Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
#HimToo? Call Wavering Senators’ Bluff
If Sen. Flake, who the careful John Hinderaker now calls “traitor,” truly believes Judge Kavanaugh’s 11th -hour Democrat accuser, he will immediately call for the judge’s impeachment. If Flake and the abortion-on-demand supporters, Senators Collins and Murkowski, believe a word of the accusation against Judge Kavanaugh, if they even really believe the allegation is serious, then they will also immediately hold a press conference demanding the impeachment of Justice Clarence Thomas. They will do no such thing because they believe none of this.
As John Hinderaker explains:
“Traitor” is normally considered a harsh word, but it is the only printable thing I have called “Republican” Senator Jeff Flake since he announced, a few hours ago, that he is “not comfortable voting yes” on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. His concern is the ridiculously stale allegation by Democrat professor Christine Ford that Kavanaugh groped her and tried to kiss her at a party when they were both high school students more than 30 years ago. You might reasonably think this is a joke. Unfortunately not.
Kavanaugh unequivocally denies Ford’s allegation, and the only witness to the event (per Ford), Mark Judge, says “It’s just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way.” I think Ms. Ford is pretty obviously lying (don’t get me started on the friendly “lie detector test” that the Washington Post says she passed), or, on the most charitable explanation, possibly has Brett Kavanaugh confused with someone else.
There is no honest way to claim “concern” and seek to end Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination, outright or by the deceit of “need more time to examine evidence,” without simultaneously seeking the suspension of the judge from his appellate court duties, pending the outcome of impeachment proceedings. Indeed, Senator Grassley should force the issue by first calling a committee vote to refer the Anita Hill testimony to the House with a recommendation of opening impeachment proceedings. Let us see where Flake and Senators Collins and Murkowski really stand.
Follow that vote, before the cameras, with a second vote on a motion to refer Prof. Ford’s letter, and all public accounts of the allegations, to the House for immediate impeachment proceedings against Judge Kavanaugh. Again, force Flake, and every (other) Republican, to fully own or fully repudiate this character assassination.
Senator Grassley should tweet CNN’s (!) clip of Clarence Thomas’s crowning moment before the same committee, when he vehemently denied the Anita Hill allegations and concluded, “this is a high-tech lynching.” The Democrats have since gotten some insulation with Sens. Booker and Harris, so the same phrase cannot be repeated. But it would be powerful to tweet the video and say: “The Democrats smeared an honorable man before, and are at it again.”
If Senator Grassley won’t go there, President Trump must. He must also remind everyone that Judge Amy Coney Barrett was interviewed, and voted on, by all but two current Senators, and is his non-negotiable next pick for the next Supreme Court vacancy. That would put steel in the squishy Senators’ spines, and either push Flake back on the conservative side, or cause him to permanently discredit himself, with all serious people.
Meanwhile, Rep. McSally must speak out now. If she agrees with Flake, she must lead the charge, introducing the motion to begin impeachment proceedings against Judge Kavanaugh. If she disagrees, she must call out Flake for colluding with Democrats to degrade the power of real #MeToo claims with malicious political mendacity.
Either way, McSally gets to be the voice of conscience in Congress. Silence will bring a wave of Democrat attack ads to which she will have to respond. The fighter pilot knows OODA and needs to get inside her Senate campaign opponent Rep. Sinema’s decision loop.
Published in Culture
Interesting dynamic, no? Technically putting this one in the NeverTrump category is highly problematic as Kavanaugh is from DC GOP Central Casting.
Yet, this one plays into the same Acela-approval ache and cultural surrender syndrome that underlies some NeverTrumpishness.
Though it also, in large part, is standard GOP fighting style: rope-a-dope without ever hitting back.
Jeff Flake is a coward and a traitor, as is every so-called Republican who gives any quarter to the evil, gutter politics of the left.
Either this one woman is telling the truth and everyone else around Kavanaugh is lying and in on a very large cover-up, or this woman is a pure partisan hack willing to cravenly use a false abuse accusation against a decent man in order to advance her sides politics. There is no in-between on this, somebody is not telling the truth.
The default here is simple, a person is innocent until proven guilty and the vote goes forward. If the Republicans cave on this (seemingly) pure political hit job, then I’m truly done with them.
The Republicans should call a special hearing to discuss this new accusation.
The Republicans should call only one witness to explain why Kavanaugh should (or should not) be on the Supreme Court: Bill Clinton.
I would be interested to hear President Clinton’s opinion on this matter, and Republicans should offer him a platform to explain this matter to us.
Mr. Hindraker makes a good point: Brett Kavanaugh is already a sitting judge. Should he be removed from any bench, or are there slots in the judicial hierarchy that men who are accused of sexual predation/misbehavior may occupy?
People keep talking about Anita Hill, I don’t know of the situations are at all comparable. Hill accused Thomas of sexual harassment, not attempted rape. There’s a world of difference there.
So what are you saying Fred? Exactly what are you implying by that comment?
Does the vaunted Nate Silver have a poll that assesses the likely % truth of this murky alleged rape of 30+ years?
At powerline today, I believe that they have it assessed just right:
Nothing is implied. The comment is straightforward.
Other than a late surprise on a Supreme Court nomination, and it involving allegations of a sexual nature, the Anita Hill situation isn’t really comparable.
Sexual harassment and attempted rape are two very different things. The latter is a far more serious allegation than the former.
That’s sort of the whole point of this slander isn’t it? To insert a question mark next to Kavanaugh’s name for decades to come would be worth some serious lefty points to this Prof. From what I’ve seen so far this accusation has zero credibility, and the vote should go forward as planned. The accusation itself shouldn’t be a deciding factor IMHO, otherwise we simply toss out the word “murder” and stop the next election, no?
The mroe we learn of this accuser, the less credibility she seems to have.
Collins at least does not appear pleased at how this is going down.
And under the present circumstances, the latter is not very serious at all.
Vote him in already. Enough with this circus.
Sexual assault is much better than murder. It’s easier to prove that a murder has actually occurred. That involves a dead body.
If you’re making up charges, I would choose sexual assault over murder. Absolutely impossible to disprove. Especially 35 years later. Plus, sexual assault makes for better headlines. More free air time on the old media.
Has this accuser’s letter been released in its entirety? Couple question/observations:
I understand that Kavanaugh attended an all boy school. How did accuser know it was him (and the second teen accused)? Was that teen named in letter? She recalled who they were by name or what she thought he/they would “look like” 35 years later? These drunk assaulters gave their first and last names to her before the incident but she didn’t report these names to any authority figures at the time? Did she ask to other partygoers “who were those guys”? Who did she ask? Who invited her? Whose house was it and were these 65 women vouching for Kavanaugh- were any of them there?
I’m just very, very, very skeptical of this entire thing/don’t buy it at all. Burden of proof, much more than what has been alleged, is required by accuser.
Yeah, she named the other student who was allegedly at the scene, Mark Judge, who vehemently denies this incident ever occurred.
But remember, the Democrats and the Nevers have now accepted “credibly accused” as the equivalent of guilt. No due process necessary.
FIFY
She apparently is unable to nail down the exact year it allegedly happened. She can’t say where it happened, who invited her, or how she got home. But she knows it was him?
I don’t have a lot of traumas in my life, but the one I can think of (my best friend killing himself in January of 1991), I remember in extreme detail everything about how I found out about it – I can tell you the day of the week, the time and method by which I found out, I can tell you what television show I was watching the night before when the phone rang three times and hung up before I could reach the phone to answer it ( I found out later that he’d made phone calls to several people that night before shooting himself), I can remember some of the jokes we told at the reception after the funeral.
I just don’t buy this “I was so traumatized I can’t remember any of the details ” stuff.
Remember, they did this to ‘squeaky-clean’ Mitt Romney too.
New ad ties Romney to cancer death.
The thirst for power and lengths of lies that democrats use is disgusting beyond imagination.
All Republicans and people of goodwill should refute it everywhere. #ConfirmKavanaugh
I would like to request the assistance of Ricochet members in a small research project. I presume some of you subscribe to or read mainstream media, such as the NYT, CNN, the AP, WaPo, etc; or sites like HuffPo or Slate. Please forward to me all of the articles you find that criticize the Senate Democrats or Senator Feinstein for violating norms in the matter of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. It’s bound to be a very large number, which is why I seek assistance.
Thank you for your help, and best wishes,
Josh aka TheSockMonkey
I see what you did there…
I just don’t get this. Is this really the precedent they want to set?
Anyone who claims that Trump introduced chaos and incivility into the processes of government is blind or bonkers: surely anyone with any sense can see how pointlessly destructive this gambit is?
They’re not thinking ahead.
Perfect wording.
Don’t be silly. It doesn’t work in the other direction.
That’s what Harry Reid thought when he went nuclear.
The comparison is being made because both allegations appear to be politically motivated ,poorly corroborated and unreported at the time.
Yes, rape and unwanted kissing/touching are not the same-I think we all get that. Thanks for arguing in good faith.
Based on what’s come out about this sorry episode, “credibly” isn’t required either. Just “accused”.
They’re guilty based on the severity of the
crimeaccusation.Not Keith Ellison, though.
I absolutely agree with you.
She has a powerful motive in divulging this information now. And it is 11th hour.
Her story checks a lot of false rape boxes.
He has been a judge for a few decades, been checked out by the FBI multiple times, and there hasn’t been anything that was found. The Democrats used everything they could to sink his confirmation, and this just seems like last minute attempt.
Dr. Ford contacted congresspeople and newspeople, and supposedly didn’t want her name revealed, then decided because the story got out, she needed to speak up. If she didn’t want the story out she was in complete control of that. She timed the contacts too coincidental. There is nothing for her to lose and a lot for her to gain. She really doesn’t want him to sit on the Supreme Court and neither does her husband. That is a fact.