AFTER the hearing - who do you find more credible?

[BingoBongo]

You are not every person. Have you suffered assault or traumatic event?. Have you read the posters here who suffered assault and have varying degrees of memory? Are you an expert, psychologist?
What about the Yale classmates who knew about the Ramirez incident at the time and were discussing in emails in past months when Kavanaugh's name came out in media? That is damning evidence, proving Ramirez allegations but we don't know if FBI will investigate this line of inquiry.

It should not matter what happened to anyone else. What matters is what happened in THIS alleged situation.

 

[rosemadderlake]

If asked to choose who I believe on the matter of whether or not Dr. Ford was sexually assaulted by Should Never Be on Any Court Kavanaugh, and given the allegations haven't been fully investigated (and likely never will be), my answer is I believe Dr. Ford.

The more relevant question, IMO, is whether Kavanaugh disqualified himself by how he responded to Ford's allegations, both before and during the hearing, whether or not her allegations are true.

She, facing this most difficult & stressful event of her life, was visibly terrified and entirely out of her element. It was painful -and touching- to watch her try to use the microphone in front of her appropriately (she never got the hang of it).

Despite everything, she remained dignified, polite, and responsive, despite facing a prosecutor's questions that asked for hair splitting replies, and despite the fact the prosecutor was clearly challenging the veracity of her story, and playing gotcha when Ford's replies deviated even one hair's width away from prior statements. Everyone present at that hearing said they found her credible, - enough so that apparently a deep gloom descended in the WH, and most staffers thought K's nomination was dead. Everyone at the hearing also said they believed she had been sexually assaulted, even if some qualified their belief by saying Ford must have confused K with someone else.

To sum up: a victim of sexual assault went in front of the world, relived and told of the humiliation of her assault being the source of uncontainable amusement by her assailants, and yet never responded with anger at her allegations being challenged.

Then there was Kavanaugh. Forget the disqualifying & highly disturbing partisan accusations. Forget the anger he couldn't control, and/or that he chose to use strategically, especially when he wanted to evade replying directly to straightforward questions he had to have anticipated, given his weeklong coaching sessions at the WH.

Forget, even, that this supposedly impeccably credentialed JUDGE asking for a seat on the Supreme Court repeatedly misstated the evidence relating to Ford's charges. None of the four potential witnesses REFUTED Ford's allegations. Not one. Presumably, or at least hopefully, K knows the difference between a witness REFUTING something and a witness saying he/she has no knowledge or memory of that something. Perhaps that seems a trivial distinction to laymen, but it isn't to lawyers and judges; the law is frequently about making just those kind of distinctions.

Forget even that Kavanaugh gave misleading answers about his drinking, his underaged drinking, and that he almost certainly flat out lied in response to every year book related question.

Even stretching so far as to excuse/overlook ALL of that, what most bothers me and what I find most disqualifying, is his insistence, even if he had to commit perjury to maintain it, of presenting himself as an unchallengable paragon of virtue, even in high school.

What matters isn't the fact that he lied about what Devil's Triangle or Bofu meant, it's the fact that he felt the need to lie, the fact that he knew his yearbook lies were absurd on their face & unbelievable, and about the fact that he was incapable of accepting responsibility/owning up to what were truly trivial "transgressions" that were absolutely commonplace for his peers at that time in that place.

A man with integrity, one capable of introspection and an insistence on truth, both within and without, would have simply told the truth, and
remarked that he was a teenage boy, living in an elite culture, but like all teenagers, learning how to navigate social relationships, and not always getting it right.

Who could possibly fault him for that? It is his inability to accept responsibility for even the most minor of "transgressions," and the sheer ease he displayed in choosing to lie and tell half truths about himself and his accuser's accusations to avoid doing so that convince me he entirely lacks the character and judgement necessary to merit a seat on the SC.

"A man with integrity, one capable of introspection and an insistence on truth, both within and without, would have simply told the truth, and
remarked that he was a teenage boy, living in an elite culture, but like all teenagers, learning how to navigate social relationships, and not always getting it right.

Who could possibly fault him for that? It is his inability to accept responsibility for even the most minor of "transgressions," and the sheer ease he displayed in choosing to lie and tell half truths about himself and his accuser's accusations to avoid doing so that convince me he entirely lacks the character and judgement necessary to merit a seat on the SC."

Bbm: Your last two paragraphs, Hope4More. This is a power post that gets to the undercurrent of character. Very well said. Barring the serious allegations there is a rather pathetically adolescent culture running contrary to the elite resume, but would be wholly understandable if he just admitted it. He sort of admitted part of it with the Renate Alumni apology. But he didn't own up to his culture. He was not prepared to. Probably never had to. But the moment called for wisdom. I thought I could understand his anger if he felt he was falsely accused, but his lack of wisdom and sheer belligerence at the panel daring to ask uncomfortable questions, being misleading in his answers, attacking the panel, was the most revealing aspect of temperament and character.

 

[BingoBongo]

First of all, the Democrats know that only Trump can make the nomination so if BK doesn't get nominated Trump will nominate another candidate. Hopefully the next candidate won't have so much baggage( BK has a lot of history that has nothing to do with sexual assault allegations)

I do not believe for one second that the Dems have an "agenda"-- i am not big on conspiracy theories--- if it turns out that the events did not occur, or she was wrong about the young man that allegedly assaulted her, i think it would have more to do with her faulty memory: it could also be that a therapist put an idea in her mind, like that of repressed memories or some such thing:

Of course there is an agenda. There is always when politics are involved.

Am I understanding correctly that there were only the four people named at this party? If so, it seems she was most likely driven by her girlfriend, or did Mark Judge pick her up? This would be an important question for the FBI to delve into, IMO.

Another item would be, if there were only these four at the party, then the house belonged to a family member or acquaintance of one of the boys. JMO.

There is a big missing piece here that no one has bothered to investigate because they don’t want to know!

My opinions only.

There are HUGE missing pieces to all of this. I am hoping that the upcoming investigation is completely non-partisan (although I have my doubts) and thorough enough to answer all questions from all sides.

 

[Mica]

I personally think that he will never get the Senate votes. Too close to the election. His nomination is over.

Agree....all part of a well laid plan, IMO.

 

[neesaki]

Agree....all part of a well laid plan, IMO.

I have been thinking the exact same thing. It seems the worst possible candidate was chosen, But why? What’s your take it? Or are you saying a plan only on the part of the Dems?

 

[BingoBongo]

Kavanaugh, so far, has many more statements from those who uphold his character than those who defame it.

The latest Twitter nut, (has a Twitter history of outlandish claims), has already been discredited and has recanted and apologized for his lies. But...not before a rabid political accuser (Sen. Whitehouse) demanded an "investigation" of the claims. Without making any effort at validation, Sen. Whitehouse completely bought in to the lies.

Here is what is so wrong about this...the claims (lies) were brought to the attention of the media, BEFORE any attempt at validation. And now many of those in the media are still reporting it as truth.

This is a travesty to our country and the process.

 

[Hope4More]

I am sure the FBI will get around to talking to her--- they are talking to others first; they will also talk with Kavanaugh ---for sure

It is being reported that the FBI will not be interviewing either Ford or Kavanaugh.

If accurate, the only reason I can think of is that if they interview Ford, they would have to interview Kavanaugh, and the WH & Judicial Committee Repubs believe K would be at risk of either lying to the FBI or being caught for perjury.

Not allowing the FBI to interview either the accuser or the accused is the very definition of bad faith farce.

 

[BingoBongo]

And those claiming it is or is not a "conspiracy theory" should consider this...

It's (sadly) politics as usual.

Both parties have a habit of using the media to create discontent and doubt. The media participates because the salaciousness of it increases readership, therefore it increases advertisers income. The rush to release is so extreme that few in the media actually take the time to investigate and validate, most of them just regurgitate.

The Democrats have (twice now) gone to extremes to release claims against potential SC nominees, and they know that all they have to do is place seeds of doubt.

IMO, Kavanaugh reacted normally and within reason to these attacks. Particularly when one considers the very lopsided reporting and serious lack of verification. Add to that the outrageous assumptions that have been made and accepted as truth.

This is a sad time for our political process.

If an investigation by the FBI is to be honest and complete, they must look into Mrs. Ford's past, the need for long-term counseling, her family life, claims from all friends and family (not just the one's who support her), any medications she may have used long-term, etc.

Only fair if Kavanaugh is subject to same.

 

[BingoBongo]

It is being reported that the FBI will not be interviewing either Ford or Kavanaugh.

If accurate, the only reason I can think of is that if they interview Ford, they would have to interview Kavanaugh, and the WH & Judicial Committee Repubs believe K would be at risk of either lying to the FBI or being caught for perjury.

Not allowing the FBI to interview either the accuser or the accused is the very definition of bad faith farce.

Link please?

 

[lizzybeth]

This is a BS poll, the alleged rapist?

There was no rape.

True. Dr. Ford accused him of sexual assault, not rape. There's a difference. I think the option should be changed.

 

[Mica]

I have been thinking the exact same thing. It seems the worst possible candidate was chosen, But why? What’s your take it? Or are you saying a plan only on the part of the Dems?

Dems and from the moment Trump announced Kavanaugh as his nominee.

 

[BingoBongo]

"Sex-crimes prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, who questioned Dr. Christine Blasey Ford last week regarding Brett Kavanaugh allegedly sexually assaulting her in 1982, wrote a lengthy memo in which she said the Ford case is even weaker than a ‘he said, she said’ case."

 

[rosemadderlake]

I have been thinking the exact same thing. It seems the worst possible candidate was chosen, But why? What’s your take it? Or are you saying a plan only on the part of the Dems?

Bbm: only one person can answer that. There were enough problems with transparency and timing before the sexual assault allegations were even known. I see how ill equipped the senate judiciary was to handle it. Both sides. No doubt about.

Dems know the Repubs are in power and there are five other conservative nominees lined up. Neil Gorsuch was confirmed no problem, and he went to the same prep school. I really think the issues with BK are with the individual nominee. But there is bad blood between the two parties on never even hearing the Garland nomination.

My guess would be midterms. For both parties.

 

[BingoBongo]

Dems and from the moment Trump announced Kavanaugh as his nominee.

Yup.

And Kavanaugh is no where near "the worst possible candidate."

 

[Hope4More]

I have been thinking the exact same thing. It seems the worst possible candidate was choosen, But why? What’s your take it? Or are you saying a plan only on the part of the Dems?

1. McConnell did not want Kavanaugh. He warned trump not to choose him, given K's extensive paper trail & reputation as a partisan. K already had a past of being very difficult to confirm. That's why- all of the above- K was not on Trump's first or 2nd short list of nominees.

2. Make of it what you will, but K was added to the short list by McGahn shortly after Mueller was named special prosecutor. Make of it what you will that K was the only judge on the short list who has explicitly stated that very few limitations should be put on executive power.

3. Trump chose K. What Grassley did was to break all norms & precedent by allowing a Bush lawyer, rather than the National Archives, to decide what to turn over to the Committee. The records turned over were less than 95% of what was available. Paper trail problem solved. The repubs clearly intended to power their nominee through to confirmation. They had & still have the votes without a single Dem voting yes.

Then came Dr. Ford. (Cont)

 

[Mica]

"Sex-crimes prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, who questioned Dr. Christine Blasey Ford last week regarding Brett Kavanaugh allegedly sexually assaulting her in 1982, wrote a lengthy memo in which she said the Ford case is even weaker than a ‘he said, she said’ case."

Here’s a piece of Rachel Mitchell’s memo....


Brett Kavanaugh: New questions emerge over role of White House in FBI investigation - CNNPolitics

>>snip

Rachel MItchell, the sex crimes prosecutor who was tasked with questioning Ford on her allegation of sexual assault, said a "reasonable prosecutor" would not bring a case against Kavanaugh based on Ford's allegation given the evidence presented to the committee.

Mitchell cited inconsistencies in Ford's statements to the committee, as well as to The Washington Post and her therapist, and noted the lack of corroboration of her account, including recalling details that could back her story.

"In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A 'he said, she said' case is incredibly difficult to prove," Mitchell wrote. "But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard."

 

[mikkismom]

Kavanaugh, so far, has many more statements from those who uphold his character than those who defame it.

The latest Twitter nut, (has a Twitter history of outlandish claims), has already been discredited and has recanted and apologized for his lies. But...not before a rabid political accuser (Sen. Whitehouse) demanded an "investigation" of the claims. Without making any effort at validation, Sen. Whitehouse completely bought in to the lies.

Here is what is so wrong about this...the claims (lies) were brought to the attention of the media, BEFORE any attempt at validation. And now many of those in the media are still reporting it as truth.

This is a travesty to our country and the process.

This!!!

 

[Hope4More]

Part 2.

The politics, of both sides.

Of course this nomination is being waged as political war. SC nominations ALWAYS are, period. And this seat will tip the balance of the Court, so yes, the war is being waged more fiercely than literally ever before, certainly in my 30 years of Court watching.

Adding to this blazing bonfire are the midterms, and not just any midterms. The House is up for grabs, and up til last week at least, seemed to be likely lost by repubs. That obviously is not just a sucky prospect for house repubs & repub legislation & the trump agenda, but an existential threat to Trump himself, given the possibility of impeachment.

Repub strategists have said pretty plainly, though, that their priority, if they have to choose, is to ensure repubs hold the Senate.

What had R strategists freaking wasn't that they believed it very likely to lose the Senate- the odds of that are exceedingly low- but that repub voters are not as energized as Dems, and worse, they believe the chance of dems taking the House is "fake news." Complacency equals low turnout, affecting the R ticket up & down, House reps, but more importantly- governorships (think 2020 census & redistricting) .

How to best motivate their base? Confirm K. At any cost. That is still their plan, even though that likely means losing the House (pissed off surburban moms are even more pissed off now).
Cont.

 

[BingoBongo]

Is Kavanaugh a narcissist?

I have met plenty of Ivy League Frat boys, who have rich families. They live charmed lives, with maids they ignore. They believe that they are witty, wonderful, and everyone adores them. Narcissism is part of their persona, which increases with law school attendance, I think having a personality disorder is a prerequisite for law school. I have never met an attorney who wasn't full of themselves.

IMO pretty much everyone with a gov't. title is higher on the narcissism spectrum than the average Jane/Joe.

That doesn't make them evil, or habitual liars, etc.

We ALL have narcissistic traits, all the way from normal and healthy to malignant.

 

[CARIIS]

P E R J U R Y

P A R A D E

The Washington Post offers a list:

1) “I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation.”

Kavanaugh made this claim during his opening statement, though later he would contradict this remark.

The word “like” is carrying a lot of weight in that sentence, but it's clear from Kavanaugh's later testimony and the personal calendars he submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he attended parties like the one Ford describes — up to the point of the alleged assault. More on this below.

2) “She and I did not travel in the same social circles.”

The Post notes that Ford testified she was dating Kavanaugh’s friend nicknamed “Squi” during the spring and summer of 1982; “Squi” also appears on Kavanaugh’s calendar more than one dozen times.

3) “Dr. Ford’s allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a long-time friend of hers. Refuted.”

At various points in his testimony, Kavanaugh said that the two male friends alleged to have been at the party, Mark Judge and P.J. Smyth, had sworn under penalty of perjury that the party didn’t happen. Both actually said that they didn’t recall the party as described, and Judge’s statement to that effect didn’t carry the weight of sworn testimony. (After Kavanaugh’s testimony was complete, he submitted a letter that met that standard.)

At other points, Kavanaugh refers to the fact that the four witnesses that Ford alleges were at the party all rejected her account. One of those four witnesses is Leland Keyser, who told The Post in a brief interview that she believed Ford’s allegation, although she didn’t remember the party. Another of the four witnesses is Kavanaugh.

4) “The event described by Dr. Ford presumably happened on a weekend because I believed everyone worked and had jobs in the summers. And in any event, a drunken early evening event of the kind she describes, presumably happened on a weekend. ... If the party described by Dr. Ford happened in the summer of 1982 on a weekend night, my calendar shows all but definitively that I was not there.”

Kavanaugh is making a huge assumption here, as Ford never stated when the alleged assault took place. Further, it is untrue that Kavanaugh’s friends only drank on the weekends during the summer:

Judge, Kavanaugh’s friend, wrote in a bookabout his battle with sobriety that he would often show up to work either hung over or still intoxicated from the night before.

5) "The calendars show a few weekday gatherings at friends' houses after a workout or just to meet up and have some beers. But none of those gatherings included the group of people that Dr. Ford has identified. And as my calendars show, I was very precise about listing who was there; very precise. "

There’s one entry, on July 1, that indicates that Kavanaugh, Judge, Smyth and the boy Ford says she was going out with were headed to a friend’s house for “skis” — acknowledged by Kavanaugh during his testimony as a gathering that involved drinking.

It’s hard to judge how detailed the attendee lists presented on Kavanaugh’s calendar are, but on multiple occasions he refers to parties in the abstract or to events that he acknowledged included people beyond those mentioned. (An example: When he’d go lift weights at a friend’s house.)

6) “My friends and I sometimes got together and had parties on weekends. The drinking age was 18 in Maryland for most of my time in high school, and was 18 in D.C. for all of my time in high school. I drank beer with my friends.”

Kavanaugh is being misleading.

The drinking age in Maryland was 18 when Kavanaugh was a freshman, sophomore and junior in high school — when he was 15, 16 and 17 years old. In the summer of 1982 — on July 1, in fact — it was increased to 21.

Kavanaugh claimed multiple times that seniors could legally drink while he was in high school — but this was only true prior to his own senior year.

7) “One of our good female friends who we would admire and went to dances with had her name used on the yearbook page with the term “alumnus.” That yearbook reference was clumsily intended to show affection, and that she was one of us. But in this circus, the media’s interpreted the term is related to sex. It was not related to sex.”

Kavanaugh here is referring to yearbook mentions of a woman named Renate Schroeder Dolphin, who had joined 64 other women in signing a letter of support for his candidacy. She then learned that Kavanaugh and his friends had referred to themselves as “Renate" alumni in their yearbook, which she recognized as an insinuation that she was promiscuous and had engaged in intimate relationships with each of the boys.

Bolstering Dolphin’s perception of the meaning of the term was a poem one of Kavanaugh’s classmates included in his yearbook entry: “You need a date / and it’s getting late / so don’t hesitate / to call Renate.” She told the New York Times that the insinuation was “horrible, hurtful and simply untrue.”

Kavanaugh's argument that the term was meant to show she was “one of us” is hard to believe — especially since she only learned of it after news reports chronicled it this month.

8) Rachel Mitchell, the Republicans' prosecutor: “Dr. Ford described a small gathering of people at a suburban Maryland home in the summer of 1982. She said that Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth and Leland [Keyser] also were present, as well as an unknown male, and that the people were drinking to varying degrees. Were you ever at a gathering that fits that description?”

Kavanaugh: “No, as I’ve said in my opening statement.”

In a later set of questions, Mitchell asked a similar question.

Mitchell: "Is there anything [on your calendars] that could even remotely fit what we’re talking about, in terms of Dr. Ford’s allegations?

Kavanaugh: No.

The latter response is noteworthy because Mitchell had just asked about the July 1 gathering(which included drinking) that Kavanaugh acknowledged was attended by Judge and Smyth.

Both answers seem to depend on the inclusion of Keyser in the question. In response to an earlier Mitchell question, Kavanaugh said this about her: “I — I know of her. And it — it's possible I, you know, saw — met her in high school at some point at some event. Yes, I know — I know of her and, again, I don't want to rule out having crossed paths with her in high school.”

9) Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.): Judge, have you — I don’t know if it’s “boufed” or “boofed” — how do you pronounce that?

Kavanaugh: That refers to flatulence. We were 16.

Whitehouse: Okay. And so when your friend Mark Judge said the same — put the same thing in his yearbook page back to you, he had the same meaning? It was flatulence?

Kavanaugh: I don’t know what he did, but that’s my recollection.

Later:

Whitehouse: Devil's triangle?

Kavanaugh: Drinking game.

Here Whitehouse is questioning Kavanaugh on entries in his high school yearbook.

Some have claimed that this is a clear reference to vomiting, suggesting drunkenness, or perhaps that it refers to a form of alcohol ingestion meant to avoid the smell of alcohol on one’s breath. Others have said that “devil’s triangle” refers to a sexual encounter involving three people. There is not contemporaneous documentation of those terms available online that would suggest those meanings were Kavanaugh’s real intent. (Sites such as Urban Dictionary emerged only in the Internet era and may not be instructive about past slang.)

High school slang is often very specific to small groups of people, so it’s hard to say that Kavanaugh was misleading here. We’ll note, though, that the New York Times’s David Enrich says that he spoke with a number of Kavanaugh’s former classmates and that he therefore thinks Kavanaugh was not being truthful.

10) To Whitehouse: “We in essence were having a party and didn’t pay attention to the game even though the game was the excuse we had for getting together.”

“I think that’s very common. I don’t know if you’ve been to a Super Bowl party for example, Senator, and not paid attention to the game and just hung out with your friends. I don’t know if you’ve done that or not. But that’s what we were referring to in those — those two occasions.”

Kavanaugh was responding to questions about two other yearbook entries, one reading “Georgetown vs. Louisville — Who Won That Game Anyway?” and another reading “Orioles vs. Red Sox — Who Won Anyway?” The “party” referred to in the beginning of his response refers to the Georgetown game. The Orioles game is documented on his calendar; he attended it in person with a number of his classmates.

Kavanaugh claimed this had nothing to do with drinking, saying his inability to recall who won was simply due to distraction.

This is a central point that Kavanaugh reiterated repeatedly: He had no issues with drinking to the point of forgetting. If he didhave such issues, of course, it would undercut his assertion that he can say with certainty that the alleged attack on Ford didn’t happen.

So he's left in a position of twice suggesting that he didn't know who won the sports events because he was simply having too much fun with his friends. It's an iffy excuse in the abstract, but in context it's obviously untrue.

Another example:

11) Whitehouse: Let’s look at, “Beach Week Ralph Club — Biggest Contributor,” what does the word Ralph mean in that?

Kavanaugh: That probably refers to throwing up. I’m known to have a weak stomach and I always have. In fact, the last time I was here, you asked me about having ketchup on spaghetti. I always have had a weak stomach. ... I got a weak stomach, whether it’s with beer or with spicy food or anything.

Beach Week is about drinking — this is common knowledge.

But Kavanaugh is saying any vomiting he did was not due to an over consumption of alcohol; rather, he is known for his terribly weak stomach.

Over and over, Kavanaugh dismisses the yearbook entries as being unrelated to his drinking. But he wasn’t asked about other entries, including “Keg City Club (Treasurer) — 100 Kegs or Bust.” It’s hard to think that this is about anything other than beer. So either his yearbook entry is littered with repeated references to drinking, being sick from drinking and forgetting things because of drinking — or each has an innocent explanation that doesn’t jibe with the most natural understanding of the term.