Brett Kavanaugh gave his endangered Supreme Court nomination new life on Sept. 27 with apparently perjured testimony and by playing the victim during a hearing on sexual assault charges that was rigged by his Republican backers.
Kavanaugh's emotional mixture of self-pitying tears, obvious lies and belligerence towards Democratic senators followed President Trump's rhetorical model of "deny, deny, deny" and vicious political partisanship.
Update: The Senate Judiciary Committee meeting approved by a party line 11-10 vote the Kavanaugh nomination but with Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona announcing in a dramatic reversal that his Senate floor vote would be contingent on an FBI investigation of up to one week on sexual misconduct allegations against the candidate.
Trump, formally accused by 19 women of sexual assault or other sexual misconduct, portrayed himself as a victim in a rambling, 80-minute press conference on Sept. 26 in which he complained about mistreatment of Kavanaugh.
The nominee, shown in an NBC News photo at left Thursday snarling his comments at Democrats, delivered a hoked-up temper tantrum that appeared to salvage his hopes for his confirmation following three major accusations of sexual misconduct and Kavanaugh's robotic performance on Monday night during a Fox television interview.
The interview came after Fox News commentators Mike Wallace and Brit Hume had described the nominee's accuser Christine Brasey Ford as highly credible in her earlier sworn testimony.
The majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled a vote on the nomination for 9:30 a.m. Friday, Sept. 28.
Dr. Brasey, right, told the committee that she was "100 percent" certain that Kavanaugh had been the drunken teenager who had tried to rape her at a party when she was 15, thereby inflicting lifelong emotional trauma.
Several former prosecutors now serving as cable television commentators, including Cynthia Aksne and Daniel Goldman on MSNBC, described the witness's mixture of first-person experience and expertise as a psychologist as the most effective witness that they had ever seen.
The witness said that she remained reluctant to step forward publicly until reporters began storming her home and workplace earlier this month.
At times during her testimony, she choked up as she described that she was "terrified" at the concept of reliving the trauma of what she called an attempted rape at a teenagers' house party in 1982. During the ordeal, she said she had feared being accidentally choked to death when, she says, Kavanaugh attempted to silence her with a hand over her mouth while she screamed.
Kavanaugh, a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge in the District of Columbia, began his afternoon testimony by weeping repeatedly as he denounced Democrats for what he called smearing him and ruining his family and career.
Snowflake Kavanaugh Whines, Ducks FBI Probe
Democrats repeatedly pressed Kavanaugh on whether he would join them in requesting an FBI investigation of missing witnesses and other evidence to clear up questions on whether he or his accuser was more credible.
Kavanaugh, while complaining about false claims, ducked the question every time, saying he would defer to "the committee."
Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, angrily intervened by insisting there was no need for an FBI investigation because the committee staff had already undertaken all necessary investigation.
Not surprisingly, Grassley failed to note that the committee staff was controlled by the majority and had been caught in several mini-scandals congruent with a hearing procedures rigged to heavily favor the Republican nominee and without normal input from the Democratic minority.
As indicated by the Fox News graphic at left, Grassley has been complaining about the confirmation process even though he has been strong-arming it by withholding vast quantities of documents and cooperation with the minority party normal in Senate confirmation inquiries.
The Grassley committee scandals include the vow of committee chief of staff Mike Davis that Kavanaugh would be confirmed no matter what the evidence. Also, the committee had had to fire its temporary staffer Garrett Ventry, loaned to the committee from the right-wing firm CRC Public Relations, after it was revealed that Ventry had been fired because of sexual harassment on his previous job.
Ventry and the committee's integrity had also been compromised because CRC Public Relations has been handling the main national advertising from the Judicial Crisis Network advocating Kavanaugh's confirmation and for Edward Whelan, a think tank president caught trying to blame an innocent man for the attempted rape of Blasey.
So, any reference to a committee investigation as fair was preposterous on its face.
Among the Grassley-ordered procedures was for Republicans to use a sex crimes prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell of Arizona, to ask questions on behalf of the all-male GOP majority.
But the chairman suddenly granted GOP Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina extra time to replace Mitchell, which Graham proceeded to do with his angry and insulting partisan tirade against Democrats.
This was shortly Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois had challenged Kavanaugh on why he did not want an FBI investigation.
Then Mitchell appeared to have established a damaging admission from Kavanaugh that his calendars from 1982, which the nominee cited to show he could not possibly have been at a party with Brasey, seemed to show an evening on July 1 when he met with his friend Mark Judge and others for an evening that could have fit the circumstances.
Brasey alleged that Judge was present in the bedroom with Kavanaugh during the attempted rape.
Slate described the pivotal moment in Thursday's hearing in its column There’s an Entry on Kavanaugh’s 1982 Calendar That Supports Ford’s Story Better Than His Own. Another commentator wrote of this pivotal juncture:
The moment Rachel Mitchell squeezed Kavanaugh to admit that "skis" was an oblique reference to beer, and seeing the name "Judge" in that July 1 entry, Lindsay Graham immediately realized that Mitchell was doing her job too well; that's when Graham and his majority agreed to breach their own procedure of supposedly having Mitchell examine BOTH WITNESSES.
Judge, who wrote a book about his debauched youth, has denied via a statement from his lawyer to the committee that he was present at any party with Kavanaugh and Brasey. But judge has been hiding at a beach house unwilling to testify despite repeated demands and requests from Democrats to have him interviewed by trained FBI investigators and brought before the committee and cross-examined.
Raw Partisanship
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh separately took oaths before their testimony on Sept. 27, 2018
Other Republicans for the most part then used their time to denounce Democrats, thus supporting Kavanaugh's anger and expressions of victimhood. Yet Kavanaugh's entire career prior to his 2006 elevation to the federal bench has been marked not simply by involvement in partisan right-wing politics but involvement in some of the most controversial partisan initiatives in recent national legal history.
These include his work as an assistant to Republican Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr on the Whitewater-related probes of White House Counsel Vince Foster's death and the Clinton impeachment inquiry (including Kavanaugh's deeply personal questions regarding the Monica Lewinsky affair), the 2000 Bush v. Gore Florida vote recount whereby the Supreme Court halted the vote, and Bush administration selection of federal judges and approval of torture.
Kavanaugh, despite his record of extreme partisanship before he became a federal appellate judge in 2006, complained angrily that it was Democrats — including a bizarre reference to "revenge on behalf of the Clintons" — who were being unfair.
Republicans appeared rejuvenated by the nominee's tirade, which was unprecedented in living memory by either a judicial nominee or sitting judge against senators exercising their Constitutional role to review nominees.
Kavanaugh repeatedly interrupted Democratic senators, particularly the female senators, one of whom he demanded answers on her drinking habits. All senators were limited to just five minutes of questions by the highly unusual rules imposed by Grassley.
Missing also was enough time for Democrats to voice the vast disparity in the power of the two sides, including the White House coaching of Kavanaugh all last week and the lack of investigative resources available to her or the Democratic minority.
Looking ahead to Friday's scheduled committee vote on whether to advance the nomination to the full Senate:
U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, a retiring Republican from Tennessee who had expressed a desire for an FBI investigation, announced that he would support the nomination. By many counts, that left four likely votes with no known tilt in a Senate controlled 51-49 by Republicans. They are Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Republicans Lisa Murkowski of Alaska (shown at left), Susan Collins of Maine (at right in the adjoining photo) and Jeff Flake of Arizona.
Truthfulness and Temperament
The GOP rigged the nomination re-hearing in many ways, including by allowing so little time for informed questioning by the senators. The absence of a non-partisan FBI investigation also left open numerous questions regarding the nominee's credibility and fairness.
One result was that the Democratic senators had little or no time to challenge numerous false or misleading statements by Kavanaugh and the other Republicans.
As one example, GOP senators repeatedly described him as having an unblemished record as an adult.
In fact, the Senate refused to confirm him in 2004, the first time he was nominated for a judgeship, because of concerns about his integrity.
More recently, Sen. Pat Leahy, left, wrote an op-ed denouncing Kavanaugh as a perjurer because Leahy believes that the nominee lied during his confirmation hearing earlier this month when he denied knowing he was working with stolen U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee documents when Kavanaugh worked in the Bush White House helping judicial nominees win confirmation.
Among other omissions was the lack of extended discussion about the allegations brought in recent days by two other alleged sexual assault victims of Kavanaugh's, former Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez, right, and high school near-contemporary Julie Swetnick, each of whom reportedly seeks the ability to testify under oath in the kind of FBI investigation that the nominee is avoiding.
Among other omissions is that Democrats never challenged until after the hearing the repeated claim by Grassley and other Republicans that former Judiciary Chairman Joe Biden, a Democrat, had disparaged use of the FBI for investigations. Neither did Democrats challenge Kavanaugh's repeated claim four individuals identify by Brasey, including a friend of hers, had denied that they were ever at the party.
Democrats later said that Biden had been quoted out of context because he obviously relied heavily on FBI background investigations of nominees, which are routine.
Also, commentators noted after the hearing that Brasey had quoted her friend as apologizing for a lawyer' letter denying presence at the scene and said that she could not remember the situation, not that it had not occurred. That latter dispute is precisely the kind of factual dispute that could have been largely resolved by more thorough investigation.
Regarding Kavanaugh's credibility, he tripped up on several likely lies about the true meaning of off-color descriptions in his prep school yearbook. The New York Times, for example, reported in Kavanaugh’s Yearbook Page Is ‘Horrible, Hurtful’ to a Woman It Named about the dismay of a woman named by Kavanaugh an a dozen others at their all-boys prep school on the year book pages. Kavanaugh said that just meant that he was a "friend" of the contemporary whereas she and others reasonably interpreted the references to sexual innuendos that she described as "horrible" and untrue.
Those Kavanaugh obfuscations, while not hundred percent certain in each instance, in the aggregate illustrated a careerist willing to mislead senators at his confirmation hearing in a manner disqualifying for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.
Finally, Kavanaugh's obvious anger and indeed hatred for Democrats, expressed in terms of unhinged conspiracy theories, represented a disqualification for the court in terms of his temperament. No Democrat or advocate for any liberal cause can reasonably expect fair treatment from the jurist Kavanaugh in the future, especially since he invoked a Biblical image during Thursday's hearing to threaten opponents of his confirmation with "the whirlwind" in the future.
What's Next?
Following the hearing, it was widely reported that President Trump was enthusiastic about the way that Kavanaugh and Lindsey had lashed out at Democrats with a fighting spirit. Trump announced via Twitter his renewed support for Kavanaugh.
As for the public, it faces the prospect of not simply losing the Republican Party to a new Trump Party but dragging the Supreme Court into even more obvious disrepute than that earned by numerous disreputable decisions.
But whatever happens, this is merely three-fifths of the way to a plan that we voiced here on the morning of Sept. 26 in a column New Kavanaugh Rape Charge? Five Ways To Thwart GOP Court Fraud.
That path can lead to Kavanaugh's installation on the Supreme Court or his liability for defamation, sexual misconduct crime or House impeachment — or all of the above.
Republican U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Members
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans
Chuck Grassley, Iowa, Chairman, right.
- Orrin Hatch, Utah.
- Lindsey Graham, South Carolina.
- John Cornyn, Texas.
- Mike Lee, Utah.
- Ted Cruz, Texas.
- Ben Sasse, Nebraska.
- Jeff Flake, Arizona.
Contact the author This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Justice Integrity Project Coverage
Sept. 26, 2018.
Justice Integrity Project, Kavanaugh Sex Assault Charges: 5 Ways To Thwart GOP Court Fraud
By Andrew Kreig,
A new accuser has named Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on Sept. 26 as being present during her long ago gang rape at a party.
But justice seekers need much tougher tactics to counter the ruthless senators and their puppet masters who are now ramming the nominee through to confirmation without an honest investigation.
This column argues that reformers need to implement five strategies beginning today before the sham Senate hearing that is scheduled Thursday for new accusations against Kavanaugh. [The column has been updated after being published early on Wednesday, Sept. 26, which was before attorney Michael Avenatti announced the identity of his client who would make explosive charges against Kavanaugh.]
Later that morning, Avenatti released via Twitter a sworn statement by a longtime federal employee, Julie Swetnick, identifying Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge as being present for a “gang rape” that Swetnick said victimized her at one one of about of about 10 house parties she says that she attended with them in the Washington, DC area in the early 1980s. She is shown at left in a photo released by her attorney.
Sept. 28, 2018
Justice Integrity Project, Lying Bullyboy Kavanaugh Goes Full Trump, Reverses Disaster
By Andrew Kreig
Brett Kavanaugh gave his endangered Supreme Court nomination new life on Sept. 27 with apparently perjured testimony and by playing the victim during a hearing on sexual assault charges that was rigged by his Republican backers.
Kavanaugh's emotional mixture of self-pitying tears, obvious lies and belligerence towards Democratic senators followed President Trump's rhetorical model of "deny, deny, deny" and vicious political partisanship.
Trump, formally accused by 19 women of sexual assault or other sexual misconduct, portrayed himself as a victim in a rambling, 80-minute press conference on Sept. 26 in which he complained about mistreatment of Kavanaugh.
The nominee, shown in an NBC News photo at left Thursday snarling his comments at Democrats, delivered a hoked-up temper tantrum that appeared to salvage his hopes for his confirmation following three major accusations of sexual misconduct and Kavanaugh's robotic performance on Monday night during a Fox television interview.
It came after Fox News commentators Mike Wallace and Brit Hume had described the nominee's accuser Christine Brasey Ford as highly credible in her earlier sworn testimony.
The majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled a vote on the nomination for 9:30 a.m. Friday, Sept. 28.
Dr. Brasey, right, told the committee that she was "100 percent" certain that Kavanaugh had been the drunken teenager who had tried to rape her at a party when she was 15, thereby inflicting lifelong emotional trauma.
Several former prosecutors now serving as cable television commentators, including Cynthia Aksne and Daniel Goldman on MSNBC, described the witness's mixture of first-person experience and expertise as a psychologist as the most effective witness that they had ever seen.
Sept. 29, 2018
Justice Integrity Project, Senators Reach Deal For Kavanaugh Sex Claim Probe
By Andrew Kreig, Sept. 29, 2018.
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court by a party line 11-10 vote on Sept. 28 but agreed also to let a key member negotiate for up to a week's delay for an FBI investigation before the nomination goes to the full Senate.
In a dramatic reversal Friday, Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, right, announced that he sought an FBI probe of sexual misconduct investigations before a vote by the full Senate, where Republicans hold a 51-49 majority.
Two other undecided senators, Republican Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia, announced that they would join Flake's position. That would put Kavanaugh's final approval in doubt if other senators vote as expected nearly along party lines.
Related News Coverage
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh before Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 27, 2018 (Reuters photo by Jim Berg via NBC News)
Updated
Oct. 6
Washington Post, Divided Senate confirms Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination, Seung Min Kim and John Wagner, Oct. 6, 2018. The Senate voted to confirm Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh as the Supreme Court’s 114th justice on Saturday by one of the narrowest margins in the institution’s history, as police stood guard and protesters’ shouts of “shame, shame” echoed through the Senate chamber.
The 50-to-48 vote capped a brutal confirmation fight that underscored how deeply polarized the nation has become under President Trump, who has now successfully placed two justices on the nation’s highest court, cementing a conservative majority.
With Vice President Pence presiding, senators sat in their chairs and rose to cast their votes, repeatedly interrupted by protesters in the visitors’ gallery who yelled out and were removed by Capitol Police. The Supreme Court announced Kavanaugh would be sworn in later Saturday.
Oct. 1
Washington Post, Confusion over limits of FBI inquiry sparks new round of combat over Kavanaugh, Mike DeBonis and Josh Dawsey, Oct. 1, 2018 (print edition). The investigation into sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh will focus on two accusers, but the White House says it opposes a “fishing expedition” that could take a broader look at his credibility and behavior.
Palmer Report, Senate transcript reveals Brett Kavanaugh allegedly raped a woman in the back of a car, Bill Palmer, right, Oct. 1, 2018. With the FBI having finally received the green light a few hours ago to conduct an unrestricted investigation into the sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, we’re now learning that he’s been accused
of having raped a woman in the back of a car.
The Senate Judiciary Committee took this accusation seriously enough that it questioned Kavanaugh (shown at left in a prep school yearbook photo) about it during private hearings – and the transcript just surfaced publicly.
The woman in question, whose identity is not known, sent a letter to Senator Kamala Harris, spelling out her accusations. The Senate Judiciary Committee read the letter to Brett Kavanaugh, asking him to respond to it. Here’s the key passage from the woman’s letter. Fair warning, this is sexually explicit and disturbing:
Kavanaugh and a friend offered me a ride home. I don’t know the other boy’s name. I was in his car to go home. His friend was behind me in the backseat. Kavanaugh kissed me forcefully. I told him I only wanted a ride home. Kavanaugh continued to grope me over my clothes, forcing his kisses on me and putting his hand under my sweater. ‘No,’ I yelled at him.
The boy in the backseat reached around, putting his hand over my mouth and holding my arm to keep me in the car. I screamed into his hand. Kavanaugh continued his forcing himself on me. He pulled up my sweater and bra exposing my breasts, and reached into my panties, inserting his fingers into my vagina. My screams were silenced by the boy in the backseat covering my mouth and groping me as well.
Kavanaugh slapped me and told me to be quiet and forced me to perform oral sex on him. He climaxed in my mouth. They forced me to go into the backseat and took turns raping me several times each. They dropped me off two blocks from my home. ‘No one will believe if you tell. Be a good girl,’ he told me.
Brett Kavanaugh’s response, according to the transcript: “Nothing — the whole thing is ridiculous. Nothing ever — anything like that, nothing. I mean, that’s — the whole thing is just a crock, farce, wrong, didn’t happen, not anything close.”
This interview took place six days ago, and the transcript was just released today. You can read the entire exchange starting on page thirteen.
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Transcript of staff interview with Judge Brett Kavanaugh on allegations of sexual misconduct, Alderson Court Reporting, released on Oct. 1, 2018, dated Sept. 26, 2018 (19 pages with four-page index).
Future of Freedom Foundation, Opinion: Trump’s Sham FBI “Investigation” of Kavanaugh, Jacob G. Hornberger, right, Oct. 1, 2018. On the eve of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s vote on whether to send President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the full Senate for a vote on confirmation, Republican senators agreed to do so on the condition that the FBI conduct a further background investigation of Kavanaugh.
What’s wrong with Trump’s severe limitation on the FBI’s further background investigation of Brett Kavanaugh? It doesn’t permit the FBI to investigate the possibility that Kavanaugh has committed a brand new offense — the offense of perjury, which is a federal felony offense.
Kavanaugh supporters emphasize that he has been the subject of several FBI background checks already. They miss two critically important points:
One, those background checks were conducted before the FBI had any information regarding the sex assault that Ford has accused him of. Two, those background checks were conducted before Kavanaugh’s testimony last Thursday. Why is that important? Because there is the possibility that Kavanaugh committed perjury during his testimony at that hearing.
For some laymen (i.e., non-lawyers) perjury might seem like no big deal and certainly not enough to keep a lawyer or a judge from becoming a Supreme Court justice. As I explain in my article, “Summon Mark Judge to Testify in Kavanaugh Hearing,” to every member of the legal profession perjury is an extremely grave offense, especially for a lawyer or a judge, and a clear justification for disqualifying any lawyer or judge who has committed perjury from serving on the U.S. Supreme Court.
In fact, as I state in my article, in my opinion that is precisely the reason why the American Bar Association, which has 400,000 members, and the dean of the Yale Law School, where Kavanaugh got his law degree, immediately withdrew their support for his nomination after Ford and Kavanaugh testified until an additional background investigation was conducted.
OpEdNews, Opinion: Sex, Lies, and Hypocrisy: Kavanaugh's Glass House, Carl Petersen, Oct. 1, 2018. Much like Dr. Christine Ford, Monica Lewinsky's life was turned upside down by the glare of someone else's spotlight.
While Brett Kavanaugh asserted that engaging in sexual relations with Bill Clinton turned "her life into a shambles," from Lewinsky's point of view it was his boss, Kenneth Starr, "who turned [her] 24-year-old life into a living hell."
Looking back on the 1990s with the experience of the #MeToo era, there are questions that should have been asked about the most powerful man in the world having sexual relations with an employee.
Lewinsky, left, has always maintained that the relationship was consensual, but "power imbalances -- and the ability to abuse them -- do exist even when the sex has been consensual." As a society, have we established where the lines are?
Unfortunately, Kavanaugh (shown below right during his snarling Senate confirmation testimony Thursday)did not seem interested in this line of questioning. Instead, he was infatuated with the most unimportant part of the story - the details of the sex acts.
Given this history, one has to wonder what Lindsey Graham was thinking as he bloviated that if Kavanaugh was looking "for a fair process, [then] he came to the wrong town at the wrong time." When does he think that this poisoned, political atmosphere began?
If the nominee thinks that the "confirmation process has become a national disgrace," how does he feel today about what he put Lewinsky through and what it did to her and her family? If "the idea of going easy on [Clinton, left] at the questioning [was] abhorrent to [him]," his current outrage should be directed at the Republican majority in the Senate.
By not investigating all of the accusations, they are the ones who are avoiding the responsibility of providing informed consent to his lifetime nomination to the highest court in the land.
Of course, this ignores the important distinction between Kavanaugh's apparent obsession with Clinton's sex life and the charges that may derail his assertion to the Supreme Court; if Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is telling the truth, then Kavanaugh acted without consent. This alleged attempted rape represents "callous and disgusting behavior that has somehow gotten lost in the shuffle."
Washington Post, In memo, outside prosecutor argues why she would not bring criminal charges against Kavanaugh, Seung Min Kim, Oct. 1, 2018 (print edition). The outside prosecutor Senate Republicans hired to lead the questioning in last week’s hearing about the sexual assault allegations against Brett M. Kavanaugh is arguing in a new memo why she would not bring criminal charges against the Supreme Court nominee.
In the five-page memo, obtained by the Washington Post, Rachel Mitchell (shown in a file photo) outlines more than half a dozen reasons why she thinks the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford — who has accused Kavanaugh of assaulting her at a house in suburban Maryland when they were teenagers in the early 1980s — has some key inconsistencies.
“A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that,” Mitchell writes in the memo, sent Sunday night to all Senate Republicans. “Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them.”
Mitchell continued: “For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the [Senate Judiciary] Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”
The memo is likely to prompt significant pushback from Democratic senators, who have argued that Ford is not on trial and that Kavanaugh is merely interviewing for a job. But the memo is clearly aimed at assuaging the concerns of a handful of GOP senators who are on the fence about whether to vote to confirm Kavanaugh and are considering whose story — Ford’s or Kavanaugh’s — to believe. The FBI is now investigating Ford’s accusations, as well as those of a second woman, Deborah Ramirez.
Sept. 28
Roll Call, After Last-Second Talks to Delay, Judiciary Committee Advances Kavanaugh Nomination, John T. Bennett, Sept. 28, 2018. Flake joins other Republicans to set up floor vote despite call for delay. The Senate Judiciary Committee, after a gut-wrenching spectacle of a hearing Thursday and last-second negotiations among Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., right, and panel Democrats to delay a floor vote, voted to advance Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination to the chamber floor despite multiple sexual misconduct allegations against him.
The Friday vote was along party lines, 11-10, with all Democrats voting against him after siding with Christine Blasey Ford, who testified before the panel for four hours Thursday about her contention that Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and intended to rape her in the early 1980s. She told the panel she came forward because she does not believe he should be a high court justice with a lifetime appointment.
“I think it would proper to delay the floor vote for up to but more than one week in order to let the FBI to do an investigation limited in time and scope to the current allegations that are there,” Flake said before the roll was called.
New York Times, A Bitter Nominee, Questions of Neutrality, and a Damaged Supreme Court, Adam Liptak, Sept. 28, 2018. In the first round of his Supreme Court confirmation hearings early this month, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh kept his cool under hostile questioning, stressed his independence, and exhibited the calm judicial demeanor that characterized his dozen years on a prestigious appeals court bench.
“The Supreme Court,” he said, “must never be viewed as a partisan institution.”
His performance on Thursday, responding to accusations of sexual misconduct at a hearing of the same Senate committee, sent a different message. Judge Kavanaugh was angry and emotional, embracing the language of slashing partisanship. His demeanor raised questions about his neutrality and temperament, and threatened the already fragile reputation of the Supreme Court as an institution devoted to law rather than politics.
“This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” he said, “fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.”
In a sharp break with decorum, Judge Kavanaugh responded to questions about his drinking from two Democratic senators — Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island — with questions of his own about theirs. He later apologized to Ms. Klobuchar.
New York Times, Kavanaugh Denies Sexual Assault Charges and Attacks Democrats in Scathing Testimony, Staff report, Sept. 28, 2018 (print edition). At an extraordinary hearing, Brett M. Kavanaugh denied that he sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford when they were in high school. In an angry statement to the Senate Judicial Committee he said the Supreme Court confirmation process had become “a national disgrace.”
Washington Post, Kavanaugh hearing turns partisan as GOP senators lash out at treatment of nominee, Seung Min Kim, Ann E. Marimow, Mike DeBonis and Elise Viebeck, Sept. 28, 2018 (print edition). Sen. Graham rejects allegations, rips Democrats in a furious speech.
“To my Republican colleagues, if you vote no, you’re legitimizing the most despicable thing I’ve seen in my time in politics,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said.
Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh called his confirmation process a “national disgrace” and denied sexual assault allegations, which Christine Blasey Ford detailed in testimony earlier.
Washington Post, 3 takeaways from the Kavanaugh hearing so far, Amber Phillips, Sept. 28, 2018 (print edition). Republicans struggled to show they are taking it seriously. Meanwhile, Christine Blasey Ford, shown at right, cut a sympathetic, down-to-earth figure.
1. This isn’t going well for Republicans
2. Meanwhile, Ford came across as credible, emotional and sympathetic
3. Republicans' decision to hand their questions over to a female prosecutor is seeming questionable.
Washington Post, American Bar Association calls for FBI investigation into Kavanaugh allegations, delay in confirmation votes, Meagan Flynn and
Seung Min Kim, Sept. 28, 2018. The American Bar Association called on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday evening to halt the confirmation vote for Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, saying it should not move forward until an FBI investigation into the sexual assault allegations against him can be completed.
“The basic principles that underscore the Senate’s constitutional duty of advice and consent on federal judicial nominees require nothing less than a careful examination of the accusations and facts by the FBI,” ABA President.