Patterico's Pontifications


Brett Kavanaugh: I’m Not Going Anywhere

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:28 pm

[guest by Dana]

Just one day after a second accusation was made against him, Brett Kavanaugh sat down for an interview with Martha MacCallum of Fox News. His wife Ashley joined him . He reiterated his denial of the allegations. Here are a few highlights:

On whether he has ever sexually assaulted anyone, he said:

“The truth is I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone, in high school or otherwise. I am not questioning and have not questioned that perhaps Dr. Ford at some point in her life was sexually assaulted by someone at some place, but what I know is I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone.”

Asked whether he was in attendance at the party referenced by Blasey Ford, he said:

“I was never at any such party. The other people who alleged to be present have said they do not remember any such party. A woman who was present, another woman who was present who was Dr. Ford’s lifelong friend has said she doesn’t know me and never remembers being at a party with me at any time in her life.”

About drinking to the point of memory loss, there was this exchange:

MacCallum: Sir, you are going to be pressed on something that you just said about people do things in high school, and you were all drinking, were there times when perhaps you drank so much – was there ever a time that you drank so much that you couldn’t remember what happened the night before?

B. Kavanaugh: No, that never happened.

MacCallum: You never said to anyone, “I don’t remember anything about last night.”

B. Kavanaugh: No, that did not happen.

He also expressed his determination to stay in the ring and fight back against the accusations made against him:

“I want a fair process where I can defend my integrity and I know I’m telling the truth I know my lifelong record and I’m not going to let false accusations drive me out of this process. I have faith in God and I have faith in the fairness of the American people.”

This exchange was rather interesting since there seems to be a pretty wide range of debate about it:

MacCallum: Right. Let me ask you this. Separately from these allegations, is it fair to judge someone on something they did before they were 18 years old? When they were 17 years old, should anything they did then follow them later in life or should it enter into any decisions made about them later in life?

B. Kavanaugh: What I’m here to do is tell you the truth, and this allegation from 36 years ago is not –

MacCallum: But separately from what you’re being accused of just as a judge, if you were looking at this case as a part of what you’re going through and someone said, “This person did that at 17 years old,” is it fair to judge them on something that when they’re in their 50s, 60s year old?

B. Kavanaugh: I think everyone is judged on their whole life. I’m a good person. I’ve led a good life. I’ve tried to a lot of good for a lot of people. I am not perfect, I know that. None of us is perfect. I’m not perfect, but I’ve never, never done anything like this.

David French believes that Kavanaugh took a bold move in going specific with his denials:

In tonight’s interview with Martha MacCallum, it would have been easy for Brett Kavanaugh to play the legal equivalent of a prevent defense. He’s a smart enough lawyer to understand the state of the evidence. None of his accusers have been able to come forward with a single witness who can offer first-hand corroboration of their stories. Indeed, they can’t even come forward with a single witness placing him at the scene of either alleged crime. In circumstances like that, the safest course is to simply repeat a blanket denial and repeat all the different ways the accusers’ cases are deficient — to vary some version of “Martha, I didn’t do this, not a single witness can put me at any of these parties, and even Dr. Ford’s friend says she doesn’t know me” throughout the interview.

Like I said, that’s safe. It doesn’t put a single additional fact in the record, and — done correctly — it can imprint in the viewer’s brain that there is zero corroborating evidence substantiating the accusers’ claims.

But, instead, with his opponent facing the evidentiary equivalent of 4th and 20, he blitzed. He extended his denials into three very specific areas that were specifically designed to counter the elitist party-bro narrative that’s dominating the left side of Twitter. Each of these specific denials is subject to fact-checking (though it could get quite personal), and if any of these denials fails that fact check, he may face real issues with wavering Republicans.

It’s to Kavanaugh’s credit that he’s not just trying to run out the clock. It’s obvious that he’s aggressively trying to clear his name — at least with anyone who still has an open mind. The next few days will be critical. Kavanaugh is a smart man. He’s smart enough to know that he’s created three immense targets for investigative reporters and hostile witnesses. But he’s also smart enough to know that when juries, judges, senators, and the public are determining a witness’s credibility, they don’t just look to demeanor and apparent sincerity, they also look for specifics. And Kavanaugh is getting very specific indeed.


A Second Woman Accuses Brett Kavanaugh

Filed under: General — Dana @ 11:29 am

[guest post by Dana]

Another woman has made an accusation against Brett Kavanaugh. Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer’s piece in the New Yorker came out last night, and it fairly ensures that this will be an even uglier week than last week.

The woman at the center of the story, Deborah Ramirez, who is fifty-three, attended Yale with Kavanaugh, where she studied sociology and psychology. Later, she spent years working for an organization that supports victims of domestic violence. The New Yorker contacted Ramirez after learning of her possible involvement in an incident involving Kavanaugh. The allegation was conveyed to Democratic senators by a civil-rights lawyer. For Ramirez, the sudden attention has been unwelcome, and prompted difficult choices. She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had 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. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” she said.

…“We were sitting in a circle,” she said. “People would pick who drank.” Ramirez was chosen repeatedly, she said, and quickly became inebriated. At one point, she said, a male student pointed a gag plastic penis in her direction. Later, she said, she was on the floor, foggy and slurring her words, as that male student and another stood nearby.

A third male student then exposed himself to her. “I remember a penis being in front of my face,” she said. “I knew that’s not what I wanted, even in that state of mind.” She recalled remarking, “That’s not a real penis,” and the other students laughing at her confusion and taunting her, one encouraging her to “kiss it.” She said that she pushed the person away, touching it in the process. Ramirez, who was raised a devout Catholic, in Connecticut, said that she was shaken. “I wasn’t going to touch a penis until I was married,” she said. “I was embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated.”

Regarding Kavanaugh:

She remembers Kavanaugh standing to her right and laughing, pulling up his pants. “Brett was laughing,” she said. “I can still see his face, and his hips coming forward, like when you pull up your pants.” She recalled another male student shouting about the incident. “Somebody yelled down the hall, ‘Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie’s face,’ ” she said. “It was his full name. I don’t think it was just ‘Brett.’

NOTE: The New Yorker admits in the article that they do not know if Kavanaugh was even at the party to begin with:

The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.

And yet here we are..

Ramirez admits that there are “significant gaps” in her memory regarding the event, which would seem to make sense, given that we’re talking 35 years ago and she was admittedly inebriated. So much so that she was slurring her words. Curiously, though, after 35 years and just a few days of therapy with a miracle-working attorney, it appears her memory seems to have cleared up enough to make the accusation. Right before a critical vote is due to happen.

Here’s the thing: I don’t know if the allegations made by Christine Blasey Ford or Deborah Ramirez are true or not. They don’t seem at all out of the realm of possibility to me as there is a familiarity to them. That the women didn’t speak about them or confront them for decades isn’t that unusual for women of a certain age. You didn’t say anything, you just locked that horrible moment away in the vault, and moved on with life. That’s just how it was. And this is the painful aftermath for many who lacked maturity to make sound judgments during high school and/or college. The recklessness that comes with such immaturity does not recognize gender. It is an equal-opportunity ravager of the individual. But certainly there is a gender-unique harm done when one looks at the outcomes of heavy alcohol-fueled behaviors. This is how these things have always gone. So while I don’t know if the claims are true, I certainly understand the long silence and the fear of going public with one’s story. However, the timing of the allegations and the stories themselves become suspect when one considers the midterm elections and what is at stake, whose vacancy on the Court is being filled, the rank theatrics we witnessed during the hearings, the brazen lies told and repeated by Democrats and the brazen lies spouted by a “Chief Washington correspondent” who knows better, etc.

Along with that, both Blasey Ford’s and Ramirez’s accounts share a familiar lack of eye-witnesses, corroboration of their allegations, denials by individuals that the events in question took place, as well as some individuals under oath saying that they have no knowledge or memory about the alleged incidents. Even the women’s best friends claimed that they had never heard about these alleged events. There are just so many holes of doubt and disbelief with their stories in which to fall:

The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.

Here is Brett Kavanaugh’s response to the second accusation:

“This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen. The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so,” Kavanaugh responded. “This is a smear, plain and simple. I look forward to testifying on Thursday about the truth, and defending my good name–and the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime building–against these last-minute allegations.”

As it stands, Blasey Ford is scheduled to testify at 10:00 a.m. this Thursday in a small hearing room that can accommodate only six reporters.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)


She’s Gone

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:52 am

We dropped our daughter off at college yesterday.

It was a hectic day, filled with moving in, getting supplies, setting things up in her room, and meeting people. The final goodbye was rushed; she had a floor meeting to get to. But we had a good weekend, and she’s just up the road a couple of hours. We’ll see her often in Facetime and reasonably often in person. And she’ll be in the house again, for breaks and (hopefully!) for summer.

But the house is a lot emptier today.

She’s one of the best people I know in the world, and today I can’t just walk into another room and give her a hug.

But it’s exciting to watch her grow as a person. It’s a new adventure — but for this one, her parents will be spectators and not participants.

I hope some day you look
Into my eyes and see
The love that held you back
But finally set you free

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]


Still More Lack of Corroboration for Christine Blasey Ford

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:43 am

It doesn’t mean she’s lying, but you can add it to the growing list of potential corroborating facts that aren’t panning out:

CNN has learned that the committee has reached out to a longtime friend of Ford named Leland Ingham Keyser.

“I understand that you have been identified as an individual who was in attendance at a party that occurred circa 1982 described in a recent Washington Post article,” a committee staffer wrote Keyser earlier this week.

On Saturday night, her lawyer, Howard Walsh, released a statement to CNN and the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Simply put,” Walsh said, “Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

It’s still not clear to me where the suggestion originated that Ford claims Keyser was at the party. The CNN report attributes it to a staffer but I don’t know where the staffer got that information. (Keep in mind that, to my knowledge, Sen. Grassley and other Republican senators still don’t have an unredacted copy of Ford’s letter sent to Feinstein.)

Meanwhile, what to make of this? The Washington Post interviewed Ford and quoted her as claiming that she was worried when Trump was elected because Kavanaugh had been mentioned as a possible replacement for Scalia. Here’s the beginning of their piece:

When Donald Trump won his upset presidential victory in 2016, Christine Blasey Ford’s thoughts quickly turned to a name most Americans had never heard of but one that had unsettled her for years: Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh — a judge on the prestigious U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — was among those mentioned as a possible replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016. When Trump nominated Neil M. Gorsuch, Ford was relieved but still uneasy.

Just one problem: as Alex Pappas notes, Kavanaugh was not on Trump’s list when he was elected. The original list of names released in September 2016 included only these 11 people: Keith Blackwell, Charles Canady, Steven Colloton, Allison Eid, Neil Gorsuch, Raymond Gruender, Thomas Hardiman, Raymond Kethledge, Joan Larsen, Mike Lee, and Thomas Lee. Gorsuch was picked from the list and was confirmed in April 2017. In November 2017, more a year after the election, five more names were added: Amy Coney Barrett, Britt Grant, Brett Kavanaugh, Kevin Newsom, and Patrick Wyrick.

None of this means that it’s impossible that Kavanaugh was mentioned as a dark horse replacement option for Scalia somewhere. But if his name came up it was more likely to be as a discussion of why he wasn’t on the list. Take this Wall Street Journal article as an example:

That scrutiny may have doomed the chances of once-rising members of that conservative class, such as Sixth Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton and Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the District of Columbia Circuit, both omitted from the initial Trump lists.

This is not a silver bullet in the heart of Ford’s story, but it is another thing that makes you go “hmmmm.”

UPDATE: Actually, the list of 11 was generated in May 2016 and expanded to 21 names in September 2016. Kavanaugh’s name was not among the 21. Beldar collected the details here. The point about Ford’s memory stands with this correction. If anything, the point is even stronger.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

Sunday Music: Bach Cantata BWV 166

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:01 am

It is the eighteenth Sunday after Pentecost. The title of today’s Bach cantata is “Wo gehest du hin?” (Where are you going?).

Today’s Gospel reading is Mark 9:30-37:

Jesus Predicts His Death a Second Time

They left that place and passed through Galilee. Jesus did not want anyone to know where they were, because he was teaching his disciples. He said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.” But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it.

They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest.

Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.”

He took a little child whom he placed among them. Taking the child in his arms, he said to them, “Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me.”

The text of today’s piece is available here. It contains these words, which are a stark reminder of the eternal importance of Christ to those who, like the disciples on the road, are becoming preoccupied with worldly concerns and worldly greatness, which can all end in an instant:

I beseech You, Lord Jesus Christ,
keep me in Your thoughts
and do not let me ever, at any time,
waver from this purpose,
rather to adhere closely to this,
until my soul, out of its nest,
arrives in heaven.

Just as rainwater quickly runs off
and easily washes out many colors,
so also does joy in the world
of which so many people hold so many pieces;
for although one sometimes sees
his wished-for fortune blossom,
yet even in the best days,
completely unexpected, the last hour tolls.

Take care and be wary
when good fortune smiles.
For so easily on earth
things can change before evening,
which in the morning was never considered.

The title of the cantata (“Where are you going?”)* refers to a passage at the beginning of chapter 16 of the book of John:

I have told you this, so that when their time comes you will remember that I warned you about them. I did not tell you this from the beginning because I was with you, but now I am going to him who sent me. None of you asks me, “Where are you going?”

But the words of the cantata ask this question of the followers of Christ:

1. Aria B
Where are you going?

2. Arie T
I will think about heaven
and not give my heart to the world.
For whether I go or stay,
this question remains in my mind:
humanity, ah humanity, where are you going?

At the end of the cantata there appear these words:

Who knows how near my end is?
Time runs out, death approaches,
Ah, how quickly and swiftly
can my death-struggle come upon me!
My God, I beseech through Christ’s blood,
make my end good!

Astute followers of this series will recall the words “Who knows how near my end is?” (in German: “Wer weiß, wie nahe mir mein Ende?”) from BWV 27, which we heard last month on the thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost. Take a few short moments to compare the different ways in which Bach sets that line to music in the two cantatas. The basic melody is the same, but the setting of the words is quite different. (The four musical examples which follow are only a few seconds each, so it’s well worth your time to play each.)

Here is the line from BWV 27, which we heard in August:

And here is the line from today’s cantata, BWV 166:

This second version is a bit faster and less elaborate, and the emotional effect is strikingly different. Although the rest of the passage is not completely identical in the two cantatas, the verses both end with these words: “My God, I beseech through Christ’s blood, make my end good!” (in German: “Mein Gott, ich bitt durch Christi Blut, Mach’s nur mit meinem Ende gut!”). Let’s hear the two different settings of these words, beginning with BWV 27 from August:

The slow pace, canon-like entry to the voices, and elaborations of the musical line in BWV 27 provide a very different effect from the simplicity of the end of today’s cantata, BWV 166, which sets the same words to the same melody, but in a simpler and more direct fashion:

I hope this little comparison has enriched your understanding of both cantatas and of Bach’s art, and provides a nice musical companion to today’s Gospel lesson.

Happy listening!

*Many sources translate “Wo gehest du hin?” as “Where are you heading?” but in this post I translate it throughout as “Where are you going” to match the language of this passage from John.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]


Christine Blasey Ford “Accepts” Offer to Testify with Late Response That Is Not Really an Acceptance

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:37 pm

If the game here were truly to delay and obstruct while painting Republican senators as white male bullies, how would this response be any different?

Let’s review the bidding. Grassley keeps setting deadlines and setting conditions. Ford’s lawyer ignores the deadlines, calls Grassley a bully, and makes absurd demands that make no sense (like demanding that Kavanaugh testify first, which gives him no chance to respond to Ford’s allegations). As Dana noted yesterday, Grassley demanded a response by last night, which was deemed more bullying and ignored. Now, today, we have the media falsely reporting that Ford has “accepted” the invitation without actually coming to a meeting of the minds on the critical details, like when and how this will occur.

Ford is trying to show she is in charge. But she isn’t. In the end, the Senate is in charge. I don’t oppose their showing flexibility as long as they are willing to be firm in the end. Doing it this way allows them to say: look, we tried. They kept ignoring our deadlines, over and over, and finally we had no choice but to set a hearing.

The media will act like they are rejecting her “acceptance” but the media often lies and distorts to the detriment of conservatives. In the end, Grassley will have to stand up and be a man, and take action that will be portrayed as jamming this nomination down Democrats’ throats.

The concern that a “cloud” will hang over Kavanaugh’s head as a result is overstated. A “cloud” has arguably hung over Clarence Thomas’s head his whole career. So what? He’s been a great justice — the best justice sitting on the Court right now — and he’s given us a lot of great votes and opinions. Kavanaugh will be great too. Stop worrying about a “cloud” and let’s get this done.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]


Blasey Ford Camp Outlines Conditions; GOP Working On Counter Offer (UPDATE: Blasey Ford Camp Responds To Committee Deadline)

Filed under: General — Dana @ 11:07 am

[guest post by Dana]

Yesterday, Christine Blasey Ford’s attorney, Debra Katz, outlined the conditions that must be met in order for Blasey Ford to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Ford will not appear any sooner than next Thursday*;

No questions to be asked at hearing by any outside counsel — only by Senators;

Mark Judge must be subpoenaed;

Kavanaugh would testify first, then Ford would testify, and Kavanaugh would have no opportunity to respond or rebut;

The Friday deadline for her to provide written statement before the hearing would be waived;

Provide adequate security;

Only one pool camera in hearing room;

Ford and Kavanaugh allotted the same amount of time to talk.

* Regarding a written statement by Friday is a “non-starter,” and testimony on Monday is a “dealbreaker” according to Katz:

…because “[i]t is simply not possible for her to prepare such testimony while at the same time trying to take appropriate security precautions in the face of the avalanche of threats she has been receiving.”

Obviously, the demand that Kavanaugh would testify first and have no opportunity for rebuttal is so problematic, it is unacceptable. As some have pointed out, yes, this isn’t a court of law, however:

Just this morning, CNN is reporting that the GOP is working on a response Blasey Ford’s demands:

Two sources say the Senate Judiciary Committee will likely send a proposal to Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyer proposing a Wednesday hearing, with Ford testifying first and Brett Kavanaugh second.

The proposal would have outside counsel asks the questions.

As noted:

Offer not final and not sent, per numerous GOP sources. Discussed on Judiciary R call this morning

We need to hear from both of them. Given that both sides of the aisle agree that a very serious allegation has been made, both the accuser and the accused should be provided a secure forum in which to which to be heard and be available for questioning and examination. In spite of various factions already assuming Kavanaugh’s dishonesty and Blasey Ford’s honesty and/or Kavanaugh’s honesty and Blasey Ford’s dishonesty, if the primary concern is rooting out the truth, then wouldn’t both sides of the political aisle want them to testify? And wouldn’t the individuals themselves want that opportunity as well? Ultimately, the public needs to hear from both to see if their claims stand up under scrutiny. If that hasn’t yet happened in full, how on earth has anyone already made a definitive call about guilt or innocence? Unless, of course, the real priority here isn’t really about any allegation and denial. And that, sadly, is where we find ourselves: If the voracious and insatiable appetite of partisan politics demands the exploitation of an individual’s alleged assault and the subsequent destruction of another individual – whether innocent or guilty, then so be it.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)


UPDATE: Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee gave Ford a 10 p.m. Friday deadline to make her decision as to whether Christine Blasey Ford would testify on Wednesday:

The committee, led by chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said Ford could testify Wednesday — a day earlier than she demanded, but also two days later than the day the committee had originally announced, Monday. The committee is also proposing that Ford testify before Kavanaugh, as opposed to after, and that outside counsel handle the questioning. According to a GOP committee aide, the exact language in the counter offer asks Ford, “Please respond by 5 p.m.”

Katz responded to the letter, which she made a point to note that it had been sent at 4:00 p.m.:

“I advised you that Dr. Ford had traveled to meet with the FBI for several hours about the death threats she had been receiving, and we would need until tomorrow to confer with her and to be able to provide you with a well-considered response,” Katz said in the letter. “Rather than allowing her the time she needs to respond to the take-it-or-leave-it demand you conveyed, you sent us an email at 5:47 p.m. – which you again gave to the media first – insisting that we accept your “invitation” for a Wednesday hearing by 10:00 p.m. tonight.”

She further claimed:

The 10:00 p.m. deadline is arbitrary. Its sole purpose is to bully Dr. Ford and deprive her of the ability to make a considered decision that has life-altering implications for her and her family. She has already been forced out of her home and continues to face harassment, hate mail, and death threats. Our modest request is that she be given an additional day to make her decision.

You can read the response in its entirety here.

As a reminder, the next term of the Supreme Court begins Oct. 1.


The California Nanny State (Nearly) Dictates Statewide School Starting Times

Filed under: General — JVW @ 6:47 pm

[guest post by JVW]

Earlier today, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a bill that had been duly passed by the Democrat-dominated state legislature which would have prohibited middle schools and high schools in the state from commencing classes any earlier than 8:30 am. This legislation had passed the Assembly by a fairly close 41-34 margin (with five abstentions) and the Senate by a more healthy 23-14 margin (with three abstentions). The narrowness of the Assembly vote suggests there thankfully won’t be much appetite for trying to override Brown’s veto.

Heaven forbid that local school districts make decisions based upon the needs of their own families, rather than the legislature imposing a one-size-fits-all solution. This is what it’s like living in California in 2018. Now that the problems of homelessness, pensions, unaffordable housing, poverty, and crumbling infrastructure have been solved, the legislature can start micromanaging morning start times for sleepy teenagers.

This is an increasingly rare case of Governor Brown being Good Jerry, the pragmatic sole adult in the room (or, more pointedly, in the Democrat caucus room). Once in a while he has managed to rise above his manifest weirdness and shoot down some of the more puzzling flights of fancy upon which his legislative allies regularly embark. But Moonbeam is leaving us in January, and I for one have zero faith that a Democrat successor like Gavin Newsom won’t gladly indulge the Sacramento nutcases and sign these ridiculous bills into law. As crazy as it sounds, we will soon come to miss Jerry Brown here in the Golden State.

Sic transit gloria Californiae.



Kavanaugh Classmate: I Did Not Attend the Party Christine Ford Says I Attended

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:25 am

The story seems to be falling apart:

In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, another former classmate of Brett Kavanaugh’s denies attending a party like the one described in the allegation made by Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused the Supreme Court nominee of sexually assaulting her three decades ago when they were teenagers.

. . . .

“I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post,” Smyth says in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”


[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]


Noah Rothman on What’s At Stake with the Kavanaugh Nomination

Filed under: General — JVW @ 3:21 pm

[guest post by JVW]

Over at Commentary, Noah Rothman has an excellent post about why it is important to fight for Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination and not throw in the towel or, worse, tuck in our tail and hide. Here is how he sees it:

According to Senate Judiciary Committee Democrat Chris Coons, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when she was a minor, did not want to come forward. In an eerie echo of Anita Hill’s public ordeal, her accusations were “leaked to the media.” With her confidentiality violated, Ford had no choice but to go public. Coons could not say where that leak came from, but he did confess that “people on committee staff” had access to the letter in which Ford made her allegations. Draw your own conclusions.

In a more sane world, the professional feminists would be aghast at the fact that a Democrat (and let’s be real: it’s almost certainly a Democrat) staffer leaked the contents of the letter to the media, thus ensuring that Ms. Ford would inevitably be unmasked and forced to go public. Yet one doesn’t have to be a cynic to reckon that any discomfort or even anguish that Ms. Ford will be forced to endure pales in comparison to the opportunity to torpedo the nomination of a conservative justice. More from Rothman:

[. . . ] For some, this has become a proxy battle in the broader cultural reckoning that began with the #MeToo moment. Quite unlike the many abusive men who were outed by this movement, though, the evidentiary standard being applied to Kavanaugh’s case is remarkably low. His innocence has not been presumed, and a preponderance of evidence has not been marshaled against him. It is not even clear as of this writing that Kavanaugh will be allowed to confront his accuser. At a certain point, honest observers must concede that getting to the truth has not been a defining feature of this process.

[. . .]

The experiences that Dr. Ford described are appalling. Even for those who are inclined to believe her account and think that she is due some restitution, no true justice can be meted out that doesn’t infringe on the rights of the accused. Those in the commentary class who would use Kavanaugh as a stand-in for every abuser who got away, every preppy white boy who benefited from unearned privilege, every hypocritical conservative moralizer to exact some karmic vengeance are not interested in justice. They want a political victory, even at the expense of the integrity of the American ideal. If there is a fight worth having, it’s the fight against that.

That’s the part that I like best. Deep down inside many on the left probably have doubts that Kavanaugh behaved in the manner alleged. Democrats have been said to have serious regrets about forcing out Al Franken on unsubstantiated groping allegations (though Franken was of course undone by the picture of his boorish behavior), but after years of putting up with this sort of behavior from the Ted Kennedys, Chris Dodds, and Bill Clintons of the world they had no choice but to cut him loose. It should therefore come as no surprise that they are seeking the proverbial pound of flesh from the GOP side in return. But just as Democrats lived to regret tampering with judicial filibusters, so too should they be careful about the furies they unleash with this latest stunt.

Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.


Next Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2152 secs.