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.
Senator Collins: A True Stateswoman in the Kavanaugh Brawl
Senator Susan Collins is my hero for the day. I am always wary of Senators Murkowski (R-AK) and Collins (R-ME) when any check on abortion-on-demand is at issue. However, Senator Collins has been a true stateswoman in the Kavanaugh hearings. She has sent a letter to Chairman Grassley, published on her Senate webpage, which will make the absolute best out of the mess intentionally created by Senator Feinstein.
Senator Collins proposed the Judiciary Committee hearing open with the attorneys for the accuser and the accused questioning the two of them. This would let the strongest questions be asked before Senators start grandstanding or pulling punches. Senator Grassley knows he has a problem: he has no female Senator on his side of the room, so the optics will be bad if they don’t roll over. The two attorneys are both women.
Steven Hayward of Power Line believes that Senator Collins’ recommendation, if wisely adopted, will be decisive in this political contest:
As of this writing there are reports that Prof. Ford is balking at testifying, or demanding certain conditions or limitations on the questioning, though with this fast-moving story and flood of incorrect or inaccurate information, it is hard to know what is really going on. But I have a hunch that if Sen. Collins’s proposal is embraced, Prof. Ford will withdraw from the hearing.
If Senator Grassley takes the lifeline Senator Collins has thrown him, the Democrats plan will be seriously disrupted. With the very shaky story Prof. Ford has offered so far, it appears they were expecting another circus hearing with Grassley wearing a big red clown nose, honking impotently.
It would still be wise to pin down “Never Trump” Senators Flake and Corker, as I suggested the other day. I fear they are itching for a McCain moment, when they can publicly stick their thumbs in the eyes of the “deplorable” electorate and destroy the party so they can save it.
Update: Later in the day, Professor Ford’s attorney, Debra Katz, sent email to the Committee, stating Prof. Ford will not testify, and copied CNN, who published it. She rolled out the DNC #MeToo talking points, demanding delay and an FBI investigation. Of course, she insinuated Anita Hill was right and Justice Clarence Thomas was a sexual harasser. Katz likely also knows her client won’t hold up under questioning by Beth Wilkinson, Kavanaugh’s lawyer.
I don’t think the Republicans will play by these rules. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) threw the delay-of-game penalty flag on the Democrats’ “FBI investigation” ploy.
Good overview of how FBI background checks of nominees work. Not criminal investigation, not credibility judgment. Collect information & provide to Senate. That’s has happened. Cynical senators calling for “FBI investigation” know all this. https://t.co/eB51Vi2s0R
— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) September 19, 2018
Senator Flake then “implored” Ford to appear on Monday. Is he desperate to have an excuse to stick a thump in Arizonans’ eyes, or is he ready to support confirmation, absent compelling evidence of wrongdoing?
When Dr. Ford came forward, I said that her voice should be heard and asked the Judiciary Committee to delay its vote on Judge Kavanaugh. It did so. I now implore Dr. Ford to accept the invitation for Monday, in a public or private setting. The committee should hear her voice.
— Jeff Flake (@JeffFlake) September 19, 2018
Steven Hayward offers a more positive read on Senator Flake, and reinforces Senator Collins as stateswoman.
Sen. Collins is clearly perturbed and offended by the way the allegation against Judge Kavanaugh came to light, and Sen. Jeff Flake (also the wavering Bob Corker) have both said that if Dr. Hill doesn’t appear next Monday, the Senate should proceed to a vote. The hint seems to be that all of them, in the absence of any additional credible information, are ready to vote for Kavanaugh. Keep your eye on them through the weekend. Their public statements will signal how it is going to go. (I expect there will be yet another last minute Democratic attempt to produce new “information” late in the week or over the weekend to screw up Monday’s scheduled hearing—a new “witness,” or some fresh “rumors” of rumors.” So it’s not over until it’s over.)
The attempt by Democrats to smear Justice Thomas again calls back to mind his confirmation hearings and the 1991 Thomas confirmation vote. The Democrats controlled the Senate, and yet, he was confirmed 52-48. “Voting yes were 11 Democrats and 41 Republicans. Voting no were 46 Democrats and 2 Republicans.” Will we see any Democratic statesmen join the stateswoman of the hour, Senator Collins?
Published in Domestic Policy
Yes. A lawyer has to reveal evidence to the other side before trial, I believe. Why? Something to do with fairness? Justice? If a lawyer who withholds evidence can be sanctioned by the judge, why not in this case. Of course, you would need an honest media to explain it to the populace. Oh, wait…
But if he did it, that would mean he straight up lied about the whole thing to everyone about it now, as a responsible adult. So maybe having misbehaved badly as a kid is not disqualifying, but lying and trying to avoid responsibility as an adult would be. Otherwise what is there left to say in his defense? Everyone lies about their youthful attempted rapes? That would be utterly Clintonian.
Why do you think it is implausible that it happened to her? If one assumes no one is lying (which would be the nice thing to assume about everyone) then she was traumatized in the manner she describes, but not by Kavanaugh. Trauma can mess with people and maybe she at a later date fixated on his name and made him the attacker. It wouldn’t require her to have malice or ulterior motives. It would just be an accident of the human psyche. In which case she deserves both sympathy and help.
Kavanaugh has been given FBI background checks 6 times. That means there have been 6 opportunities for this woman to have come forward (as an adult). There were, of course numerous opportunities for her to have come forward as a minor when her recollections were still fresh. She has done none of those things. She is also a far left activist. Before coming forward on this unique occassion she scrubbed all of her social sites. I am not a politician. Therefore I can speak the truth without worrying about what some reporter will say about me. The truth, as I see it, is that she is a liar and a crass opportunist. I have zero sympathy for her and do not give a hoot if she gets any help or not. But thanks, anyway @valiuth for giving me such a great opportunity to say it.
Circumstantial evidence says she is lying. If she is telling the truth, then DiFi is responsible for two travesties, since, through the timing and the manner of release of the revelation she is manipulating this woman’s allegation purely for political gain, as well as in such a way that the claim itself is brought into disrepute.
When Democrats lose Morning Joe, and Mika, Senate Democrats must be doing something really stupid:
Morning Joe attacks the Senate Democrats, not Prof. Ford. This follows the approach of the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board, in its Sunday editorial:
It is sad to watch, but Feinstein lost her state party’s endorsement and is fending off a younger movement leftist. See this Sacramento CBS report.
An alleged witness, according to Prof. Ford, says heck no.
Watch for any claim that the unnamed girl, who Ford eventually said was there, has surfaced with a memory or maybe a journal entry.
What is notable, so far, is the lack of willing enemies from high school and college days that were spend in an already Democratic environment. Kavanaugh’s girlfriends have spoken well of him. So far, no male classmate has claimed Kavanaugh got out-of-control drunk or treated a sister badly. This all suggests an honorable youth.
To be Clintonian meant to lie about everything, at all ages, even when a lie wasn’t helpful. To be Clintonian meant getting large numbers of people to participate in those lies.
Here is what Senator Feinstein must deal with, inside her Senate caucus:
See an excellent update on Senator Grassley’s response to the Democrats and Prof. Ford, along with a Tweet from Senator Collins.
The Democrats do not want a closed door meeting with Ford; they want cameras rolling and images of a tearful woman being victimized “again” by old white Republican men. Better yet, they want the Republicans to flinch and demoralize MAGA voters before the midterms.
Jon Gabriel has posted Chairman Grassley’s red hot letter to his Democratic counterparts. It flatly blames them for (re)victimizing Prof. Ford. It braces other Republicans against further shenanigans, by throwing the skepticism flag now.
Yup, the GOP blew this one. They should have nominated a minority, probably a womyn or homosexual. By nominating a rapey white frat boy they pretty much threw this seat away until after Trump / GOP is out of power. Sad, another opportunity lost.
A woman for sure.
Because of the context. It does not pass the sniff test. That’s why. In the abstract, every accusation like this is “plausible” in the sense that of course it could have happened. But in the real moment we are in, given the players involved, I do not give it credence. It is possible but not plausible. But political passions vary and we tend to believe or not what we wish to believe or not, as Ricochet proves daily.
Mistaken identity, boy from a neighboring prep school? That is the latest rumor being circulated. Power Line has seen enough to write a cautious piece with relevant links.
The walk back of their over-reach begins. Be ye of good cheer my friends, the Progs will regroup and re-attack from another direction.
It does not matter if it actually happened. What matters is that she thinks it happened, thinks it was Kavanaugh, and that the drunken frat white boy should pay to make her feel better. Have no doubt the Dems will regroup and find more vague non witnesses to this sexual assault and attempted murder.
No. See Clarence Thomas and Miguel Estrada. As Andrew McCarthy makes clear, either we put Republicans into the Senate who will fight just as hard and dirty as Dems or we forever lose the Courts to leftists, “decent” ones at best.
This is why her actual testimony is so important. For example, one might ask her if her attacker was a boy she’d only met that night and never saw again? Or was he a family friend with whom she grew up and who she knew well? Has anyone even asked questions like these? If he was a stranger, the mistaken identity hypothesis becomes probable. If someone she knew well, her identification of Kavanaugh carries more weight. Assessment of the credibility of her claims can only be done if these and other questions can be asked. Her refusal to testify suggests her story would not hold up to scrutiny – perhaps not in the “she’s lying” sense of not holding up, but perhaps in the “pinning it on Kavanaugh is too uncertain” sense of not holding up. One way or another, without an accusation under oath with the opportunity to cross-examine, her story is an epistemological nothing-burger. Let’s hope it’s also a political nothing-burger.
I see what you did there. See Andrew McCarthy’s latest on Republicans agreeing for decades to two sets of rules.
Senator Grassley set a Friday morning deadline, for Dr. Ford to answer, if she is going to testify Monday. He was very accommodating of her, while swinging a sledgehammer at Senator Feinstein. I highlight some of the good parts.
http://ricochet.com/554619/chairman-grassley-slams-door-on-further-delay-tactics-in-kavanaugh-brawl/
Nobody said the Dems would not fight no matter who the GOP tries to nominate. It is that if the GOP nominates a minority it has a better chance of getting that person in and not looking like a bunch of rich white old boys club as they do it.
But evidence strongly suggested the Democrats would fight harder to stop a nominee who contradicts their narrative, who dares to stray from putative group ideological orthodoxy. Again, see Thomas and Estrada (whose wife died, ODed on pain pills and booze after miscarriage in the outrageously protracted fight to keep him off the DC Circuit bench (grooming for first Hispanic/Latino SCOTUS member). They broke him and killed his wife. Nothing personal, just power politics grounded in ruthlessly policed identity groups.
The obvious fix was to put at least one woman and Senator Scott on the Republican side of the committee. Blame Mitch and Grassley. Of course, we both fell into the left’s “white Hispanic” trap — but Senator Cruz doesn’t roll his “R’s” and go by his first name, “Rafael.”
Setting that aside, a simple visual inspection of the committee home page screams “clueless old boys running the party.”
This. The fact that, in this day and age, they apparently can’t see, or don’t bother to remediate, that simple optic, on this important committee, is telling. (I’m not sure exactly what it tells, but it’s something).
Flake, Corker, Collins and Murkowski only wanted the offer of a hearing to Ford. They were not going to sabotage this nomination, but they realized that the dirty trick created by Feinstein had to be addressed, which it was.
One of the great things about Morning Joe is the balance. If you want the unthinking view from the right watch Fox & Friends and the most of the rest of FNC. If you want the unthinking view from the left, watch most of MSNBC in the evening. But if you want some balance, watch Morning Joe. What you hear in the above clip is the show’s liberals take the Democrats to task.
Too late. This nomination is gone. Most likely there will not be another SCOTUS judge until the GOP has been swept from the field.
You underestimate the skills of the Democrats.
I believe that you are wrong, at least I hope you are.