Kavanaugh Open Thread: Republicans Pick Arizona Prosecutor to Question Ford on Thursday
The hearing should take place tomorrow.
The Senate Republicans have chosen Arizona prosecutor to question Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct over 30 years ago, at the hearing that should take place on Thursday.
Democrats Threaten to Sue
This will not end well. Also, separation of powers, anyone?
Oy. This can only hurt the view of Democrats, Such a lawsuit has no chance of succeeding. https://t.co/FjYzTR8Jg2
— Rick Hasen (@rickhasen) September 26, 2018
Committee Releases Kavanaugh’s Prepared Remarks for Thursday
The Senate Judiciary Committee has released Kavanaugh’s prepared remarks for the hearing that may take place tomorrow. He denies the allegations against him and promises that the campaign against him will not work:
Sexual assault is horrific. It is morally wrong. It is illegal. It is contrary to my religious faith. And it contradicts the core promise of this Nation that all people are created equal and entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. Allegations of sexual assault must be taken seriously. Those who make allegations deserve to be heard. The subject of allegations also deserves to be heard. Due process is a foundation of the American rule of law.
Dr. Ford’s allegation dates back more than 36 years, to a party that she says occurred during our time in high school. I spent most of my time in high school focused on academics, sports, church, and service. But I was not perfect in those days, just as I am not perfect today. I drank beer with my friends, usually on weekends. Sometimes I had too many. In retrospect, I said and did things in high school that make me cringe now. But that’s not why we are here today. What I’ve been accused of is far more serious than juvenile misbehavior. I never did anything remotely resembling what Dr. Ford describes.
The allegation of misconduct is completely inconsistent with the rest of my life. The record of my life, from my days in grade school through the present day, shows that I have always promoted the equality and dignity of women.
Ford Hasn’t Turned Over Lie Detector Tests or Therapist Notes
According to Kavanaugh’s attorney, Ford hasn’t turned over her lie detector test results or notes from her therapist, both of which Ford’s lawyer has used to give her accusations proof of the alleged sexual misconduct. From Townhall:
“The first time these allegations came to light as far as we know from reading the reports in the media, Dr. Blasey [Ford] told her therapist and her husband. They announced that there were notes and that there had been a lie detector test, but as I understand it, they did not turn any of those over the Senate Committee even though they were requested,” attorney Beth Wilkinkson said during an interview Wednesday with CBS This Morning. “The information that would have shown at the very first time when she revealed these allegations have not been turned over to the Senate.”
Wilkinson said Kavanaugh is prepared to answer any questions asked at Thursday’s planned hearing. Blasey Ford is also scheduled to testify.
WATCH: Brett Kavanaugh’s attorney Beth Wilkinson tells us that lawyers for Dr. Ford have not turned over the results of her lie detector test or her therapist’s notes to the Senate Judiciary Committee. pic.twitter.com/ClAUNhwReY
— CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) September 26, 2018
Calendars
WaPo obtained Kavanugh’s calendars from 1982:
Kavanaugh’s 1982 calendars as obtained by WaPo pic.twitter.com/H6bkR5ERsC
— Seung Min Kim (@seungminkim) September 26, 2018
Charles Cooke Debunks MSM’s Media Spin on Kavanaugh’s Fox Interview
Apparently people in the MSM have said that Kavanaugh told Martha McCallum that he didn’t drink or do anything embarrassing in college. He never said any of that.
There’s an enormous straw man being established this morning: Namely, that Kavanaugh told McCallum that he didn’t drink, and had never done anything embarrassing. He didn’t. He said he’d never blacked out, and had never committed sexual assault. Here’s the transcript. (1) pic.twitter.com/liiddCxZ85
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) September 26, 2018
Not only does Kavanaugh himself say that he drank, McCallum clearly acknowledges that this is what she heard him say in her follow-up question about blacking out. “I’ve never blacked out” is a very, very long way away from “I don’t drink.” I drink. I’ve never blacked out. (2)
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) September 26, 2018
Another straw man is that Kavanaugh presented himself as a “choir boy.” But he didn’t. He talked about church and basketball etc. when asked—I cant believe I’m writing this—whether he ran a gang rape club. After that, he immediately said he drank, went to parties. Transcript: (1) pic.twitter.com/kiqOf0sy8U
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) September 26, 2018
Look at the chronology. It’s not: “Did you drink a lot?” “I went to church and had good friends and liked basketball.” It’s: “Did you run a gang rape club?” “I went to church and had good friends and liked basketball , and yes we partied but I never committed sexual assault.” (2)
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) September 26, 2018
Washington Post and NBC News have latched onto these stupid lies, too.
He did not portray himself as a “choir boy.” He said he engaged in cringe-worthy behavior, which reports make clear he surely did. What interview were they watching? Where did this line come from? https://t.co/PkITuS4vGG
— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) September 26, 2018
Fake media theme for the day is that Ford’s claims are corroborated. This is completely untrue, these are simply people she told relatively recently about it. Yet even major news outlets are pushing this nonsense. https://t.co/mTGj4KLVWd
— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) September 26, 2018
Wow, top WaPo investigative reporters report Kavanaugh was a “sloppy drunk” in college. The media deserve every bit of scorn heaped on them. This crap will not be forgotten. https://t.co/RbB3sPymxp
— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) September 26, 2018
Kavanaugh: “I think all of us have probably done things we look back on in high school and regret or cringe a bit, but that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about an allegation of sexual assault. I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone.”
Krugman: https://t.co/hluEXM3J7Q
— Philip Klein (@philipaklein) September 26, 2018
Jennifer Rubin Spreading Lies
WaPo columnist Jennifer Rubin claimed on Twitter that Mitchell worked under Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Only this crowd of clueless old white guys wold pick someone from Sheriff Joe’s operation. I was saying no self-respecting lawyer would take the job of giving cover to GOP cowards. I was right.
— Jennifer Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) September 26, 2018
Yeah….that is NOT true at all.
GET IT RIGHT Rachel Mitchell works for the elected Maricopa County attorney. She has worked under at least three elected county attorneys during her time in that office. Arpaio was Maricopa County sheriff. Two separate elected offices. https://t.co/4QSmy434zx
— BrahmResnik (@brahmresnik) September 26, 2018
The county prosecutor does NOT work for the county sheriff. They are completely separate departments. Rachel Miller is not “one of Sheriff Joe’s operation.”. She is a highly respected sex crimes prosecutor.
TRY to inform yourself of what you’re tweeting about before doing it.
— David Cole Grey (@greycole05) September 26, 2018
This is incorrect. When are you planning on deleting it?
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) September 26, 2018
Arizona Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell
From The Washington Post:
Mitchell is the chief of the special victims division of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, which deals with sexual assault cases, among others. A registered Republican, Mitchell has worked for in the county attorney’s office for 26 years.
In enlisting Mitchell to join their staff, Republican senators are taking an unusual step. They are turning to her to ask what are expected to be personal and potentially painful questions about the woman’s youth on live television, sparing the all-male panel of 11 Republican senators on the committee some uncomfortable exchanges that could sway the public’s opinion about the session.
“The majority members have followed the bipartisan recommendation to hire as staff counsel for the committee an experienced career sex-crimes prosecutor to question the witnesses at Thursday’s hearing,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement. “The goal is to de-politicize the process and get to the truth, instead of grandstanding and giving senators an opportunity to launch their presidential campaigns.”
He added, “I’m very appreciative that Rachel Mitchell has stepped forward to serve in this important and serious role.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It’s a great move to bring in the star of Law & Order AZ: Special Victims Unit to spearhead the interrogation — it’s an even better move to telegraph that fact while Ford still has the chance to get a flat tire or two on the way to DC.
Brett Kavanaugh isn’t the only prominent conservative whose reputation is threatened by allegations of sexual misconduct lodged against the Supreme Court nominee.
White House aides and allies who vouched for Kavanaugh’s squeaky-clean public image and encouraged President Donald Trump to choose him for the highest court have a lot to lose, too — including the president’s trust, which has allowed them to wield enormous influence over his nominations to the federal bench.
They include Federalist Society executive director Leonard Leo, Ethics and Public Policy Center President Ed Whelan and White House counsel Don McGahn, all of whom were longtime personal friends of the judge before Trump tapped him to replace outgoing Justice Anthony Kennedy in July. All three personally attested not only to Kavanaugh’s legal chops but to his character as well.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/25/kavanaugh-conservative-legal-insiders-838469
Johnson is right, of course. This nomination has to be punched through. What the Deemocrats have done is literally monstrous, and ramifies out in ways we hardly appreciate yet.
This is a solid move, and there needs to be some serious whipping goin’ on…!!!
Confirm.
You’re actually making sense, and there’s no treason in your proposal. Suddenly, I’m suspicious.
Agreed. This has gone far beyond — way beyond — what should have been a routine appointment.
No appointment is routine if you don’t have the votes.
Great point. Another Gettysburg moment for the Republicans.
I like to believe that Judge Kavanaugh’s courage in the face of these despicable smear tactics by the entire spectrum of leftist propagandists has been a great leadership example for the senate GOP. Kavanaugh is looking more and more every day as a brilliant man who has lived an exemplary life and seems to be standing nearly alone (of course he is not) against the mob. iow, Kavanaugh is becoming the sympathetic victim in many eyes, not Ford.
If Thursday turns out as it appears likely–either no Ford or a Ford without any new evidence–then senators will have to balance out the cost of voting against the apparent real victim here: Judge Kavanaugh.
Ford won’t show. This scam has been planned for a long time and every detail figured out except for this. Ford is a liar and she has done stuff like not sending the letter directly to Feinstein because if she is lying it’s a felony. She sent it to a local politician to send to Feinstein. Ford will make a statement that the process is unfair and not show.
Yep, my money is still on her not showing.
It’s unfortunate that her name was leaked. How much harassment do you think she’ll get before the hearing? OTOH, maybe that’s the plan? To publicize the hypocrisy of the Democrats, as their goons attack a woman?
good article by employment attorney that defends sexual harassment claims.
10 red flags –
1) accuser brings claim via media instead of corporate channels ( or law enforcement)
2) timing – coinciding with other employment issues or political reasons
3) doesnt coorporate with investigation
4) tries to control investigation
5) inability to identify culprit
6) no corroborating witnesses
7) corroborating witness provide no additional info
8)accused required to provide defense before accuser provides final version
9) strong denial by accused.
10) accuser attacks the process – such as objects to investigator.
Christine ford has all 10 red flags
Ramirez has 6-7 of the red flags
In both cases, all witnesses named by the accusers dispute the allegation.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/25/10-red-flags-sexual-assault-claims-employment-lawyer/
Trotting out a third accuser WITH NO POLICE REPORT is really weakening the “seriousness of the accusation” efficacy via dilution.
The public might believe the first, but the 2nd and 3rd bring down the odds.
Also- we are to believe that while some go through a mullet phase or a skinny jean phase of their life… Kavanaugh went through a gang rape phase which magically ended after he left the dorms?
Right out of the gate, I’d like to see foundational questions posed to gauge the accuser’s legitimately-suspect credibility. Obvious questions not directly related to the accusation at hand. Specifically, questions relating to the accuser’s travel history and methods. After all, her attorney made a big public show with the claim that the accuser is allegedly so traumatized by this alleged incident, that she cannot fly on commercial airlines, due to the confined spaces therein. So, I want to know about her travel history visiting family, friends, vacation trips and work-related travel, and, her modes of transportation taken.
Secondly, I want to know about her social media history. Does she use social media? If so, which websites and services? Has she recently deleted content on her profiles, or, substantially changed content on any of those websites? If so, why did she engage in “scrubbing,” as has been reported?
Lastly, I want to know about her political history, her ideological leanings and her level of political activism. Is she apolitical? Does she visit political websites to read content? Does she subscribe to any political newsmagazines? Has she volunteered on any political campaigns? Has she donated to political candidates, or, non-profit advocacy groups? I want to know how much she is into politics and how much of her time and energy she spends on political causes.
Apparently CBF now has 4 corroborations: affidavits from 3 friends and her husband that she told them about the alleged attack.
Those aren’t corroborations from percipient witnesses; they are decades-after-the-fact statements that Ford told them something. The statements are worthless as evidence except to partisans who blindly believe anything this woman says, as her lawyers well know.
Yes, 30 years later and the 2012 issue with Romney sounds more and more plausible. This person went to school with Kavenaugh and has the nerve and mental ability to be the focal point of a democrat character assassination attempt. She either has a huge rejection axe to grind, a complicit democrat activist, or both.
…still 30+ years later.
Nothing there makes her claims more likely true, only that she putatively came to believe them THEN.
Curious to me is that this came up during a casual conversation at the settings described.
I heard about this. But, here’s my question — what is the practical worth of such “corroboration?” Firstly, none of the statements are remotely contemporaneous with the date that the alleged conduct took place. They are all attestations given thirty-some-odd years after the alleged event, by decidedly non-neutral and biased parties (i.e., family and friends of the accuser) that state, “Yes, I attest to the fact that, in 2011, CBF told me in conversation that Brett Kavanaugh attacked her, in 1982.” This is absolutely laughable. In terms of probative value, it is beyond worthless, and should be utterly disregarded.
Actually, what I’m seeing is that they are saying she only told them post therapy in 2012.
Welp.
I’m convinced.
Can you give us citations or link to the 4 corroborating witnesses.
thanks
Cool story, Bro.
Those statements are hearsay, and there are very good reasons why hearsay statements are generally not admissible in court.
And yes, I know this is the senate and not a court of law. But those statements still “corroborate” nothing other than the fact that Ford has been telling this story to friends for a few years now, since the time Kavanaugh’s name began to be mentioned in the media as a possible SCOTUS pick by Romney (but that’s probably just a coincidence, right?)
She told her husband and three friends in 2012. Is that when Kavanaugh ‘s name was put up as a possibility to the Supreme Court? Hmmmm.
Yes. Kavanaugh was on Mitt Romney’s short list in 2011-2012, and that’s when both the accusers “remembered”.
It occurs to me that the Dumb-o-crat politicians need a refresher course to study what the underlying purpose of having concepts such as Statutes of Limitation and Laches, are, in the first place. Fairness to the defending party, or, parties, being foremost among them. The Dumb-o-crats used to make a big show of supporting the rights of criminal defendants. There is a reason that courts have historically frowned upon people making criminal and civil claims, decades after-the-fact, for obvious reasons — potential evidence is stale, accuser and witness memories fade, etc., etc. It comes down to basic fairness.
Let’s get real — this charade isn’t just an obvious attempt to deny conservatives rightfully-earned political power — this is ultimately about intimidating and vilifying conservatives to such a degree that we will no longer participate in our democracy, or, in life in the public square, for fear of suffering slander, damage to our personal and professional reputations, economic harm and professional/job-related risk, and, possibly, physical violence. This is what the totalitarian Left and Dumb-o-crats seek, as the end-game — one-Party rule, by driving conservatives out of participation in the political process.
The proceedings are about Kavanaugh’s suitability to sit as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Period. The objective is to give the Senate — first the Judiciary Committee and then the full chamber — enough information to make a discriminating appraisal of Kavanaugh’s legal erudition and character. On that score, the Senate has more information about this nominee — including, most significantly, the 300 appellate opinions he has authored on the eminent D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals — than any nominee in the history of the United States.
The Senate is not being asked to solve alleged crimes. Its job is not to psychoanalyze witnesses. Lawmakers, instead, are exercising their constitutional duty to provide advice to the president on a nomination and, if appropriate, to consent to a nominee’s accession to office. That’s it.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/kavanaugh-confirmation-hearings-not-a-trial/
That’s a very nice piece of “returning to first principles” which I commonly advocate. Step back a bit, take a breath, and remember what SHOULD be being done. Something for all of us to recall from time-to-time…
Sexual predator like Cosby has 60 victims lined up to testify with evidence. Kebinaugh has 1 supposed victim with NO evidence and dictating terms of appearing before the Senate. …… Hmmm….
Kavanaugh has as many women testifying to his sterling character as Cosby had denouncing his.
Kavanugh……….slips.
Creepy Porn Lawyer has released his client’s statement.
I’ve been ruminating about this charade, over the past few days. What is the end-game? The “30,000-foot” view? What in the corporate world is referred to as the “macro” environment.
I don’t think that this is really about judges and the federal bench. This isn’t about Kavanaugh. It’s not about Roe v. Wade and abortion — even if that’s in the background, for sure. It’s not even about Trump — as much as the Dumb-o-crats would like to have his head on a pike.
This is about something much more fundamental, deep in the earth. This goes back to the Dumb-o-crats’ treatment of Bork in 1987, Thomas in 1991, Miguel Estrada in 2002 (whose wife had a miscarriage and ultimately committed suicide, due to the stress of Estrada being denied confirmation in a similarly-vicious process), up to Feinstein and Durbin’s recent, despicable and bigoted vilification of Amy Coney Barrett, for daring to be an unabashedly and openly-devout Catholic and a conservative woman.
The Dumb-o-crats want to make abundantly clear to conservatives in ALL spheres of American society, and, in all spheres of public life, that we will pay a very, very steep, and bloody price for daring to voice our beliefs and for daring to participate in our democracy. The Left and Dumb-o-crats want one-Party rule, by kicking conservatives and anyone else who rejects Dumb-o-crat orthodoxies, out of the public square — permanently.
1. This is about their anger over Garland.
2. This is Trump Derangement Syndrome morphing into Kavanaugh Derangement Syndrome.
Here’s the question, though — if this Kavanaugh witch trial is just payback for Merrick Garland, then, why wasn’t Gorsuch subject to the same scorched-earth tactics that the Dumb-o-crats are using now, against Kavanaugh? Is it because his educational background didn’t allow for accusations of alleged drunken sexual escapades? Or, because he was simply filling Scalia’s seat, so, the Dumbs didn’t care as much, while Kavanaugh is attempting to succeed Kennedy, the so-called “swing vote?”
It doesn’t add up. There is a deeper, more basic motivation, here, grounded in spite and hate.
I believe this has quite a bit to do with Kavanaugh himself and a 5-4 conservative lock on SCOTUS. Heller, McDonald, Citizen’s United, Masterpiece Cake Shop and other decisions have provided the left with a highlight of what is to come. The left will do whatever it takes to stop this.
My only surprise in all of this is that Lisa Bloom has decided to sit it out.
I thought for sure she could be counted on to bring in an anonymous accuser who is afraid for her life and therefore must throw accusations while remaining nameless from behind a wall.
Then again, it’s only Wednesday.
Gang Rape ?
Three sexual assaults with no police reports?
See item 12 of her affidavit – multiple occasions with other girls – again no police reports
Serial rapist with no police reports?
https://www.mediaite.com/online/breaking-michael-avenatti-reveals-client-making-gang-rape-allegation-against-kavanaugh/
Brett Kavanugh: high school dork-virgin, captain of the prep-school gang rape team.
“I kept going to these rape parties; it was awful…”
I think she says she attended “well over ten” parties where this went on.
Why keep going to parties with this guy if he’s a monster?
Oh c’mon, you’ve never heard of needing to document events for future Republican Supreme Court nominations?
The gang rape clerical services industry has thrived for years.
Twitter could have a real field day making up ridiculous claims on Kavanaugh, and it would be hard to tell fake truth from satire.
from a quick look over there, they’re already doing that.
😎
all these “accusations” should start out the same way:
“Dear Penthouse…”
I was the jury foreman here in Detroit a few months ago. Short version… Accuser lied, her and current BF framed Ex BF for assault and property damage. Evidence exonerated the Ex BF who was looking at several years in jail. She was believable on the stand but facts and logic won out. Was shocked to see the levels of depravity people will go to. Accuser lied to the cops, the prosecutor on multiple occasions.
I hope the accuser faces perjury charges
This is getting to be really boring.
Nothing has changed with Kavanaugh. There is still no credible, verifiable charges. In fact, it is becoming soooo ridiculous that we are now seeing charges which are not only not verifiable, but actually ludicrous. No one, with two working brain cells, believes any of these accusers. And, DC politicians don’t care. If they did, Ted Kennedy would never have had a political career. John Kerry the same. Alcee Hastings would be handling personal injury cases instead of having a seat in the House. And, the list goes on and on.
The only good thing to come out of this is that it is making it harder for Democrats who do not have a solid Dem base to get elected in November and it is killing the #MeToo movement. Unintended consequences. Gotta love it when a plan comes together.
People have figured out that a GoFundMe account is the equivalent of Ed McMahon pulling up in the Publisher’s Clearinghouse van. Trot out some inflammatory, reckless garbage about someone on the right, set up your GoFundMe account, and let the cash pour in while reasonable people dissect and destroy your tale. P. T. Barnum would be proud.
This should have as much credibility as accusations of Ritual Satanic Abuse.
I’m hoping that the performance of this prosecutor can in some small way make up for the pain our Senators have cause you. Again, I’m sorry.
What kind of person sees men lined up outside a room, waiting in turn to serially rape an incapacitated woman?
Apparently, if you’re a future client of the creepy porn lawyer, the kind that grabs another beer & asks when the next party takes place.
Brett Kavanaugh raped a giraffe in preschool.
Yeah, he was part of a rape choo-choo train, along with Woody and Buzz.
Interesting observation from Paul Sperry’s column in the New York Post listing 8 problems with Dr. Ford’s story:
Her own immediate family doesn’t appear to be backing her up, either. Her mother, father and two siblings are all conspicuously absent from a letter of support released by a dozen relatives, mostly on her husband’s side of the family.
The letter attests to her honesty and integrity. “Why didn’t her parents and brothers sign the letter?” a congressional source familiar with the investigation wondered.
Mary,
Re: Hasn’t Turned Over Lie Detector Tests
You are inadvertently pushing their narrative. There is no such thing as a Lie Detector Test. It’s a Polygraph.
Your dessert privileges are hereby suspended. 🙂