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
The soft bigotry of low expectations.
In addition, the Anita Hill controversy was litigated before the Senate Judiciary Committee after the revelations and before confirmation. That’s not the same as the impeachment process, but then the alleged conduct occurred before he assumed his present office. For that matter, the alleged conduct occurred before he assumed his previous office of appellate judge.
The house can, in effect, impeach for whatever reason it wants, but has there been any new information that came out about Anita Hill’s allegations?
Of course if we’re bringing back Justice Thomas into play, why not investigate the liberal justices on the court? Is there any #MeToo dirt we can find on them? There doesn’t seem to be any effective statute of limitations on this stuff.
What began sounding like an awkward alcohol-fueled adolescent grope has now morphed into “attempted rape” and that the accuser believed she was in danger of being “inadvertently killed.”
It’s absurd and despicable, but I fear that Judge Kavanaugh is finished. It gives Flake, Murkowski and Collins the out they sought. A public questioning of the accuser and the accused will not move anyone unless Prof. Ford foams at the mouth and begins babbling in tongues. She will be the tormented-but-brave victim and the Republicans on the committee, should they dare press her for answers, will be her insensitive inquisitors, who will be hung out to dry by the press.
Precisely true.
Democrats Have Made Sure That Brett Kavanaugh Will Never Get A Fair Hearing
I don’t know. I hope you’re wrong. Susan Collins is evidently annoyed by the behavior of Kavanaugh’s opponents even before all this blew up: she was being sent hundreds of coat hangers, threats of funding her opponents if she votes wrong, very unpleasant phone calls to her and to her staffers… it might have been a bad idea to piss off one of the swing votes and then expect her to go along with what is obviously a late-in-the-game sandbagging of a perfectly decent and eminently qualified man.
Let’s not minimize this. According to Ford’s letter, it was neither “rape” nor “attempted rape” She is far more direct:
”Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980’s.”
We’re not talking about one teenager feeling up another. Two men locked her in a room, got on top of her, and tried to take her clothes off.
If you don’t want to believe her, that’s fine. But let’s not minimize things. What is alleged is sexual assault.
Yes, I am pleasantly surprised that the Republican women, who have had to deal with all the [redacted] of coming up in politics in their era, are dealing responsibly with this matter. It is notably the two male #NeverTrump Senators, who ducked the judgment of their voters this year, who are giving the Democrats cover and oxygen.
So you believe her. Based on what? The severity of the accusation?
Staffers are irrelevant, except as prep for another round of hearings before the cameras.
There are a couple of sub-threads here.
First, @fredcole is clearly right that the allegation is much more serious here than in the Anita Hill situation, but that in turn leads in two quite different directions. The more serious allegation against Kavanaugh is far less credible than the allegations lodged against Thomas. (Far back in time, no specifics, no surrounding circumstances giving heft to the overall charge, etc.)
But it should not be forgotten, @fredcole, that Anita Hill did not charge even sexual harassment! (The feminists pushed her to come forward, and in addition totally mischaracterized her claims once she tentatively advanced them. Thomas was the prime victim, obviously, but Hill was badly abused by the Left as well.) Thus, it is not at all hard to believe what Anita Hill actually charged, and still find it not to be disqualifying.
Why do I say this? At the time of Hill-Thomas events, neither one was married, and Thomas did not claim either any inappropriate touching or any direct or implied quid pro quo in her job advancement. Under the standard of the times, that was not sexual harassment, and Hill never claimed it was. (Never. Look it up.) At worst, asking a subordinate out on a date was considered bad form, or–if in a uniformed service–a violation of the chain of command. Today, of course, the standard is different and much easier to apply: everything is sexual harassment if done by a male actor.
(Another example: referencing a pubic hair on a can of coke was uncouth then, a firing offense now. Ditto mentioning the name of a male porn star.)
The second sub-thread is about the definition of “lying.” As more information emerges, it is less and less certain that “one or the other must be lying.” My bet is that Ford is just mistaken in many aspects of her claim, but most spectacularly about who the young perp was.
This, in turn, is quite different from the disgusting game that DiFi is playing for the benefit of Susan Collins. By avoiding a full inquiry during the normal time limits, DiFi hoped to trick Collins into just falling back into a me-too solidarity moment. Looks like it is backfiring. Good. Apparently, there is a lot of jockeying going on about whether Ford will or will not testify under oath and in public. It’s not exactly clear exactly who wants what? (Did DiFi withhold the information in part because she knew if only sounded awful, but could not withstand scrutiny? We’ll see.)
I wrote the OP before Senator Corker climbed on board. That makes 2 for 2 #NeverTrump male Senators who are leaving at the end of this term, after ducking the judgment of their voters this year.
Senator Collins has been a model of Senate propriety in this matter, expressing concern about Senator Feinstein’s handling of this matter. Senator Murkowski is not on the Judiciary Committee, but is making comments like Flake and Corker, possibly looking for an excuse to stop a nominatee who is not clearly supportive of abortion-on-demand.
The White House is doing a lousy job of clearly posting Judge Kavanaugh’s latest statement of denial. All news accounts quote but fail to link to an authoritative source.
President Trump, and his advisor Kellyanne Conway, have hit just the right notes on this.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-inaugural-meeting-presidents-national-council-american-worker/
Kellyanne Conway:
https://video.foxnews.com/v/5835806063001/?#sp=show-clips
“Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s sexual assault accuser Christine Ford should not be ignored or insulted.”
But certainly Clarence Thomas, through the new, enlightened lens of #MeToo. So, if “credibly” applies to Kavanaugh, it applies to the Thomas confirmation, so he must be impeached.
Who, among R> lawyers, has real knowledge of the character and fitness requirements, which Brett Kavanaugh had to meet, back when he first applied for membership in the bar? Check the following claim:
Mine was a wise crack, but that’s raw power, these are quibbles about sexual behavior of children. Can you imagine a Republican raising the issue that some Democrat nominee tried to kiss some girl when in high school?.
You forgot “afraid he was going to inadvertently kill her” – but didn’t tell anyone…for over 30 years. No police report, not one of the other girls at school, afraid of being murdered and raped. Sure.
You may miss my point. I am pressing for consistency and a strong test of the real beliefs of Senators. If we are now more enlightened, or if power has shifted, such that every woman is to be believed, at least when conservative male jurists are in question, then Thomas must be presumed to have lied at his confirmation hearing, conduct which is clearly impeachable.
I, for one, completely reject any attempt to trivialize alleged violation of federal law, regarding sexual harrassment, by comparison to alleged sexual assault (by one minor on another minor).
Further, if Judge Kavanaugh is unfit for the Supreme Court, due to alleged criminal conduct, then he must also be unfit for any judgeship. Indeed, he must have lied on a catch-all question in prior confirmation hearings, so is subject to impeachment for concealing this uncharged, alleged, criminal act.
I ask for R> members, who are attorneys, with real knowledge of bar admission standards, back when K first applied, to comment on potential violations of the application process. If the allegations are credible, should this trigger a query as to his initial admission to the practice of law? Do the allegations seem crafted to trigger such an inquiry?
Update from Fox News:
Here is the official Senate announcement:
Fred Cole obviously attended a far more genteel high school than did I. If any of my male classmates had become prominent enough for it to matter, there are few who could have escaped the current “sexual assault” standards, considering drive-in movies, an occasional beer-fueled party and late night down-by-the lake parking. In those days, vehicle locks were on the inside so a damsel in distress could easily escape if she wanted. Apparently, bedroom locks are now on the outside of the room. Anyway, the whole thing has reached such a level of absurdity that nothing will matter. High school, fergodssake! Thirty five years ago, fergodssake!
Officer Friendly’s advice to the Senate is to move along, there’s nothing to see here. Ms. Ford provided some of the notes her therapist took during their sessions to the Washington Post. Kavanaugh’s name does not appear in the notes. One would assume that she chose the notes that would best establish her credibility.
She has selective memory loss. She can give a minute by minute account of the assault, to include what she wearing, but she can’t remember whose home it was where the assault occurred. I haven’t seen a date that has been specified for the occurrence of the assault. That makes it rather difficult for Mr. Kavanaugh to refute the claim by establishing where he was, or for anyone else to establish his whereabouts.
Oh, in addition to almost inadvertently ‘murdering her’ Poweline is reporting that Bret Kavanaugh’s Mother, also a Judge, ruled against the accusers parents in a foreclosure case, but it’s really the seriousness of the charge. End this farce. Confirm him. Demonstrate that these tactics, and that is all they are, won’t work.
So the smear machinists have upped their game. Big Whoop. This is NOT a serious allegation, given the political context, and you (should) know that. No court would entertain it as it stands.
Then why did you say “attempted rape”?
“inadvertently kill her” has been nagging me…a serious step beyond sexual assault even and raises my questions about this woman’s mental state.
Doug, what’s the legal penalty for a charge of attempted involuntary manslaughter?
^What’s the legal penalty for making up a false sexual assault accusation in order to destroy a man?
None.
It really depends upon the judge. Every state has different sentencing guidelines.
Correction. According to her, two boys locked her in a room. One – Brett Kavanaugh – got on top of her and tried to take her clothes off. The other one jumped on top of her and Kavanaugh – twice. The second time he jumped, all three of them were jostled off the bed and onto the floow. At that point, she managed to escape to a bathroom and lock herself in. That’s what I remember reading anyway.
She doesn’t even remember the year that this alleged assault occurred.
I didn’t say I believe her. It’s too early to draw conclusions either way. However, at the moment, I’m not inclined to believe the allegations based on the available evidence.
This is a he said/she said from 30 years ago at a party where people were drinking. There was no police report and no corroboration at the time. Human memory is terrible and she didn’t tell anyone about this until 2012, when it came out in a therapy session or something. I’ve heard the therapist’s notes don’t match the story she’s telling now.
And it doesn’t fit into a larger pattern of behavior. Like with serial predators like Bill Clinton or Donald Trump, an allegation like this might fit into a larger pattern. There isn’t a long list of accusers here, the way there is for Bill Clinton or Donald Trump.
This woman may genuinely believe the story she’s telling. That doesn’t mean it happened.