kavanaugh. And it’s worse for him because of the drinking thing. It’s HIM who would have been much more likely to “get things mixed up” or to forget it altogether. But in my own experience, several “incidents” happened when I was a child when I was too young to know even how to express it. I KNEW something terribly wrong was happening, like being soul-poisoned; but I had no words for it at the time or people who could draw it out of me if they noticed something wrong.
How willfully ignorant they all are. CBK
Thank you, Lisa and Catherine. Two more speak out. 👏
The sexual molesters count on us not saying anything … what a bunch of creeps.
Dump and his band of gangsters make my skin crawl.
It is amazing to me the extent to which people are willing to give up their integrity and credibility to hold powerful offices. How can they look themselves in the mirror? They are hollow shells.
Dr. Ford first detailed the incident with Kavanaugh 6 years ago — long before Kavanaugh was a Supreme Court nominee — in a private marriage counseling session with a counselor and her husband present. Her husband says that what she is saying today is the same as what she revealed back then. The fact that she revealed this 6 years ago in 2012 with no idea back then that Kavanaugh would be a Supreme Court nominee in 2018 gives solid credence to what she says…and she made the revelation knowing that she is most likely to be ripped apart by the Senate Judiciary Committee just as Anita Hill was and that Kavanaugh will be affirmed just like Clarence Thomas was. Nothing has changed over the years, and more and more Americans have come to regard the Supreme Court as just another politicized branch of the federal government. And that’s a genuine tragedy for our nation, because the Supreme Court depends upon the vast majority of Americans believing in the Court’s non-political impartiality. When that faith is fully and finally gone, the last vestige of faith in our government is gone. It’s all just bought and paid for, and is no longer even in fiction the government of We the People.
The Kavanaugh situation provides a rude awakening for the 53% of White women who voted for Trump, assuming that male Republicans limited their bigotry to race.
The all-male panel who plans to cross examine Ford sought to find a woman to do their dirty work for them, having her fire their questions at Ford. Typical. No doubt, one of their questions will be what was Ford wearing as a teenage girl to entice Kavanaugh to want to undress her.
It was very telling when Kavanaugh said he wanted to remembered as a good father and judge but, had to be reminded being a good husband had value.
VOTE!
IMPEACH!
We are fighting for our lives and this Earth.
A national walkout in support of Ford is planned for Monday. WFP asks us to wear black and step outside at 1:00 p.m., capture a selfie and post it on social media,
hashtag #believe survivors.
This was posted on the Idaho Daily Statesman in Boise. [I grew up in Boise.] It is encouraging to see that teens are getting involved and that they support Dr. Blasey.
……………………………
Idaho teens reached out to Kavanaugh accuser. Now they’re getting attention, too
BY KATY MOELLER
kmoeller@idahostatesman.com
September 21, 2018 08:41 PM
Updated 3 hours 46 minutes ago
Teens are watching. They are listening.
They are also getting involved in the national conversation about sexual violence.
“We feel connected to the 15-year-old girl still living inside of you, and are outraged by the 17-year-old boy still living inside of him,” wrote three Idaho girls in an open letter to Christine Blasey Ford, a university professor who has accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her at a party when they were teenagers in Maryland in the 1980s.
Kavanaugh is President Donald Trump’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, filling the seat that was held by Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kanvanugh has denied Ford’s allegations.
The teens’ letter, posted on the Change.org website Wednesday, had received more than 24,300 signatures in support by early Saturday afternoon. It has been featured in articles by The Hill, Teen Vogue, Allure and The Washington Post.
The Post interviewed teens across the country, some of whom expressed concern that Kavanaugh’s supporters and others are offering up defenses of “it was a different time” and “boys will be boys” for what might have been a violent attack.
Read more here: https://www.idahostatesman.com/latest-news/article218829805.html#storylink=cpy
https://www.idahostatesman.com/latest-news/article218829805.html
I met thousands of children, in a 5ive decade career as a teacher, many spent in primary grades, and I ‘followed’ many local boys from early childhood through adulthood as I subbed in their schools. i know one thing, that environment and experiences can change a child, b his personality is set for life. He is who he is at 7, in the psychological makeup.
The nasty, selfish narcissists were unchanged as 17 year olds, and are miserable human beings at 40!
Kavanaugh wrote In his senior yearbook, a quote from playwright Sir Noel Coward, which read, “certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs.”
This sham of a Congress needs to be replaced.it is time for Women to have power in this nation, and in our businesses.
If Kavanaugh is made a justice, the GOP is going to make a hit from US, FROM WOMEN!
& FYI, I have a brother and 2 male cousins,
and I have two sons, one is 48 and one is 50. Never, as a boy would they do such a thing.
Their respect and kindness were there always.
I have 2 grandsons. One is 12 and one is 18. They are not always mature, and can be silly and foolish, but they are always fine people. The oldest went to an ‘elite’ school, and he was also honored by the town, when he became an Eagle Scout. He is in college now, and I know that women are safe with him, because he grasps HONOR AND INTEGRITY.
Sorry. the quote was from Kavanaugh’s friend and alleged accomplice (Mark Judge)—who thought it great to associate himself with this quote in their high school yearbook 1983:
“Certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs”
I’m with you 100%, Diane. I don’t believe in giving up on kids, but this is no longer about Kavanaugh being a kid when it happened. You’re right about all the other less advantaged kids who are in prison for doing what he did, too. Not only does it sound like this man would have no qualms about locking THEM up for doing that today, but he’d probably also deny women the right to have an abortion even when raped.
I was 20 when it happened to me and like many women, I didn’t report it to the authorities either. It’s very scary to be so overpowered by men and feel so helpless. The last thing I wanted to do was relive all that. So I tried to deal with it myself and just move on. It ended up impacting my ability to form close personal relationships though and resulted in my going into therapy multiple times, but it took decades just to get the correct diagnosis. It’s very challenging to “get over it” when you’ve been so violated and traumatized. I ended up with PTSD for life, and my inability to feel comfortable being close to people meant I lost out on love, marriage and family, too. It happened a very long time ago but it truly ruined my life and I’m still trying to cope with it.
I am so sorry that your life and goals were derailed by this event. I wish it had not happened to you, or anyone. You are so brave to come forward today.
homelesseducator,
You, too! Thank you.
Being sexually molested never goes Away. You are brave.
Yvonne Siu-Runyan and Homeless Educator: And you never forget who did it. CBK
Thanks so much, Christine and Yvonne!
It helps a lot to know that there are understanding women who get it, especially when it seems like no guy ever really could.
homelesseducator: It is too bad that most people don’t recognize the life long difficulties that can be attributed to any type of abuse. I’m sorry for what you endured.
I had severe emotional and mental abuse from my mother. I had therapy in my early 50’s and met with a therapist twice a week for five years. I am grateful for her help. I had reached the point where I had been continuously depressed for 10 years and was close to the breaking point. It has been a life long goal to overcome the abuse. I have forgiven my mother. She was also living a life of depression. Fortunately, I am fine now.
I can’t fully understand sexual abuse but I do understand abuse. It makes me ill that we have Senators who don’t have a clue, and don’t care, about the lasting trauma that abuse of any kind can cause. [Look at the lack of funding healthcare for abused people.] These narrow minded people are our leaders. They accept the Orange IDIOT and support his abuses. I don’t know what to say except that we certainly don’t elect the ‘best and brightest’. In too many cases we elect those who lie the best and cover up. Then we reap the results.
I can’t begin to completely understand this issue, but that won’t stop me from trying and questioning myself on my response(s) in the future. I also believe her, but that’s not the issue that bothers me the most. As a citizen, as one who try to understand both the procedural mechanisms of governing and the motivations of the public and its officials, a few other things really bother me:
It bothers me that any elected member of any level of American government would put convenience and calendar before the Constitution…much less the Senate committee responsible for vetting Supreme Court nominees.
It bothers me that members, especially those in the majority, will create the appearance of fairness when no sentient being could argue that they haven’t already made up their minds.
It bothers me that I really don’t—and perhaps never will—fully understand the motivations and actions, however delayed or sporadic they may seem to some, caused by the trauma of sexual assault. It bothers me more that it doesn’t bother people in positions of power and policy making.
It really doesn’t matter—and I mean this rhetorically, my intention is not to demean anyone—who is right or not. There are too many substantive issues at stake. We don’t need to make this even more political. But I fear we ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.
The patriarchy seems to stands for law, like the due process amendment, whereas the feminarchy seems to stand for exemptions in cases of sexual impropriety. Which is more important?
Dude, are you for real?
Harlan once left many comments on Diane’s site. He often sounded sort of like Charles but sometimes worse. In fact, when Harlan sort of vanished, Charles popped up.
Different tone.
Harlan sounds evil, intentionally so.
Charles has a pretense of ignorance.
Harlan: What planet did you come from? Aliens have a better sense of fairness and reality than you do. Please don’t ever run for any public office.
Far-right winger Harlan is a retired, former teacher from one of those elite private schools in America which churns out homegrown aristocrats and jettisons the spawns of privilege to a life of further entitlement by virtue of their social and economic birthright and unearned power.
Michigan’s GOP governor, venture capitalist Rick Snyder, sent his daughters to the private school where Harlan taught (which is one of the most expensive private schools in the state) while cutting funding to public schools. Another example of how politicians and wealthy business people with power promote the worst schools for other people’s children while seeking the best for their own kids, the school was embroiled in controversy due to its fundraising campaign to support its low class sizes, the best technology, etc: http://www.michiganradio.org/post/tuition-price-tag-causes-controversy-gov-snyder
No doubt, Harlan adores Snyder and his legacies. They include being leader of the state with the most for-profit charter schools in the nation, giving us one of his chief supporters, Betsy DeVos, who prefers the funding of virtually unregulated, privately managed charters and voucher schools, including religious schools, with appointed boards, over supporting neighborhood public schools with democratically elected school boards, to oversee education in the entire country, as well as the Flint water crisis –all of which remain very serious concerns to people who actually have heart.
Republicans are so desperate to get Kavanugh on the Court, that they came up with this garbage:
“Ed Whelan, a former clerk to Antonin Scalia, and the close friend and adviser of Brett Kavanaugh hinted earlier this week that he had come into possession of evidence that would exonerate his friend…Whelan made this ‘evidence’ public, via an extended tweetstorm: Kavanaugh could not have done what Ford claimed, Whelan argued, because …someone else had. A lookalike. A doppelgänger….Whelan named the person he claimed was the real culprit in Ford’s alleged assault—a man, now a middle-school teacher, who had been a classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Georgetown Prep…by Friday morning, Whelan had deleted the tweetstorm and was apologizing…Whelan’s ‘revelations’ are revealing—about, in this case, the lengths to which people will go to resist negative assertions made about a powerful man who is currently in the process of seeking more power. About the desperation with which some will find facts that conform to their sense of the world—even when, summoned as arguments, those ‘facts’ are manifestly absurd.”
“Believing the doppelgänger defense requires first that one overlook how traumatic recollections seem to work—the way memories formed under the influence of intense emotion tend to be indelible in ways that everyday memories are not. It requires secondly that one assume that Ford, a professor who is an expert about the workings of the human mind, is ignorant about the workings of her own.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/09/about-those-brett-kavanaugh-doppelganger-theories/570952/
The stupid scenario described above was coordinated. Kathleen Parker, much to her eternal discredit, wrote a column about the doppelgänger at The Post. Orrin Hatch openly speculated about it. Apparently, Brett Kavanaugh broached the doppelgänger idea to Hatch and others. Republicans are SO adamant about getting this creeper on the Supreme Court that it defies belief that Kavanaugh was not somehow in the loop on the whole sordid affair.
For a whole host of reasons —the Ford sexual accusation, Kavanaugh’s past lies and rulings, Kavanaugh’s belief in a wholly discredited judicial philosophy (“originalism”), his association with torture during the Bush2 administration, his peculiar financial situation — Brett Kavanaugh is UNFIT to be on the United States Supreme Court.
Which is precisely why Republicans want him there.
Pretty soon we will be looking at the abolishment of Roe vs. Wade, the advancement of religious liberty laws and the humiliation of gays and transgender Americans. Kavanaugh will cause untold suffering while unleashing the conservative ‘religious’ on all of us. The message from Jesus to love and care for others, especially the poor, is deeply lost.
………………………………….
Trump Galvanized a Movement of Women. Kavanaugh Is Testing It.
…Dawn Laguens, the executive vice president of Planned Parenthood, which opposes Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination, described the confirmation struggle and the Senate’s handling of Dr. Blasey’s allegation as a clarifying moment and a test for the country.
“This is a distillation of the entire two years’ trajectory for women in this country,” Ms. Laguens said. “Are we respected? Are we believed? Are we equal?”
Fatima Goss Graves, president of the National Women’s Law Center, said the Senate’s reaction to Dr. Blasey’s account had already exposed an enormous gulf between the country’s political institutions and the outlook of many American women. Ms. Graves warned that attacks on Dr. Blasey would leave a deep mark on the country.
“It’s not just a message about Dr. Blasey Ford, it’s about survivors and about women,” Mr. Graves said. “And if they ignore that, I do not see how that is something that goes away fast. It will be a stain that they carry for a very long time.”…
But if the cultural mood of the country has appeared to turn strongly in favor of a progressive women’s rights agenda, Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination is also the pinnacle of a different social movement: the 45-year quest by activists on the right to overturn Roe v. Wade, the court decision that made abortion legal nationwide. For decades, tens of thousands of people have marched in the annual March for Life, and two in five women believe abortion should be illegal in most or all cases, according to the Pew Research Center.
And allies of Judge Kavanaugh say they are unwilling to back down over a single accusation they distrust, and one that comes after a contentious and highly partisan nomination hearing, calling the stakes far too high.
“The left wants this to be about the veracity of #MeToo, but it’s not,” said Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America, a group that led a “Women for Kavanaugh” bus tour this summer. “The election was about the direction of the country. This was a reckoning of what was promised. There’s been millions of dollars spent, thousands of volunteer hours spent on behalf of this nominee, it’s finally coming to the vote.”
At stake for conservatives are not only future court decisions to restrict abortion rights, but also to advance religious liberty laws and define the rights of gay and transgender Americans…
https://www.newsstandhub.com/the-new-york-times/trump-galvanized-a-movement-of-women-kavanaugh-is-testing-it
Dan Eggen
Verified account
@DanEggenWPost
Follow Follow @DanEggenWPost
Kavanaugh grew frustrated when it came to questions that dug into his private life, particularly his drinking habits and his sexual proclivities…He declined to answer some questions altogether, saying they were too personal”
This is how Kavanaugh responded to mock questions to prepare him. Of course he doesn’t want to admit who he really is.
It is amazing to me that we have three postings above recounting sexual assault. Amazing and disheartening. I suppose there was some shred of belief in the basic goodness of people left in my innocence of heart.
I cannot help but recall what Norman Cantor suggested in his book on John Of Gaunt and the end of the Middle Ages. Upper classes in the European continent regularly subscribed to a code of honor that honored chastity and fidelity in marriage, but regularly raided the peasant women for pleasure. These are people who considered American natives to be savage. Really?
This has, sadly, long ceased to amaze me, Roy, though I am still horrified, every time. I’ve heard too many such stories from friends and girlfriends. It’s mind-blowing how common this is.
Gad. Just how bad are these ‘elite’ schools. They are expensive and educated Trump. That doesn’t say much.
……………………
In the ’80, boys’ prep schools like Kavanaugh’s could be bastions of misogyny
Greg Jaffe, The Washington Post Published 10:06 am PDT, Thursday, September 20, 2018
…A childhood friend, who asked not to be named, attended Georgetown Prep and remembered Kavanaugh as a decent and “very conservative” person. His memories of Prep were less rosy. He recalled the Friday morning announcements, usually delivered by a high school senior. “After the [football] game, there will be a mixer. Girls from Holy Cross, Holy Child and Visitation . . . will . . . be . . . available,” he remembered the announcer saying lasciviously. The joke, my friend said, was a part of daily life, accepted by teachers and students. “It was gross,” he said. “I remember nothing else from high school. But I remember that.”
The girls – now women – of Holton-Arms have been wrestling with their own memories of that time and have come up with a definitive assessment of the culture. This past week more than 1,000 Holton alumnae signed a letter in support of Ford. Her account of being attacked was “all too consistent with stories we heard and lived while attending Holton,” their letter said…
https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/In-the-80-boys-prep-schools-like-Kavanaugh-s-13244677.php?utm_campaign=email-desktop&utm_source=CMS%20Sharing%20Button&utm_medium=social
At least he has a sense of morals. What is happening to the GOP that has none.
……………
My boss voted for Clarence Thomas. I still regret helping to write the speech defending that decision.
Stephen Rodrick, The Washington Post Published 9:12 am CDT, Friday, September 21, 2018
…If the hearing proceeds, senators will listen to both sides and then make statements indicating whom they believe and whether they will vote to confirm Kavanaugh to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.
When they do, they will be speaking words crafted by mostly young speechwriters and press secretaries. Some of those young staffers – perhaps especially those called on to explain votes for Kavanaugh, despite Ford’s assertions that he drunkenly and violently pinned her down and groped her – will not believe the words they are writing.
I know I didn’t. Back in 1991, I was deputy press secretary for Sen. Alan Dixon, an Illinois Democrat grappling with how to vote in the wake of the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill hearings. Dixon ultimately concluded that both Thomas and Hill were “credible,” so no outside observer could determine with certainty what had happened between them – or so we staffers were told to write. He stuck with his “yes” vote…
I can’t urge a young Senate aide to quit his dream job over the Kavanaugh allegations. I didn’t – at least not right away. But if you stay and write words you don’t believe in, it will haunt you.
For how long? I’m at 26 years and still counting.
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/My-boss-voted-for-Clarence-Thomas-I-still-regret-13247206.php?utm_campaign=email-desktop&utm_source=CMS%20Sharing%20Button&utm_medium=social
Yale Professor Amy Chua played a substantial role in vetting law clerks for Kavanaugh. She is author of Tiger Mom. Law school students have charged that she advised them about a required “look” /appearance for selection as a Kavanaugh clerk, which she denies having said. Similar charges have been made against her husband. After Tiger Mom, Chua and her husband, fellow Yale professor Jed Rubenfeld, assembled examples for a book, to make a case that three attributes result in advancement of a cultural segment. The first identified, was a sense of superiority. Another could be described as the “grit” bandwagon. Critics claim that “starting on 3rd base” was an ignored variable in their pondering. Rubenfeld is the subject of an “Above the Law” article, “Details…Yale Law School Investigation…Jed Rubenfeld”.
In a different world, one might be surprised by the foregoing, instead, I am reminded of the quote about the adverse impact that power can have on those who wield it.
Good GAWD…SICK. I can’t stand tiger moms…CONTROL and elevating self at others’ expense FOR SELF ENHANCEMENT and for PROFITS. Eeeeew.
Couldn’t agree more.
Yvonne: Wherein the world were the administrators of Georgetown Prep? This was happening and nobody cared? Or is it so common that even administrators were afraid to go up against their wealthy students?
The administrators and teachers are afraid of the parents and the student.
Money walks and BS talks. That’s one of the huge problems in this country. It’s SICK. The Roman Empire is a prime example of this sickness with their coliseums of pain and death while people in the stand cheer for more blood.
As an aside…
I can’t believe there are “Climate Change deniers,” too. Seems so many are IN DENIAL. Weird.
Yes, that categorical denial against a background of mischief and alcohol is less than forthright. And against a Trumpian background, it is almost self-incriminating.
A blue wave is coming! 🌊 🌊 🌊
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/09/23/gop-eyes-midterm-disaster-democrats-take-12-point-lead-nbc-wsj-poll.html
I want it to be a thousand-foot BLUE tidal wave that washes the toxic GOP into the sewer.
A second woman comes forward about Kavanaugh.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-news-brett-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct-20180923-story.html%3foutputType=amp
And a third.
Michael Avenatti has even more, “Lawyer Michael Avenatti told the Senate Judiciary Committee late Sunday that he has multiple witnesses who can say Brett Kavanaugh participated in gang rapes of drunken women during high school.”
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-news-brett-kavanaugh-gang-rape-avenatti-20180923-story.html
Akademos: Fantastic news. Thanks. Looks like that Repubs didn’t get Kavanaugh confirmed early enough. How many more are going to step up?
https://www.google.com/amp/nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/amp/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-withdraw-deborah-ramirez.html
Mabbe they should reopen the Anita Hill-Thomas case. I bet it would end differently.
Máté Wierdl: You’re optimistically assuming that Republicans have learned something since 1991. They still support Kavanaugh even though he was involved in gang rapes in high school. They support Trump who is a sexual predator.
Apparently even GOP women don’t believe Dr. Ford. How far has the GOP traveled since the days of Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas? Not very far.
Michael Avenatti
✔
@MichaelAvenatti
· 11h
I represent a woman with credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. We will be demanding the opportunity to present testimony to the committee and will likewise be demanding that Judge and others be subpoenaed to testify. The nomination must be withdrawn.
…………………………………………
Michael Avenatti
✔
@MichaelAvenatti
My client is not Deborah Ramirez.
6:59 PM – Sep 23, 2018
28.5K
10.2K people are talking about this
……………………………………………….
Michael Avenatti
✔
@MichaelAvenatti
What happens at Georgetown Prep does not stay at Georgetown Prep. #Truth #Courage #Basta
8:58 AM – Sep 23, 2018
39.3K
10.2K people are talking about this
Here we go again:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/politics/kavanaugh-new-allegation-supreme-court-future/index.html
an allegation has been made by Deborah Ramirez, 53, who was at Yale with Kavanaugh and said she remembers him exposing himself to her at a dormitory party.
Deja vu, all over again.
From Harry Cheadle at Vice, “Reporting on the milieu from which Kavanaugh emerged has painted an ugly portrait of elite American society as both bacchanalian and banal, a nepotacy where connections matter far more than any semblance or strain of morality… The system exists to promote his type-privileged, White, connected, conservative.”
Kavanaugh’s second accuser lives in Boulder.
QUOTE from news article: “According to media reports, Ramirez lives in Boulder and is a Family and Children Services volunteer coordinator for Boulder County and a board member at Boulder’s Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Nonviolence.”
The below is in the Boulder Daily Camera this morning, 9/24/18.
Kavanaugh accuser emerges in Boulder
By Lisa Mascaro and Mary Clare Jalonick
Associated Press
WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled a hearing Thursday for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, a woman who says he sexually assaulted her as a teenager, as a claim of sexual misconduct emerged from a Colorado woman.
The New Yorker magazine reported Sunday night that Senate Democrats were investigating a second woman’s accusation of sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh dating to the 198384 academic year, Kavanaugh’s first at Yale University.
The New Yorker said 53-yearold Deborah Ramirez described the incident in an interview after being contacted by the magazine. Ramirez recalled that Kavanaugh exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away, the magazine reported.
Ramirez is being represented by Stan Garnett, the former district attorney in Boulder County, the New Yorker reported.
According to media reports, Ramirez lives in Boulder and is a Family and Children Services volunteer coordinator for Boulder County and a board member at Boulder’s Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Nonviolence.
‘I didn’t want any of this,’ she told the New Yorker. ‘But now I have to speak.’ In a statement provided by the White House, Kavanaugh said the event ‘did not happen’ and that the allegation was ‘a smear, plain and simple.’ A White House spokeswoman added in a second statement that the allegation was ‘designed to tear down a good man.’
Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, called Sunday night for the ‘immediate postponement’ of any further action on Kavanaugh’s nomination. She also asked the committee’s chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, to have the FBI investigate the allegations of both Ford and Ramirez.
The New Yorker said it contacted Ramirez after learning of a possible involvement in an incident with Kavanaugh and that the allegation came to Democratic senators through a civil rights lawyer. She had been considering speaking to the magazine for at least a week. Meanwhile, Republicans were pressing for a swift hearing and a vote.
The magazine reported that Ramirez was reluctant at first to speak publicly ‘partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident.’ She also acknowledged reluctance ‘to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.’ The magazine reported that after ‘six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections’ to recall the incident.
The new information came hours after the Senate committee agreed to a date and time for a hearing after nearly a week of uncertainty over whether Ford would appear to tell her story.
The agreement and the latest accusation set the stage for a dramatic showdown as Kavanaugh and Ford each tell their side of the story. The developments could also determine the fate of Kavanaugh’s confirmation, which hangs on the votes of a handful of senators.
It had seemed assured before Ford, a 51-year-old California college professor, went public a week ago with her allegation that Kavanaugh assaulted her at a party when they were in high school. Kavanaugh , 53, an appel late court judge, has denied Ford’s allegation and said he want ed to testify as soon as possible to clear his name.
Michael Avenatti, the attorney representing porn actress Stormy Daniels in her legal fight with President Donald Trump, inserted himself into the maelstrom Sunday night when he claimed to represent a woman with information about high school-era parties attended by Kavanaugh and urged the Senate to investigate. Avenatti told The Associated Press that he will disclose his client’s identity in the coming days and that she is prepared to testify before the committee, as well as provide names of corroborating witnesses.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, wrangled with Ford’s lawyers for the last week over the exact terms of her appearance. She made several requests, some of which were accommodated – a Thursday hearing, three days later than originally scheduled, and a smaller hearing room with less press access to avoid a media circus, for example. Grassley’s staff also agreed to let Ford testify without Kavanaugh in the room, for there to be only one camera in the room, ‘adequate’ breaks and a high security presence.
The committee said it would not negotiate on other points, though, including Ford’s desire for additional witnesses and a request to testify after, not before, Kavanaugh.
‘As with any witness who comes before the Senate, the Senate Judiciary Committee cannot hand over its constitutional duties to attorneys for outside witnesses,’ Mike Davis, Grassley’s top nominations counsel, wrote in an email exchange with Ford’s lawyers obtained by The Associated Press. ‘The committee determines which witnesses to call, how many witnesses to call, in what order to call them, and who will question them. These are non-negotiable.’ Ford’s lawyers said it was still unclear who will ask questions, as Republicans were trying to hire an outside female counsel who could take over the questioning. The 11 senators on the GOP side of the dais are all men, which could send an unwanted message on live television against the backdrop of the #MeToo era. They could also use Republican staff attorneys on the committee.
Democratic senators were expected to ask their own questions.
‘We were told no decision has been made on this important issue, even though various senators have been dismissive of her account and should have to shoulder their responsibility to ask her questions,’ the attorneys for Ford said in a statement.
As he builds a case for his innocence, Kavanaugh plans to turn over to the committee calendars from the summer of 1982 that don’t show a party consistent with Ford’s description of the gathering in which she says he attacked her, The New York Times reported Sunday. The newspaper reported that it had examined the calendars and noted they list basketball games, movie outings, football workouts, college interviews, and a few parties with names of friends other than those identified by Ford.
Yvonne: “Mike Davis, Grassley’s top nominations counsel, wrote in an email exchange with Ford’s lawyers obtained by The Associated Press. ‘The committee determines which witnesses to call, how many witnesses to call, in what order to call them, and who will question them. These are non-negotiable.’ ”
Will the committee allow people to testify if what they have to say doesn’t match what the committee wants to hear?
What struck me is that Stan Garnett is Ramirez’ attorney. Garnett was an excellent DA. He left his position as DA, because of term limitations.
Quote from Boulder Daily Camera dated 9/24/18.
“Ramirez is being represented by Stan Garnett, the former district attorney in Boulder County, the New Yorker reported.”
I LOVE Borowitz. Remember Borowitz is a comedian and its satire.
………………………
Chuck Grassley Spends Weekend Practicing Pretending-to-Listen Face
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Facing the daunting challenge of appearing to pay attention to a woman’s utterances during a televised hearing, Senator Charles Grassley spent the weekend rehearsing what aides are calling his “pretending to listen” face.
In round-the-clock practice sessions that aides characterized as “excruciating,” the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee struggled to simulate even a trace of interest in what a woman had to say.
“Chuck has never pretended to listen to a woman before,” an aide said. “These are uncharted waters.”
According to the aide, Grassley’s fake-listening skills “are rudimentary at best,” and the senator was able to hold only a semi-attentive facial expression for seven seconds before it showed unmistakable signs of boredom, irritation, and contempt…
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/grassley-spends-weekend-practicing-pretending-to-listen-face