The Kavanaugh circus

Cornyn says "pandemonium" at hearing is "unlike anything I've ever seen before"

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/kavanaugh-hearing-dle/index.html

Unresolved recusal issues require a pause in the Kavanaugh hearings (Report)
Laurence H. Tribe, Hon. Timothy K. Lewis, and Norman Eisen | Tuesday, September 4, 2018

...Never before in the history of presidential nominations of Supreme Court justices have there been so many matters of the deepest personal impact to the president that may come before the Supreme Court.

In addition to legal and procedural questions surrounding possible impeachment proceedings, there are a staggering array of issues with which the nominee may well be presented owing to the historically unprecedented fact that his patron the president was a named subject and, but for hesitation to indict a sitting president, could well have been a target, in a criminal investigation at the very time that he handpicked the judge—reportedly after White House consideration of the judge’s views on some of these very issues. As detailed below, those issues include:

Whether a president can use the pardon power to shield himself from criminal liability;
Whether a president can be charged with obstructing justice;
Whether a president can defy a subpoena for testimony;
Whether a president can be criminally indicted;
Whether a president can unilaterally fire a special counsel without cause; and
Related civil matters involving a president’s personal interests...

https://www.brookings.edu/research/unresolved-recusal-issues-require-a-pause-in-...

The Still-Secret Brett Kavanaugh Documents Are a Scandal

Merely seconds into the first day of hearings, just as committee chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa was getting started with preliminaries, it fell to Kamala Harris, the junior senator of California and the most junior member of the committee, to set the tone with an extraordinary interruption. The hearings couldn’t continue without a complete record of the nominee, she pressed. “We have not been given an opportunity to have a meaningful hearing on this nominee,” she said. The body had just gotten a new document dump the night before, just hours before the hearing.

The proceedings never quite recovered after that. Minnesota’s Amy Klobuchar, New Jersey’s Cory Booker, Hawaii’s Mazie Hirono, and Rhode Island’s Sheldon Whitehouse all joined the protest. As tempers flared — and Grassley had no option but to unenthusiastically pound his gavel and let Democrats complain, derailing his schedule — Connecticut’s Richard Blumenthal made and renewed a motion, under Senate rules, to adjourn the hearings until all the relevant records were received from the White House. At this, chaos erupted in the chamber as protesters cheered and stood to oppose Kavanaugh, then were arrested and hauled off the premises. More chaos in the chamber: Grassley never granted Blumenthal’s motion, insisting he had the better reading of the rules.

@adamliptak

I’ve covered five other Supreme Court confirmation hearings. None of them included anything like the chaos in the opening minutes of the Kavanaugh hearings this morning.

Illinois’ Dick Durbin, who for weeks has been sounding the alarm over Kavanaugh’s missing documents, said that “what we’ve heard is the noise of democracy.”

I think the consensus answers are:

* Whether a president can use the pardon power to shield himself from criminal liability; — An open question
* Whether a president can be charged with obstructing justice; — Of course
* Whether a president can defy a subpoena for testimony; — Depends
* Whether a president can be criminally indicted; — Not while in office
* Whether a president can unilaterally fire a special counsel without cause; and — Yes

70 Protesters Were Arrested During Brett Kavanaugh’s Confirmation Hearing

Just 30 minutes into the first day of Brett Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation hearing, the energy in the room was already chaotic, with Capitol Hill police escorting groups of protesters out of the room. By the end of the morning session, the law enforcement agency announced that it had arrested and charged nearly two dozen demonstrators, the majority of whom were women; by the end of the day, the number of arrests had more than tripled.

Day 1 of Brett Kavanaugh Hearings: Documents Delayed and Documents Denied
Mikhaila Fogel | September 4, 2018

...To give context before Kavanaugh’s testimony begins in earnest on Wednesday, what follows is an overview of the three different batches of documents at issue.

The 42,000 Pages

Roughly 42,000 pages (as part of 5,148 documents) from Kavanaugh’s time in the White House Counsel’s office were released to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday night. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was quick to respond that senators were unlikely to have time to review the documents before the hearing began Tuesday. The majority staff on the committee, however, tweeted only three hours later that they had finished their review:

...Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) noted during the hearing that reviewing that many documents so quickly would require majority staffers to process documents at a rate of “7000 pages per hour.”

The 100,000 Pages

There is a separate cache of 27,110 documents from Kavanaugh’s days in the White House counsel’s office—consisting of 101,921 pages. These have been withheld from the committee at the direction of the Trump White House and the Justice Department.

...According to Bush’s legal team, 27,110 documents totaling 101,921 pages were not provided to the committee because the Trump White House, in consultation with the Justice Department, identified the content of the documents as traditionally protected by constitutional privilege (phrasing that suggests that the White House hasn’t directly asserted privilege (at least not yet) and “directed” that the documents not be provided to the committee. Note, the objection here did not come from the Bush team but from the Trump administration.

...Bush team has deferred to the current Justice Department on matters of asserting privilege over the Kavanaugh documents. Their letter even specifies that former President Bush instructed that the documents be reviewed “with a presumption of disclosure.”

...The Unrequested Documents

The third set of documents at issue are documents from Kavanaugh’s time as staff secretary in the Bush White House. As Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) wrote on Twitter:

(Chair Judciary Committee Chuck) Grassley did not request them...the position of staff secretary as an “inbox and outbox of the Oval Office”...it is not the job of the staff secretary to “provide his own substantive work product.” Therefore, Grassley concluded, these documents are “least relevant” to understanding the nominee’s legal thinking.

...2010 statement from Judge Kavanaugh: When people ask me which of my prior experiences has been most useful to me as a judge, I tell them that all of them have been useful, and I certainly draw on all of them. But I also do not hesitate to say that my five and a half years in the White House—and especially my three years as Staff Secretary for President Bush—were the most interesting and in many ways among the most instructive.

Justice Delayed?

Grassley wrote that “the Judiciary Committee has received more pages of executive branch material,” for evaluating Judge Kavanaugh, “than for the previous five Supreme Court justices combined.”

...Grassley’s volume argument is inherently weak, because a nominee who served for five years in a White House simply generated more relevant executive-branch material than there had been for prior nominees. Moreover, the position on privilege appear to be aggressive, particularly given Bush’s stated preference for transparency. And dumping a large volume of material on committee members the evening before confirmation hearings open is a thumb in the eye of the minority—as is not seeking material the minority has asked to see...

https://www.lawfareblog.com/day-1-brett-kavanaugh-hearings-documents-delayed-and...

Not answering the question on Roe v. Wade. One can only assume that given the chance he will vote to overturn. He didn't answer the question on the US v. Nixon either or anything about Presidential civil or criminal liability. One can only assume that he will defend the President against any subpoena--any liability.

Well he was chosen by Trump for a reason.

It's quite a strength of our democracy that we allow dozens of spectators to interrupt a proceeding, and don't just clear the committee room of spectators.

>8 timspalding: Agreed. Apparently our President does not...

Kavanaugh sounds like a reasonable Republican nominee when queried by R senators, but wordy and even evasive with D senators, such as Kamala Harris, e.g.,

Kavanaugh stumbles when grilled on whether he discussed Mueller probe
ELANA SCHOR | 09/05/2018
https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/04/trump-kavanaugh-protestors/
ETA: video at https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1037531080402919424

Does anyone's reputation survive association with Trump?

Harris pretty much asked Kavanaugh whether he's picked a side in the Mueller investigation. Kavanaugh evaded answering. There are votes he knows he can depend on and they're pretty much from the Republican side of the Senate--so the queries from that side are considerably more friendly. What will be interesting is whether some Democrats vote for him and whether or not a Republican or two vote against. My guess is every Republican will vote for him--there will be two or three Democrats that will cross over and he'll be confirmed.

Laurence Tribe* tribelaw | 1h1 hour ago:

This @KamalaHarris cross-X is so important because if Judge Kavanaugh did in fact discuss the Mueller probe with Trump’s personal attorney’s firm, he has NO CHOICE but to recuse from all matters related to that probe. And his claim to have forgotten could be confirmation PERJURY

I don’t say this lightly, but claiming to have forgotten something in order to win confirmation when the nominee can be shown not to have forgotten becomes an impeachable offense and a basis for removing that nominee after confirmation.

7 min ago:
Given the unjustified WH withholding of many key documents and the rapidly gathering clouds over the presidency, Judge Kavanaugh could best avoid an asterisk over his tenure and damage to the Supreme Court by urging @ChuckGrassley to pause the hearing — and refreshing his memory.

* https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10899/Tribe

#11--that was a better way of putting it on Harris's question. You could see the gears twisting in Kavanaugh's head how to answer or not answer that question.

>11 margd: It made him look stupid, shallow and devious.

More than $6 million being spent on TV ads for/against Kavanaugh!
4X more spent for than against...

The Kavanaugh Senate confirmation fight is actually the first race of the midterms
Heather TimmonsSeptember 5, 2018

...Republicans...hold a 51-49 margin as Jon Kyl fills John McCain’s vacant seat in Arizona, and all Kavanaugh needs is a simple majority. But a handful of senators—Republican and Democrats—have not committed to a “yes” or “no” vote.

...The uncertainty surrounding this handful of key votes means millions in advertising dollars are being spent on the confirmation, even though American citizens don’t get a direct vote on it. Groups supporting Kavanaugh have spent $4.7 million on advertising, nearly four times that of the groups opposing the nominee...

https://qz.com/1379698/the-kavanaugh-senate-confirmation-fight-is-actually-the-f...

________________________________________________________________

Ads target a few states (Alabama, Alaska, Indiana, Maine, North Dakota, West Virginia), as well as DC and National Cable:
https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/buying-time-supreme-court-advertisements

Judge Kavanaugh’s Testimony on His Constitutional View of Presidential Immunity is Misleading—and It Also Clinches the Case for Recusal
Bob Bauer* and Ryan Goodman** | September 6, 2018

...Judge Brett Kavanaugh has not addressed simply in passing or in ambiguous terms whether a president is immune from indictment –– and perhaps even investigation – – while in office. He has written at length on his view that the president should enjoy that immunity as a matter of constitutional law, and he has spoken publicly about it. Now he suggests that he meant only that this was a matter for Congress to consider and address. The developing record, augmented by his testimony before the committee, is inconsistent with his reassurances.

Consider the gloss he is now putting on his previously stated and published belief that the Constitution “seems to dictate” that Congress not federal prosecutors can investigate a sitting president, and that the Constitution “appears to preclude” prosecution of the president when in office.

...Judge Kavanaugh was correct to hold those two factors up as the standard (for recusal): whether he has “taken a position” on the constitutional question and whether he would therefore be able to approach such a case with an “open mind.” It could not now be clearer that as a result of his writings and public statements, Judge Kavanaugh cannot meet his own test of “open-mindedness.” If confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh should have to recuse himself from participation in any cases that take up these issues of presidential immunities. And it should now go without saying that any such recusal would have to cover both a president’s immunity from investigation as well as indictment and prosecution...

https://www.justsecurity.org/60617/kavanaugh-hearing-testimony-recusal-russia-in...

* White House Counsel to President Obama during 2010 and 2011, NYU
** Special Counsel to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense (2015-16), founding co-editor-in-chief of Just Security, NYU

In these dark days, they rarely just go away...unless, as with Sessions, it is a matter of survival

Why Judge Kavanaugh Shamefully Refused to Reject Chae Chan Ping v. United States (AKA Chinese Exclusion Case)* as Precedent
David Glasner | 9/7/2018

Senator Kamala Harris asked Judge Kavanaugh if he considered the infamous Supreme Court decision in Chae Chan Ping v. United States (AKA Chinese Exclusion Case) (1889) as a valid precedent. Judge Kavanaugh...refus(ed) to say that the case was in error...

The question is why would he not want to distance himself from a racist abomination of a decision that remains a stain on the Supreme Court to this day?

...Chae Chan Ping is still an important precedent that has been and continues to be relied on by the government and the Supreme Court to uphold the power of President to keep out foreigners whenever he wants to...

...Kleindienst v. Mandel, a horrible decision in which the Court upheld the exclusion of a Marxist scholar from the United States based on, among other precedents, the execrable Chae Chan Ping decision.

Kleindienst has become the main modern precedent affirming the nearly unchecked power of the government to arbitrarily exclude foreigners from entering the United States on whatever whim the government chooses to act upon, so long as it can come up with an excuse, however pretextual, that the exclusion has a national security rationale.

...disavow Chae Chan Ping....undermin(e) Kleindienst which, in turn, would undermine the Muslim Travel Ban...

https://uneasymoney.com/2018/09/07/why-judge-kavanaugh-shamefully-refused-to-rej...

Kavanaugh opinion sounds consistent with his support for executive power?

In Doe Tarlow v. DC (6/12/07), Judge Kavanaugh wrote an opinion mocking claims by intellectually disabled women to at least be CONSULTED before being subjected to INVOLUNTARY SURGERY, including forced abortion. The Senate needs to press the nominee hard on that grotesque ruling.

Laurence Tribe tribelaw
4:09 PM - 12 Sep 2018

wikipedia: "In 1978, defendants allegedly gave their consent for an abortion to be performed on plaintiff Jane Doe III, without consulting with Jane Doe III's legal representative and without obtaining substituted judgment from a court. Compl. 19-21. In 1984, defendants allegedly took the same action in regard to plaintiff Jane Doe I. Compl. 12-15. In 1994, defendants allegedly gave their consent for an elective surgical procedure to be performed on plaintiff Jane Doe II's eye, without consulting with Jane Doe II's mother who was also Jane Doe II's court-appointed advocate.

The opinion: https://www.leagle.com/decision/2007865489f3d3761863

The Evidence Is Clear: Brett Kavanaugh Lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee
Jeremy Stahl | Sept 12, 2018

...a line of argument that’s gaining currency among Democratic senators: that Kavanaugh’s lack of honesty makes him unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. In this case, Kavanaugh has repeatedly sworn that he never received documents stolen by Republican Senate aide Manny Miranda—documents that he did, in fact, receive.

For the most part, Senate Republicans have ignored this line of attack. Since they seem to have the votes to confirm Kavanaugh, there is apparently little reason for them to respond to any criticism of the nominee...

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-lies-senate-testimon...

Anita Hill also passed a polygraph test 27 years ago...

California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault
Emma Brown | September 16, 2018

...Christine Blasey Ford...

...2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.

...Notes from an individual therapy session the following year, when she was being treated for what she says have been long-term effects of the incident, show Ford described a “rape attempt” in her late teens.

In an interview, her husband, Russell Ford, said that in the 2012 sessions, she recounted being trapped in a room with two drunken boys, one of whom pinned her to a bed, molested her and prevented her from screaming. He said he recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh’s last name and voiced concern that Kavanaugh — then a federal judge — might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.

...Christine Ford is a professor at Palo Alto University who teaches in a consortium with Stanford University, training graduate students in clinical psychology. Her work has been widely published in academic journals.

She contacted The Post through a tip line in early July, when it had become clear that Kavanaugh was on the shortlist of possible nominees to replace retiring justice Anthony M. Kennedy but before Trump announced his name publicly. A registered Democrat who has made small contributions to political organizations, she contacted her congresswoman, Democrat Anna G. Eshoo, around the same time. In late July, she sent a letter via Eshoo’s office to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.

Ford took a polygraph test administered by a former FBI agent in early August. The results, which (her lawyer Debra Katz, a Washington lawyer known for her work on sexual harassment cases) provided to The Post, concluded that Ford was being truthful when she said a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-con...

#20--I don't think it's unusual that someone who has been through rape or other kinds of physical or psychological abuse later on turns to psychology for a career. A co-worker friend who use to get beaten by her ex--her children were abused too. Her son is now a psychologist and his motivation came precisely from that time of abuse.

My $0.02.

* The polygraph is almost useless. We shouldn't put any weight on it, for her or anyone else. If Kavanaugh passes one, we should dismiss it too.
* That she made apparently documented reference to it in 2012 is very, very important. It guts almost all the arguments that might be made against Dr. Ford.
* The probabilities are lining up very strongly. Absent some sort of crazy bombshell, I believe her account a good deal more than I doubt it.
* The accusation is probably impossible to prove. And I don't think an accusation that remains unproven should end his career—bouncing him off his current bench. But that is NOT what's at issue. We're talking about a rare and special privilege—becoming one of the highest officials in the country, standing at the heart of the law itself! That elevation rightly involves a serious inquiry into his actions and character. A serious and credible accusation like this should end his nomination.

A few thoughts on the politics of this:

* People of good will must dismiss all whataboutism. Sure, it's galling that Clinton's accusers were sidelined as kooks, sluts and right-wing plants. It'll be galling when accusations come out against a future left politician, and many on the left flock to his or her defence, the world being so tribal now. But we should all be better than that.
* People of good will should avoid linking this to politics per se. The problem isn't that an abuser may rule on Roe. The problem is being an abuser. If you link the two, you destroy your credibility on the topic of abuse, which should be just as serious a problem if Kavanaugh were a solid liberal judge expected to "save" Roe.

Yes.

I think it does matter, however, that Roe might come in front of Kavanaugh. The credibility of the Supreme Court would be in jeopardy if two (alleged) abusers formed majority to kill it--and all the women justices were on the other side. (Also, other women's issues such as equal pay, access, etc.?) Republican Party, too, might forever be tarred for having gifted the American people with such justices as Thomas and Kavanaugh.

ETA: "...Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.)...took to the Senate floor in October 1991 to explain why he was withdrawing his initial support for Thomas and would vote against him. “No individual has a particular right to a Supreme Court seat,” Byrd said. “. . . If we are going to give the benefit of the doubt, let us give it to the court. Let us give it to the country.”"https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-know-who-kavanaughs-accuser-is-what-should-happen-now/2018/09/16/22ed5500-b9f1-11e8-a8aa-860695e7f3fc_story.html

ETA: Kavanaugh might lack credibility then in two kinds of cases that might come before him--Roe, but also executive-power questions involving the person who nominated him.

(Not being snarky, I am curious, truly curious, what kind of read a polygraph would give someone like President Trump.)

Donald Trump Jr. Posts Fake Letter to Instagram Mocking Woman Allegedly Assaulted by Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh

Comments on the Instagram post are as divided as the country is right now and includes messages of support like “HaHaHa!!! The Dems cried wolf one to sic many times with pushing fake things, that is why they will lose again and again.” and other messages of disgust, like “You are the worst person I could imagine and you look like you smell like garbage.”

It could not be confirmed by press time that Donald Trump Jr. smells like garbage.

>23 margd:

The politics won't change. Kavanaugh is pretty squarely in a group. If he falls, Trump will nominate someone like him, such as Amy Barrett. Barrett may have the "credibility" to overturn Roe; I look forward to Democrats praising her for that!

#25--if Kavanaugh falls and in the meantime the Senate changes over in November Trump's chances of getting the next Supreme Court Justice gets a lot harder. The House is expected to switch. The Senate could go either way. There are lots of tight races and it's conceivable that the Democrats win a majority or even that the Republicans increase their lead.

FWIW if I were the Democrats and had the majority I would be taking a leaf out of Sen. McConnell's playbook and doing a quid pro quo on the next justice. No one would be confirmed until the next POTUS.

>26 lriley:

The Senate is unlikely to change over. 538 has it at a 1/6 chance now, I think.

Anyway, I think political talk around this is garbage. If politics plays any role in what someone thinks about a sexual accusation of this nature, they're a hypocrite in waiting, at best.

#27--If you don't think that both parties and each and every Senator are calculating all kinds of political outcomes and variables I don't know what to tell you. They might not say it out loud to the media but everything is always in play--and that is politics more so than the patriotic thing. Mitch McConnell made it very plain what calculation was all about when Obama nominated Merrick Garland and IMO Obama's nomination of Garland was a calculation too--a center right pro-business judge that you might have thought the Republican party would have been okay with.

The fact that Feinstein holds on to this information on Kavanaugh until pretty much the last moment might also make one wonder. Was it just the anonymity of the accuser in question? We'll probably never know but the confirmation has been turned into a piece of political theater anyway.

Kids do STUPID things, especially in a pack.
I was on a jury once that acquitted a young man...

People change, but I wouldn't confirm such a person for a lifetime position of judging other people.
As Senator Byrd said in the Clarence Thomas hearings, "No individual has a particular right to a Supreme Court seat . If we are going to give the benefit of the doubt, let us give it to the court. Let us give it to the country."

As for Democrats and hypocrisy, no credit for Al Franken resignation?

Kavanaugh's good buddy in high school is not a particularly excellent character witness.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/09/kavanaughs-pal-mark-judge-does-no...

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/internet-researchers-uncover-kavanaugh-buddy-ma...

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/alleged-accomplice-in-kavanaugh-assault-u...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kavanaugh-high-school-pal-writes-in-memoir-...

65 Women who knew Kavanaugh in high school vouch for his character:
https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=4883258-Letter-From-Women-Who-Kn...

From last week, prior to revelations about the Ford letter, another woman from that time period and place spoke out:

I Am Horrified That Brett Kavanaugh Used Girls From My School as a Prop

Hers is a political accusation

"But to parade these young girls as a signal that he cares about women is not only disingenuous, it’s dangerous.
...
When a black protestor was carried off by the police during the hearing, Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana apologized to Kavanaugh: “I’m sorry your girls had to see this.” Then he addressed the girls directly, “This is not what democracy is supposed to look like.” The girls laughed nervously as the protestor was hauled away. This is backwards and terrifying, given that two essential cores of democracy are the right to peaceable assembly and the right to freedom of speech.

Actually, girls, what democracy is supposed to look like is a far cry from this sham of a hearing."

Another letter, this one in support of Ford:

Alumnae Of Christine Blasey Ford’s High School Circulate Letter Of Support

“We believe Dr. Blasey Ford and are grateful that she came forward to tell her story,” says a draft letter from alumnae of Holton-Arms, a private girls school in Bethesda, Maryland. “It demands a thorough and independent investigation before the Senate can reasonably vote on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to a lifetime seat on the nation’s highest court.”

The women also say that what Ford is alleging “is all too consistent with stories we heard and lived while attending Holton. Many of us are survivors ourselves.”

Evan Siegfried, Republican strategist and commentator:

Brett Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination for the good of the Supreme Court and the country

When President Donald Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, I was thrilled. The judge has a resume that makes him unquestionably qualified to sit on the highest court in the land.

Further, I have found the attacks on him made by Democrats until now to be unfounded or pure spectacle made by politicians engaging in theatrics simply because they knew there were cameras on.

The sexual assault allegations by Christine Blasey Ford are different: After reading them, I can no longer support Kavanaugh’s nomination and have concluded that for the good of the country, he must withdraw.

Two more letters of support for Blasey Ford

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/09/18/as-conservatives-a...

from her classmates at Holton-Arms

To the United States Congress:

We, of the Holton Arms Class of 1984, are writing on behalf of our friend and classmate, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, to attest to her honesty, integrity, and intelligence; and to contend that her decision to provide information pertaining to a sexual assault is not a partisan act. It is an act of civic duty and the experience she described in her letter needs to be seriously considered. We represent all political parties and we support Christine bringing this matter forward.

Christine has had to weigh the personal cost of sharing her experience against her own conscience. We recognize that this has been an extraordinarily difficult decision and admire her courage for being willing to speak her truth when it would have been easier to stay silent.

As sexual assault violates a woman’s most fundamental rights, it must be considered a failure of character at any age — regardless of the subsequent accomplishments and power attained by the offender. It should not be dismissed as youthful bad judgment, however aberrant it may be.

In light of Christine’s experience, we hold our elected officials responsible for conducting a more thorough and comprehensive review of this Supreme Court nominee. Having taken this courageous step, Christine deserves your due consideration on this serious matter.

We stand with our friend Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and admire her honesty and resolve on behalf of our nation.

Respectfully,

Allyson Abrams Bergman, Amy Englehardt, Andrea K. Evers, Holly Huelsman Fuller, Sandra Engle Gichner, Daphne Holt, Francine Laden, Monica McLean, Samantha Semerad Guerry, Estela M. Radan, Martha Mispireta Shannon, Lisa Shapiro, Laura Simms Smith, Dana Stewart, M. Sydney Trattner, Virginia White, Stacey Kavounis Wilson

Another from her work colleagues

To Whom It May Concern:

We are writing as private citizens to communicate our unequivocal support of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. We are her colleagues, current and former students, and mentors: those who can attest to her integrity as a professional and as a person.

We are writing in the hopes that Dr. Blasey Ford’s voice is not dismissed as someone who is “politically motivated,” or because “she did not report it earlier,” or because she initially decided to speak anonymously, or for any other of the multitude of reasons victims of sexual assault are often silenced or silence themselves. We feel compelled to use our voice, the voice of those who know her, to communicate our full support, and to attest to her character and integrity.

Dr. Blasey Ford has put herself in the crossfire of a national debate, which is no small act. Her family and her life will be scrutinized. Her integrity will be questioned. She spoke out because she felt morally compelled to provide additional data on the character and moral code of a man who may be determining our citizens’ futures for his lifetime. This is Christine Blasey Ford the scientist, the biostatistician, the teacher. It is her dedication to the data and creating the fullest and most balanced picture that has led her to be a highly respected colleague and mentor.

We are now living in a time in history where we are beginning to do better by giving space to those voices that are less powerful. By coming forward, Dr. Blasey Ford has spoken for men and women in this country whose voices have been silenced. It is our turn to rally around her brave and selfless act, made simply because her moral code dictates that we must have all of the information before coming to conclusions. It is our responsibility to continue in this effort and speak up to support her.

We implore those who read this and hear others trying to silence Dr. Blasey Ford’s voice, by way of character attacks, to stop and listen to what she has to say. We know her and know that she is of the highest moral fortitude, but for those of you who do not we have written this letter to explain why we believe she should be given the space to speak. We have a duty to protect brave voices who are seeking to shed light on the truth. Otherwise democracy fails.

Respectfully,

several hundred signatures

Mazie Hirono is on the record; and her backstory is wonderful:

Kavanaugh Is Fudging the Truth

She arrived in Hawaii without knowing English and having made the trek in a ship’s steerage. She is the only senator to grow up poor enough to remember what it’s like not to know where the next meal is coming from. She was the first Asian-American woman in the Senate and is the only Buddhist ever to serve in the chamber.

She says she tells her staff that everything she does now, at 70, sitting on the Senate floor, is because of who she was at 8, arriving on that boat.

“There are people getting screwed in our country every single second, minute, hour of the day. And if by our work, we can decrease that number, we’ll make a difference; we’ll be doing our jobs.

Brett Kavanaugh didn’t rape 65 women: Great, but that proves nothing

So, women who support Brett Kavanaugh: Your letter means less than nothing to me. If a man had accused Brett Kavanaugh of cornering him at a party, having his friend hold him down, then beating him up and stealing his wallet, would 65 men come together in solidarity with statements that Kavanaugh could never have done such a thing because he didn’t do it to them? Would they even think of it? Would that be reported in the press? Would we care?

The statements of these 65 women shouldn’t be newsworthy, let alone evidence that Kavanaugh didn’t attempt to rape a woman while in high school. The fact is, we don’t know what happened. Maybe she’s lying, though that is statistically unlikely. Maybe Kavanaugh has changed, though his denial suggests strongly that he hasn’t. What I do know is that the allegations are extremely troubling and should be investigated. But any investigation should not take into account that there are women he did not rape. That’s not evidence of anything.

You Can't Walk Back a Categorical Denial

"I also believe that, if the committee vote is postponed beyond Thursday, or if it fails because someone like Flake defects, then this nomination is as dead as Kelsey's nuts.

Then, after sedating the president* heavily and throwing his phone off the Truman Balcony, someone in the White House will go back to the original Federalist Society-approved list of candidates and find someone who will be just as retrograde as Brett Kavanaugh, but who is a smoother and more accomplished prevaricator. Because that's the way American democracy works these days. If you don't lie well, find another line of work."

I’ve studied false rape claims. The accusation against Kavanaugh doesn’t fit the profile.

"Finally, while Ford’s alleged story of drunken wrestling sounds nothing like a false rape accusation, it does sound exactly like millions of real attempted rapes. It’s such a common story that it’s likely happening to many people as you read this sentence.

In fact, when defenders of Kavanaugh aren’t insisting Ford is a liar, they’re energetically arguing that what Kavanaugh is accused of is so normal it doesn’t matter. If we ever hope to live in a world where it isn’t normal, we cannot continue to elevate alleged sex offenders to the highest positions in our society."

I tend to believe that Kavanaugh is telling the truth as he sees it when he denies it. He was drunk and what he did didn't register enough that he would remember it, and with the rewriting of memories over time, it no longer seems like something he could have done.

>37 2wonderY: Because that's the way American democracy works these days. If you don't lie well, find another line of work.

I don't think it's ever been much different, and to the extent it is, I'd blame democracy; back in the 1960s when Hubert Humphrey didn't even need to run in any primaries to get the Democratic nomination, you could be relatively honest with the political powerbase, but it's harder to reach the masses with the raw truth instead of painting a pretty picture, and politicians have less ability to focus on those who made their election possible instead of the voters.

It's likely going to be a he said/she said deal---an accusation and a denial though Blasey Ford's account seems very believable to me and IMO this is not going to help Republicans in the mid-terms...it's far more likely going to energize more voters to come out in November to put those who vote for Kavanaugh's confirmation out of office and I would expect all kinds of TV ads on this issue so IMO Trump would be smart to pull the plug on this Supreme Court candidate--find someone else because he's going to put all these people who haven't had the courage to ever stand up against him in the classic bad spot of being between a rock and a hard place. He's almost certainly losing the House--if Kavanaugh gets confirmed that might not be all he loses.

>41 lriley: Republicans may pretend that it's a he said/she said deal, but it really isn't. No one who is paying attention could believe that Ford was trying to lay the groundwork for a false accusation against a supreme court nominee who wouldn't even be nominated until much later when she told her psychologist about the attempted rape.

#42--I think there's more credibility on Blasey Ford's side--I'm well aware that she went to see a therapist several years ago about this particular issue which is a part of what makes her account even more credible so I don't believe she's just a plant or lying--but IMO if Monday just turns into her accusing and him denying they (as in the Republican side of the Senate) are likely to go ahead and confirm Kavanaugh for lack of any real hard evidence. She's stuck in the unenviable position of proving something that happened 35 years ago. All that said if the Republican Senate does confirm him for simply lack of hard evidence--it's a campaign ad for every House and Senate seat in November and the Republicans will pay a price for it.

>38 2wonderY:

I don't find the argument there very compelling. The commonalities of false accusations among ordinary people--mostly teenagers--are not necessarily like that of adults who level accusations on a national stage in the middle of a national debate. Nor do I think we should compare the stories of anxious idiots with that of intelligent people.

The point isn't that Ford isn't believable, it's that she's believable for entirely different reasons. It's too those reasons that you have to look, not to analogies with regular teenagers. Ford spoke to others about this some years ago, completely gutting any argument about her inventing it to fit the political situation. And she came out knowing, with an adult's knowledge, how seriously it would upend her whole life. None of us really know the situation, but there are details here that make it very hard for me to believe she made it up.

Has a Supreme Court Justice ever been impeached? If they win Senate, Dems will have a lot on their plate, so would they bother going after Kavanaugh for perjury in previous hearings?

#45--I don't know of any examples of Kavanaugh perjuring himself but I haven't watched in its entirety. There are numerous examples of him not really answering the questions he's asked.

>46 lriley:

Ditto every other one since Bork.

Blasey Ford facing online threats, ‘doxing,’ moves out of home
Elise Viebeck | Sept 18, 2018

“She’s spending her time trying to figure out the logistics of her life as it is now and how to keep herself and her family safe”

At 10:28 Tuesday morning, a Twitter account with a white nationalist talking point for its handle posted Christine Blasey Ford’s personal address.

...This was at least the third time a Twitter user had “doxed” Ford — posted her personal information online — since she revealed her identity to The Washington Post and accused President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee of sexual assault.

...Ford has not committed to testify (Monday hearing). In a letter late Tuesday to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R, Ford’s attorneys said that she wants the FBI to investigate the incident first, and that “her worst fears have materialized” as a result of her coming forward.

“She has been the target of vicious harassment and even death threats,” they wrote. “As a result of these kind of threats, her family was forced to relocate out of their home. Her email has been hacked, and she has been impersonated online.”...

https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/09/18/blasey-ford-facing-online-threats-doxing...

__________________________________________________________________________________

Trump ‘feels badly’ for Kavanaugh after sex assault accusation
John Wagner, Seung Min Kim and Robert Costa | Sept 18, 2018

...“I feel so badly that he’s going through this,” Trump said during a news conference at the White House. “This is not a man who deserves this.”

Trump called Kavanaugh “a great gentleman” and lamented that his wife and daughters are experiencing the public airing of accusations that Trump said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., should have brought up earlier in his confirmation process.

...Trump said he believes the Senate should proceed with a hearing on Ford’s accusations at which she will be allowed to “state her case” and that there would be no doubt about Kavanaugh’s innocence...

https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/09/18/trump-feels-badly-for-kavanaugh-after-se...

____________________________________________________________________________________

>45 margd: >46 lriley: perjury in 2004 and 2006

Brett Kavanaugh may have perjured himself — but mainstream media doesn’t want to talk about it
Justin Anderson | September 14, 2018

There’s a legitimate argument that Kavanaugh lied under oath in 2004 and 2006. Major outlets are ducking the issue

...while Kavanaugh was working in the Bush administration as White House staff secretary in 2004, he received thousands of stolen documents that were circulated by Manuel Miranda, a GOP Senate staffer, which revealed Democratic opposition strategies and questions to be asked of Bush judicial nominees. (Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy) offered examples of his own stolen emails as proof. In Judiciary Committee hearings in 2004 and 2006, Kavanaugh denied under oath that he knew the documents were stolen, even though one of the email chains he was copied on was titled “spying.”

In the 2004 hearing, Kavanaugh also denied under oath that he “personally handled” the nomination of controversial anti-abortion judge William Pryor to the D.C. Circuit Court, although emails from 2002 and 2003 say otherwise.

...Sharpening these allegations is the fact that Kavanaugh himself has in the past supported strict interpretations of perjury. While working as an attorney for independent counsel Ken Starr in 1998, Kavanaugh urged that President Bill Clinton be impeached for perjury over his role in the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. Kavanaugh authored a memo to the other Starr attorneys that pushed for a civil suit for perjury against Clinton, suggesting graphic questioning of Lewinsky as well...

https://www.salon.com/2018/09/14/brett-kavanaugh-may-have-perjured-himself-but-m...

An interesting twist:

Merrick Garland asked to probe perjury allegations against Brett Kavanaugh
Taylor Link | September 9, 2018

...A liberal group has filed a criminal complaint against Brett Kavanaugh for allegedly perjuring himself in front of the Senate judiciary committee. Merrick Garland, who is the chief judge of the D.C. federal circuit, was asked to rule upon the complaint or appoint a special panel of jurists to investigate the allegations...

https://www.salon.com/2018/09/09/merrick-garland-asked-to-probe-perjury-allegati...

____________________________________________________________________________________

Attorney Sent Letter to Chuck Grassley and Dianne Feinstein Claiming Federal Court Employees Willing to Speak About Brett Kavanaugh
Ryan Grim | September 17 2018

...Cyrus Sanai made his first attempt to reach out to Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in a letter dated July 24. (He also mailed copies of the letter to Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and Ted Lieu, D-Calif.)

Sanai told the committee leadership that “there are persons who work for, or who have worked for, the federal judiciary who have important stories to tell about disgraced former Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, and his mentee, current United States Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. I know that there are people who wish to speak out but fear retaliation because I have been contacted by more than a half-dozen such persons since Judge Kozinski resigned in disgrace.”

Sanai is the California attorney who blew the whistle on Kozinski years before a series of articles in the Washington Post in December finally brought about the resignation of the former chief judge of the 9th Circuit Court over sexual harassment revelations. Sanai has long challenged the judiciary and was deemed a “vexatious litigant” by one trial court, an attempted designation that was overturned on appeal.

Since Kozinski’s resignation, questions have been raised about what Kavanaugh knew or did about such behavior, given the close relationship between the two. Kavanaugh clerked for Kozinski in the 1990s, a post that led directly to his clerkship with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who recommended Kavanaugh to President Donald Trump as his replacement. Kozinski and Kavanaugh remained close and both vetted prospective clerks for Kennedy.

Kozinski’s son recently clerked for Kavanaugh.

...Sanai said that he did not hold Kavanaugh responsible for Kozinski’s behavior, but rather that his claim of ignorance was not credible and could be contradicted by witnesses. Kavanaugh’s credibility has become a central issue in his confirmation, as he has “unequivocally” denied allegations that he sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford when both were in high school.

Apart from interviewing witnesses, Sanai also suggested that the Judiciary Committee “subpoena all intra Court emails and messages between Kavanaugh and Kozinski and all emails to and from Kozinski with links to his website.”

The fact that Kozinski hosted pornography on his website and forced some clerks to view it was one of the exposed behaviors that led to his resignation.

...Kavanaugh’s credibility has also been called into question by his denial that he ever exploited information stolen from Senate Democrats during previous confirmation fights. Emails subsequently revealed that he did...

https://theintercept.com/2018/09/17/cyrus-sanai-federal-court-employees-attempte...

_________________________________________________________________________________

MSNBC just aired this footage from a speech by Judge Kavanaugh at the Columbus School of Law from 2015

👀👀

"What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep. That's been a good thing for all of us"

Jon Levine @LevineJonathan
16h16 hours ago

16 second video clip at https://twitter.com/LevineJonathan/status/1042133456740909057

Accuser's schoolmate says she recalls hearing of alleged Kavanaugh incident

"Christine Blasey Ford was a year or so behind me," wrote the woman, Cristina Miranda King, who now works as a performing arts curator in Mexico City. "I did not know her personally but I remember her. This incident did happen."

She added, "Many of us heard a buzz about it indirectly with few specific details. However Christine's vivid recollection should be more than enough for us to truly, deeply know that the accusation is true."
...
The assertion that other people heard about and discussed an incident between Ford and Kavanaugh at the time it is alleged to have happened could loom as an important factor in any investigation of the claim.

Must you post QUITE so much news blah?

>44 timspalding: I think the point stands that it's not lurid. While one might not expect all the overwrought details from an intelligent adult liar, I would expect a story with penetration and threats, to overcome those who gainsay this story as youthful hijinks. I would also not expect the witness who undoubtedly will deny being there, nor the almost slapstick ending. One can go all Princess Bride on the story, that she knew we'd treat those details as confirming the story, but they don't strike me as what a false accusation would say.

>50 timspalding: I think it's possible to underestimate how closely women voters feel this story. Rs may win the Kavanaugh battle and lose the war come November. Maybe wander in wilderness for a long, long time. In Canada and Ontario, they've seen parties (both Conservatives and Liberals) destroyed for less. Under a parliamentary system, parties can regroup, reformulate, form alliances. Not sure how it will go here. What will emerge from the ashes?

Couching the situation from a certain perspective

from Twitter https://mobile.twitter.com/magi_jay/status/1042547752155181058

"Kavanaugh took Dr. Blasey-Ford's choice away. The media took Blakey-Ford's choice away. And now the GOP is taking her choice away all over again. Just please pause & try to absorb the profundity of this violation."

and another, in response to news report "GOP pushes to move forward with Kavanaugh confirmation if his accuser won't testify": https://mobile.twitter.com/rudepundit/status/1042597457878806529

"So, basically, Christine Blasey Ford is being forced by a man to do something against her will while he and other men ignore her calls for help."

Yahoo News lacks the prestige of some other news groups, but I think their correspondent, Matt Bai, nails the issue precisely with his analysis:

What Kavanaugh deserves — and what we deserve from him

A second, more complicated question, is whether the story, if it is in fact true, ought to be disqualifying.

The easiest answer to give here is that Kavanaugh’s behavior, if that’s the case, was disgusting and probably criminal (it was), and that he showed no remorse (he didn’t), and that he thought so little of this girl that he doesn’t even recall the specific incident (which I guess is possible).

In this moment of national catharsis, the best way for a guy like me to prove himself above suspicion — or try to, anyway — is to agree that the accused is morally irredeemable and send him into permanent exile.

Except that, as I’ve written before, none of us ought to be defined by the ugliest moments of our lives — and especially not our teenage lives. As I was once told by Bob Kerrey, the former senator who went through his own painful public reckoning over his actions as a Navy SEAL in Vietnam, we are not the worst things we’ve ever done.

Kerrey’s fellow Democrats must believe this, too, by the way, because they stood by Bill Clinton through all the odious disclosures of his private behavior, and they still lionize the late Ted Kennedy, who was responsible for a woman’s death in Chappaquiddick. Neither was 17 years old at the time.

Character demands context. The moral arc of a lifetime matters. Not everything is equally relevant.

Mistakes of youth can be humiliating and painful, but they can also help you grow into a more serious, more compassionate adult. To my mind, Kavanaugh deserves the opportunity, at least, to be judged through that wider lens.

This, however, leads me to what I think is now the central question surrounding Kavanaugh’s imperiled nomination.

Is Kavanaugh lying to us now when he says that none of this could possibly have happened? And what does that categorical denial tell us about his fitness to serve?

Because whatever else is or isn’t true, whatever has been clouded in memory by 36 intervening years, a few things about Kavanaugh back then seem undeniable.

He traveled in the same social circle as Ford, or at least for a while. He was immature and callow. He probably wasn’t great to the girls he knew. He drank more than a kid should.

It’s something he himself alluded to, later, when he joked to graduates of his fancy prep school: “What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep. That’s been a good thing for all of us, I think.”

Judge, the buddy whom Ford places in the room that night, later wrote a fictionalized addiction memoir, in which a character named “Bart O’Kavanaugh” drinks himself into a vomiting fit.

Like I said, high school isn’t the totality of a life. But here’s the point: There are plenty of ways someone as eloquent as Kavanaugh could have responded publicly to the allegation against him.

He could have said: “Like a lot of misguided teenagers, I drank irresponsibly, and I have only vague memories of that time. I am certain as I stand here today that I never attacked anyone, and I have no specific recollection of Dr. Ford. But if I or any of my friends were involved in immature behavior that was painful to anyone at the time, I regret it.”

He could have said, in effect: Judge me for my lifetime of service, not for whatever may have happened at 17 that I was too stupid and drunk to remember.

But that’s not what Kavanaugh is saying. He dismisses not only the allegation but the context around it. He says he wasn’t that kind of kid. He says he wasn’t there, in the house Ford can describe in detail.

He makes a victim of her all over again, by essentially calling her delusional. He makes no allowance for the possibility that his own memory is blurred by inebriated youth.

And maybe there is a pattern here. This is essentially what Kavanaugh did when he was asked, during his last confirmation hearing for the federal bench, whether he had been involved in internal discussions over the detention of enemy combatants during the George W. Bush administration.

He denied it completely, when in fact the more complicated truth, that he had been tangential to those discussions but sometimes involved, would have sufficed. Just as he flatly rejected the assertion that he’d ever lived beyond his means and racked up credit card debt to pay for it, even though the truth was probably more shaded than that, and not really so damning.

My fear about Kavanaugh isn’t that he’s a sexual predator; barring new revelations, there’s no evidence to suggest he is.

My fear is that his experiences as a partying teenager didn’t actually teach him a hell of a lot about fallibility or shame. He seems not to have emerged with much appreciation for the gray areas in which most larger truths reside.

A Supreme Court justice doesn’t need to be a perfect person, or to have led an unfailingly exemplary life. None of us can say that. But, especially on a divided court in a divided nation, we deserve a justice who demonstrates a capacity for nuance, reflection and humility.

Whatever else is true about him, Brett Kavanaugh doesn’t seem to be that guy.

>51 prosfilaes:

I hear you. As I've said, I think her account is believable, and, on current evidence, I think it's quite persuasive. But I'm more persuaded by the factors I've mentioned than I am by the structure of the story. That Ford is the perfect witness is clear--adult, put-together, of good apparent character, with no history of pathological lying, with so little to gain, and so forth is clear. (It is correspondingly sad that these factors would work against many other victims, whose rape is as real as anyone's.) But she is a psychology professor; if she were a liar, you would expect her to have deep understanding of the psychology of accusation.

I think it's possible to underestimate how closely women voters feel this story. Rs may win the Kavanaugh battle and lose the war come November.

I don't underestimate it. But I think any linking of the rape and politics is extremely gross. The narrative that there's a connection between attempted rapist and abortion politics goes both ways. It means that the left ought to give a sexual harasser some slack if they are going to protect women's choice. If you are a Republican, it means it's okay to give Kavanaugh a pass on assaulting women because at least he's going to protect babies from abortionists. This is the twisted partisan logic that led so many on the left to protect Bill Clinton and attack his accusers as sluts. It's the logic that led the Republican party to protect Roy Moore. It's vile.

GOP pushes to move forward with Kavanaugh confirmation if his accuser won't testify

I guess it seems facially reasonable to me that there would be an FBI investigation, and therefore that everything should be delayed. I'd want to look at past procedure to be sure. But I'm less eager about being caught up in this argument, because it so completely dovetails with the political calculus.

Put simply, Democrats want to string this out as much as possible, to keep it in the public eye during the run-up to elections and so that, when Kavanaugh falls, there won't be time to confirm a successor before the elections. And Republicans want Kavanaugh to be confirmed quickly or die quickly—so they can appoint Barrett before midterms, lame-duck sessions and a possible flipped Senate. (BTW: I said 538 had it at 1/6; they have it at 1/3 now.)

Anyway, at my age I've seen these things flip around like fish too many times not to be cynical. If it were in Republican's interests to draw it out they'd be making baritone speeches about the necessity of investigation and due process, and Democrats would be insisting on being heard right now.

Not sure how it will go here. What will emerge from the ashes?

If we are going to talk about politics, well, I wouldn't overrate the effects. The Republican party is in deep trouble. And indeed the Thomas / Hill hearings had some connection to the "year of the woman" that followed it. But everything is so tribalized and partisan now, and the national sense of factual clarity on any issue so screwed up, I can't see much of an effect. Besides, the swirl of gender politics around Kavanaugh are a tiny fraction of that around Trump generally.

>55 timspalding: Here's hoping the activism and attention exhibited at The Women's March is a lasting phenomenon. As a survivor of sexual predation, I tell you I am marking who says what in this arena. And there are a vast number of women with an ugly experience or two whose hackles are raised.

To add to the weirdness ~

Brett Kavanaugh wins the Roy Moore endorsement — not that he asked for it

My take,

1) I'm nearly certain that the events that Ford described took place since she had told it to a psychologist well before Kavenaugh was a Supreme Court nominee.

2) It seems likely that Feinstein is playing political games by delaying the charges to the last minute. The Republicans seem to be trying to use this to discredit the whole thing but it doesn't really have anything to do with the validity of Ford's story.

3) I hear a lot of Republicans using the fact that Ford can't remember some of the details, such as whose house the party was at, as proof that she's lying. But it's to be expected that after 30 years some of the peripheral details would have been forgotten and it does nothing to counter point #1.

From an unexpected corner, an opinion piece supporting Blasey Ford, by Fox News opinion writer, Leslie Marshall:

Why did Christine Blasey Ford wait so long? I'll tell you ...

I am guilty of that silence. Just last year, someone from college re-connected with me on Facebook. We talked about what some of our classmates are doing now, including the one from my 18th birthday. When I found out he is a successful professional in chosen career, it sickened me. I wanted to tell someone. But I didn’t. Fear prevented me from picking up the phone.

In coming forward, Dr. Ford is overcoming her fear. And that, I would imagine, will truly help her to heal.

I only wish I could be as brave.

>54 2wonderY: That's an excellent article. I agree that something that happened when you were a teenager shouldn't ruin your whole life and further agree that his failing to atone for it, or even acknowledge it, should be disqualifying for the position of Supreme Court Justice.

What Would a Serious Investigation of Brett Kavanaugh Look Like?

Considering what would constitute due process for Kavanaugh, then, involves reflection on whether Kavanaugh is best compared to a defendant who has been accused of a crime and stands to lose his liberty, or to a student who has been accused of misconduct and stands to lose an educational opportunity. If the answer is the former, that would suggest that Kavanaugh should be afforded many of the protective trappings of the criminal process, such as the right to cross-examine a witness, and that a heavy burden of proof lies on the side of the accuser. If it’s the latter, though, then perhaps a hearing can be dispensed with, and the standard of proof can be the lower threshold of preponderance of the evidence. Neither analogy is appropriate, though, because Kavanaugh does not stand to lose something that he already has. He is petitioning the public for the privilege of holding one of the highest public offices in the country, and he should have to persuade us that he didn’t do what he is accused of doing.
...
Further complicating Kavanaugh’s testimony is the fact that Maryland, where Ford says the party was held, does not have a statute of limitations for felonies. In theory, Kavanaugh could be criminally prosecuted now or in the future, and the risk to him at the hearing includes potential criminal jeopardy. Although he was a juvenile at the time of the alleged assault, attempted rape is a crime for which a juvenile defendant in Maryland may be tried as an adult. This country routinely levies harsh and life-changing penalties on teen-agers, especially boys of color, who are overrepresented in our jails and prisons. It would be ironic if this nomination became an occasion for meaningful reflection on the need for leniency toward young people who have made grave mistakes.
...
If any sexual-misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh from the time since he became a judge were to surface, he too, could be investigated by a judicial council. The person who would have to call for such an investigation would be the chief judge of the District of Columbia Circuit, Merrick Garland.

Republicans, be forewarned: Kavanaugh’s accuser has options

Ford has another option: Hold a news conference with her own experts and make the case directly to the American people. She can sit down for an interview with a respected TV journalist. She can say whatever she wants, make certain that experts are heard and even recount the much more extensive investigative efforts undertaken when Hill stepped forward. To make her case to the American people and convince them that she is sincere, honest and credible, Ford doesn’t need the Senate.

Ford also might have the ability to go to local police to investigate if the White House refuses to activate the FBI. The Hill reports: “Can Brett Kavanaugh be investigated for an attempted rape he allegedly committed over three decades ago? In Maryland, it’s entirely possible under the law, according to some experts. Now members of the American public are calling for Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh to open an investigation, especially if the FBI doesn’t.” That would be a process over which neither the Senate nor the Trump administration would have any control.

>32 2wonderY: Over 1,000 alumnae of Blasey Ford's high school sign letter of support and was presented to the Senate today.

full text:

We are alumnae of the Holton-Arms School, and we are writing in support of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, a fellow Holton graduate.
We believe Dr. Blasey Ford and are grateful that she came forward to tell her story. It demands a thorough and independent investigation before the Senate can reasonably vote on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to a lifetime seat on the nation's highest court.
Dr. Blasey Ford's experience is all too consistent with stories we heard and lived while attending Holton. Many of us are survivors ourselves.
Holton’s motto teaches students to “find a way or make one.” We dream of making a world where women are free from harassment, assault, and sexual violence. We are deeply grateful to Dr. Blasey Ford for bravely stepping forward and bringing us closer to that world we all seek.
Sincerely,
Holton Alumnae in Support of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford

>58 jjwilson61:

I agree with basically all of what you say. I think it's a little odd she wouldn't remember the house--I remember that sort of flashbulb specificity about major traumatic events when I was a teenager, or the time in my 20s I was carjacked at gunpoint. But it isn't so odd it makes me doubt the story at all. It probably rules out it happening at a house she knew well. At this point, I can't see not believing her without something really unexpected and major, like evidence she was a pathological liar, or that he was out of the country that year.

>54 2wonderY: none of us ought to be defined by the ugliest moments of our lives — and especially not our teenage lives

Old joke:

A big Scot is sitting in a bar, ranting as he downs his pints. He pounds his hand on the bar, says "You see this bar? I built this bar with me own two hands, a finer piece of work you'll never find, but do they call me MacGregor the bar-builder? No!!" and he downs his pint and buys another.

He points out the window. "See that dock in the lake? I built that dock with me own hands, a finer piece of work you'll never find, but do they call me MacGregor the dock-builder? No!!" and downs his pint.

He next pointed out the chair and table in the corner, the fence outside, all sorts of similar projects, and says "I built that with me own two hands, a finer piece of work you'll never find, but do call me MacGregor the handyman? No!!"

He stares into his beer, whispers, "But you fuck one sheep..."

Part of my problem with that is that you're much more likely to get that chance if you graduate from Georgetown Preparatory School then if you graduate from City High School. Kavanaugh was an abuser of illegal drugs (illegal for him, at least) who under the influence of those drugs engaged in sexual assault. Slap that on most people, and it's likely to be fatal to them. If they chose to charge him as an adult, he could have been tagged as a sexual offender for life, at least now. How many times did the police deliver a drunk Kavanaugh home? How many times did Georgetown Prep protect its students from legal influence?

none of us ought to be defined by the ugliest moments of our lives — and especially not our teenage lives

I basically agree with this. I believe in forgiveness, in the reality that we are not the same person over time, and in the necessity of mercy. But "not defined by" is not the same thing as "earned a place on the Supreme Court." As I see it, it's very likely Kavanaugh tried to rape a girl in high school. If all he gets for that is the failure to ascend to one of the honored and powerful positions in public life, he got off easy.

>50 timspalding: "Must you post QUITE so much news blah?"

That is among the dumbest and ultimately ugliest posts I have ever read, particularly considering the backstory that the poster apparently owns this site and should be pleased that it generates interest. As for the language, blah, sorry Spalding, but we just can't all be valley blah girls: it takes an accident of birth primarily, but surely you would have fit right in, gender notwithstanding, had the timing and geographics worked out.

To my fellow LTers: please keep posting freely, despite the irritations petty they might inflict on those who just can't bear to scroll away.

Poll finds less support for Kavanaugh, especially among women
Sept 20, 2018

(Wall Street Journal / NBC)...poll was taken Sept. 16-19, after a woman accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were in high school.

...While men split 41% to 33% in favor of the Kavanaugh nomination, support among women was far lower, with 28% favoring the nomination and 42% in opposition. College-educated women are particularly sour on Kavanaugh: 49% of them oppose his nomination, while 28% support it...

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/poll-finds-less-support-for-kavanaugh-especial...

Ten Democratic members of Senate Judiciary Committee request FBI Director Wray open investigation of witness intimidation (2 p letter), requesting reply by Sept 23, 2018:

https://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Judic%20Dems%20to%20Director%20Wray%2...

One of the things being asked by many is why didn't she report the attack back when it happened. One reason? People like Congressman Ralph Norman (R-SC) making a joke about sexual assault. While reporting a sexual assault may not be quite as bad for the woman today as it was back then, it's still bad enough.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/watch-gop-congressman-mocks-kavanaugh-allegatio...

>70 rastaphrog: Interesting that Norman doesn't seem inclined to joke about sexual assault when it comes to the behavior of some Catholic priests - wonder why.

Open Letter to Senate Judiciary Committee from Yale Law Faculty
September 21, 2018

....we are concerned about a rush to judgment that threatens both the integrity of the process and the public’s confidence in the Court...

https://law.yale.edu/yls-today/news/open-letter-senate-judiciary-committee-yale-...

If Kavanaugh voluntarily withdraws now, given his categorical denial, he won't have credibility to continue in current position (DC Circuit court)?
From his perspective, only option is to push forward, even if he fails confirmation by a vote or two?

Kavanaugh Bears the Burden of Proof
Benjamin Wittes | Sep 21, 2018

The question isn’t whether (Kavanaugh) can win confirmation—it’s whether he can defend against the charge he faces in a manner that is both persuasive and honorable.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/kavanaugh-confirmation/571021/

ETA_________________________________________________________________

As we approach the arbitrary deadline @senjudiciary is imposing on a witness who is willing to testify next week but wants _one more day_, a reminder that the same Senators kept Justice Scalia’s seat open for 442 days.

Today is day 52 of Justice Kennedy’s retirement.

Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck (Professor at U Texas Law)
6:36 PM - 21 Sep 2018 from Austin, TX

Kavanaugh nomination seems destined to slam lid on dustbin of reputation of judicial as well as legislative and executive branches...Putin chortles.

Kavanaugh ally says he did not communicate with White House or Supreme Court nominee about theory of another attacker
Elise Viebeck, Emma Brown and Robert Costa | September 21, 2018

...“I have not communicated at all with White House counsel Donald McGahn or anyone at the White House, or Judge Kavanaugh, about the topic of the Twitter thread (Ford was mistaking Kavanaugh for someone else),” Ed Whelan said in a brief interview with The Washington Post.

Whelan, president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, declined to discuss...whether he had spoken with other top Republicans about the matter.

...Whelan has been involved in helping to advise Kavanaugh’s confirmation effort and is close friends with Kavanaugh and Leonard Leo, the head of the Federalist Society, who has been helping to spearhead the nomination.

On Sunday, Ford noticed that — even before her name became public — Whelan appeared to be seeking information about her.

That morning, Ford alerted an associate via email that Whelan had looked at her LinkedIn page, according to the email, which was reviewed by The Post. LinkedIn allows some subscribers to see who views their pages. Ford sent the email about 90 minutes after The Post shared her name with a White House spokesman and hours before her identity was revealed in a story posted on its website. (Sunday morning)

...After The Post contacted the White House for comment Sunday morning (re upcoming story that would make Ford's name public), deputy White House press secretary Raj Shah called a number of Trump allies...a person familiar with the calls, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations (said Shah) disclosed Ford’s identity to a number of these people but did not talk to Whelan... Other White House officials, including McGahn, also made calls according to a second person...

Whelan did not respond to a request for comment on how he first learned of Ford’s identity.

...Whelan, a former Supreme Court clerk to the late justice Antonin Scalia, is a well-connected stalwart of the conservative legal establishment. He and Kavanaugh served at the same time in the George W. Bush administration, when Kavanaugh worked in the White House Counsel’s Office...

Whelan also worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1992 to 1995 as a senior staffer to Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), then the panel’s top Republican...

Shortly after Ford went public with her allegations in an interview with The Post, conservatives began floating the idea that she was misremembering the night of the alleged attack — or mistaking the identity of her attacker.

...Ford dismissed the notion that she had identified the wrong person, saying in a statement late Thursday that she knew both men and had “socialized with” the classmate and once visited him in the hospital.

“There is zero chance that I would confuse them,” she said in a statement.

Whelan apologized Friday morning for naming the former classmate (now a middle school teacher) and suggesting he could have been responsible for the alleged assault...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kavanaugh-ally-says-he-did-not-communica...

Sexual assault groups that have been working with the Judiciary Committee for two years on VAWA renewal withdraw under protest.

“You’re actions and comments in the past week have taken us back 25 years.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sexual-assault-groups-christine-blasey-ford...

Really beginning to grind me, the way power is being wielded and the sense of entitlement that whiffs out of this entire affair. I've encountered these kind of people before, but I (foolishly) thought they were exceptions... Depressing to think that decency and class (real class) are the exceptions?

Maybe Patti Davis, daughter of Ronald Reagan, can get through to the senators about why women don't fully recall details and why they don't report these crimes:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-was-sexually-assaulted-heres-why-i-don...

"Unless they just want her to go away. Which is, by the way, one reason that women are scared to speak up."

A Senate Judiciary Committee aide resigns as old sexual harassment allegation re-surfaces.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/garrett-ventry-senate-judiciary-committee-r...

The Republican Party and the American conservative movement's pursuit of political power has led both to normalize sexual assault and rape.

You've come a long way, baby, and look where it's got you today.

>79 theoria: I don't think they've changed the status quo; the Me Too movement has just forced them to more firmly acknowledge that status quo. Few on either side really cared about Bill Clinton's sexual behavior; he was impeached for lying under oath. Now sexual assault is being taken more seriously, at least on the left, and the Republicans have both held on to the status quo, and tied their boat to Trump, who doesn't give them much freedom to condemn casual sexual assault.

Kavanaugh Has Exposed the Savage Amorality of America's Ruling Class
Harry Cheadle | Sep 21 2018

How the DC establishment has responded to his confirmation controversy tells us an awful lot.

... in the days since news of that accusation broke, reporting on the milieu from which Kavanaugh emerged has painted an ugly portrait of elite American society as both bacchanalian and banal, a nepotacracy where connections matter far more than any semblance or strain of morality.

...the path Kavanaugh has walked to power is designed for people like him—privileged, white, connected, conservative. The system exists to promote his type and to excuse any blemish, past or present...

https://www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/gynyxx/kavanaugh-has-exposed-the-savage-a...

#82---that's a good article. I liked reading that because that's exactly what we get over and over and over. To be considered amongst the 'best'--you have to go to a fancy prep school--a prestigious university (Yale, Yale, Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, Yale, Yale) and have the connections (which includes connections to the media) who will pave your way. There always seems to be certain similarities in the bios of the elect.

#82 contd.

The Crisis of the American Elites
Eliot A. Cohen.
Professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University | Sept 23. 2018

Judith Butler and Ed Whelan share little in common—save their willingness to direct cruelty against ordinary people in defense of eminent colleagues.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/the-crisis-of-the-american-eli...

Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years
Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer | Sept 23, 2018

...After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, (Deborah) Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away...

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-alle...

_________________________________________________________________________

I represent a woman (not Ramirez) with credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. We will be demanding the opportunity to present testimony to the committee and will likewise be demanding that Judge and others be subpoenaed to testify. The nomination must be withdrawn.

Michael Avenatti @MichaelAvenatti | 4:33 PM - 23 Sep 2018

Kavanaugh: How The Republican Leadership Broke The Four Rules Of Crisis Management
Steve Denning | Sep 23, 2018

...in its actions over the last ten days, the Republican leadership has jeopardized its goals through its failure to respect the rules of crisis management:

Recognize the crisis as a crisis
Get out as much information as possible as soon as possible, particularly any negative information
Avoid saying anything that has to be withdrawn
Avoid doing anything that looks like a cover-up...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2018/09/23/how-the-republican-leadersh...

Revealed: less than a third of young men prosecuted for rape are convicted (Guardian)

the failure to secure convictions reflects a desperate need to educate jurors, who appear particularly reluctant to punish young men at the start of their adult life for serious sexual assaults...

>85 margd:. Wow. And the Senate committee was still pushing for a quick nomination vote even after hearing about these new allegations.

Good Monday morning. Are we all wearing black?

Kellyanne speaks gibberish this morning:

"This may be the first time we've heard allegations against someone as a teenager who did not prey upon women thusly as he became powerful."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kellyanne-conway-says-brett-kavanaugh-accusers-alle...

If Kavanaugh voluntarily withdraws now, given his categorical denial, he won't have credibility to continue in current position (DC Circuit court)?

Oh, I think he could finesse that. He'd say it's too hard on his family, that it's a partisan attack, etc. He could be a martyr and, incidentally, make the Trump administration happy, by giving them time to appoint Barrett. By contrast, failing by a vote or two would be a sort of decision. And the longer this goes on, the more chance of someone else coming out of the woodwork.

The wall of silence seems to be weakening. And a pattern of behavior is emerging for his teen years at least.

This seems to be acceptable (or accepted) behavior in that societal niche. I wonder how many other men in power have this identical background story.

Wow--eew--Avenatti suggests six questions for Judiciary to ask of Kavenaugh (see link below):

My e-mail of moments ago with Mike Davis, Chief Counsel for Nominations for U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. We demand that this process be thorough, open and fair, which is what the American public deserves. It must not be rushed and evidence/witnesses must not be hidden.

https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1044032678951960576

Michael Avenatti @MichaelAvenatti | 6:16 PM - 23 Sep 2018

Michael Avenatti was very effective with the Stormy Daniels story. But he is trying to turn this story into another publicity event focusing on himself.

Michael Avenatti Implicates Kavanaugh in Pattern of Teenage Sexual Assault

The Supreme Court Is Coming Apart: This from the NY Times is exactly how I feel. This last branch of government, one I had continued to respect even recently, is now being destroyed by Mitch McConnell and this awful administration.

>90 timspalding: If Kavanaugh nomination fails, I bet Rs would look for a solid nominee, character- and experience-wise, who could sweep Senate conformation without problem.

A woman nominee might be a plus at this point, but sounds like Barrett has sparse experience, plus her writings could lose her Collins's (and maybe Mukulski's) vote. Rs might plead lack of time to confirm Barrett before midterms (away campaigning), but maybe use her nomination as an incentive for social conservatives to increase R hold on Senate. My take, anyway.

Interesting to recall JFK's speech on role of religion in public life: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600
Contrast Senator Feinstein to Barrett in 2017: "Dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s a concern."

Religion of current Supreme Court justices:
4 Catholic
1 Episcopal, but raised Catholic
3 Jewish
https://en.wikipedia.orgwiki/Demographics_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Sta...

Amy Coney Barrett is the favorite of social conservatives, but Democrats are already taking aim
David G. Savage | Jul 09, 2018
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-amy-barrett-supreme-court-20180709-sto...

The Borowitz Report

Chuck Grassley Spends Weekend Practicing Pretending-to-Listen Face

WASHINGTON - Facing the daunting challenge of appearing to pay attention to a woman’s utterances during a televised hearing, Senator Charles Grassley spent the weekend rehearsing what aides are calling his “pretending to listen” face.

In round-the-clock practice sessions that aides characterized as “excruciating,” the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee struggled to simulate even a trace of interest in what a woman had to say.

“Chuck has never pretended to listen to a woman before,” an aide said. “These are uncharted waters.”

According to the aide, Grassley’s fake-listening skills “are rudimentary at best,” and the senator was able to hold only a semi-attentive facial expression for seven seconds before it showed unmistakable signs of boredom, irritation, and contempt.

At one point, Grassley reportedly exploded with frustration, bellowing, “If I’d known that going into politics meant I’d have to listen to women, I’d have become a longshoreman.”

Complicating the mock sessions further was the absence on the Judiciary Committee of any Republican women to whom Grassley could pretend to listen, forcing Senator Orrin Hatch to step uncomfortably into the role of a woman.

So, local police in Montgomery County have opened an investigation after an anonymous witness came forward.

https://mont.thesentinel.com/2018/09/24/supreme-court-nominee-kavanaugh-faces-mo...

It's not clear if this relates to Blasey Ford, the unnamed Avenatti client, or a possible new complaint.

Avenatti client:

Warning: My client re Kavanaugh has previously done work within the State Dept, U.S. Mint, & DOJ. She has been granted multiple security clearances in the past including Public Trust & Secret. The GOP and others better be very careful in trying to suggest that she is not credible

Michael Avenatti @MichaelAvenatti | 7:32 AM - 24 Sep 2018

Hundreds Of Yale Students Protest Kavanaugh, Demand Investigation

The elite law school canceled 31 classes to help facilitate protests on campus and in Washington, D.C.
...
organizers counted at least 260 attendees (on campus). Among them were faculty members and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who spoke in support of a full investigation into Kavanaugh’s alleged misbehavior.
...
a bus carried additional students to the Supreme Court and Senate buildings to demonstrate.
...
“The first word that comes to mind is fierce,” McCarthy, 29, said of the scene’s mood in a phone interview.
...
Second-year law student Kathryn Pogin further stressed the school’s role in the national conversation. Every justice sitting on the Supreme Court attended either Yale’s or Harvard’s law school.

“Yale Law School perpetuates a broader power structure in which a small group of the wealthy and well-connected have the power to shape the law in ways that create and exacerbate profound inequities in American society,” Pogin said in a statement. “This is a moment of reckoning for the country as well as for the Yale Law School community, given the disproportionate power this institution holds over the legal profession and how we have collectively chosen to wield it.”

At least 600 Yale alumnae stand with new Kavanaugh accuser Deborah Ramirez in open letter

At least 600 women who graduated from Yale University between 1966 and 2018 have signed a letter in support of Deborah Ramirez, the second woman to come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

“We are coming forward as women of Yale because we have a shared experience of the environment that shaped not only Judge Kavanaugh’s life and career, but our own,” the open letter states.

>95 margd:

I think Barrett would be a good choice strategically, if Kavanaugh goes down. It would be hard to pivot from a respect-women message to attacks on a woman's record and temperament. If there were vicious attacks--and there surely would be--it would put Republicans on the side of defending women, for once. As the optics now with Kavanaugh are bad for Republicans--and, I suspect, getting worse and worse--the optics on attack Barrett would be bad. "A gang of men wants to take away women's rights" has a certain intuitive appeal to it; "woman is a gender-traitor" alienates as many as it appeals to.

Religion of current Supreme Court justices:

As things stand ALL the religions on the court are overrepresented. There are too many Catholics--50% vs. 25%--too many Episcopals 12% vs. 1.2%--and too many Jews 37% vs. 1.5%. Looking at the long run, the Episcopal is the remarkable one here--the Court used to absolutely brim with mainline Protestants. If we were to make it fair, the court needs an evangelical or two, and a "none" or two.

What Is TNC? Secret All-male Society Brett Kavanaugh Joined at Yale Under Scrutiny

During his time at Yale, Kavanaugh belonged to the now defunct all-male secret society Truth and Courage (TNC), known by the nickname "Tit and Clit’ club.
...
“Other societies were looking for a prestigious family background, or your GPA. Each had their own personalities,” Sherry said, explaining that TNC was mostly “organized around having sex with coeds.”

Distract!
Kavanaugh's hearing and Rosenstein's meeting with Trump both happen Thursday.

Kavanaugh's hearing will be much more interesting to general public, so I'm thinking it's to distract from Rosenstein's firing, er--meeting with Trump.

ETA: Rosenstein not only said something about a wire and 25th Amendment, he hired Mueller.
Prediction: Trump will play him like a mouse.

How many Catholic Court justices give them "50%" of the Courtʻs members? 5 would be OVER 50%, and 4*would UNDER. (101). And what gives the Episcopals "12%"?
3 would be 33+% of 9; 2 would be under 25%, but that MUCH under? "Jews 37%" indicates slightly over 3.

*b t w, Iʻve read that Clarence Thomas has been, at different times, Baptist, Catholic -- even once a seminarian, and Episcopal.

One of the 65 women who first signed a Kavanaugh support letter just discovered her name was referenced 14 times in Georgetown Prep yearbook, with students boasting being “Renate alumni.”

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/politics/new-york-times-kavanaugh-renate-high-sch...

ETA - Appears that letter didn’t originate from the minds of his friends; it was composed by his attorney.

James Roche: What You Need to Know
Kate Prengel | Sep 24, 2018

... The following is a statement from James Roche, Brett #Kavanaugh’s freshman roommate at Yale. pic.twitter.com/VfHUgPj3cV
— Peter Kauffmann (@PeterKauffmann) September 25, 2018

Roche was Kavanaugh’s roommate when they were both in their freshman year at Yale. Roche told the New Yorker that he never saw Kavanaugh do anything sexually inappropriate — but he also said that Kavanaugh was “frequently, incoherently drunk.” In a statement issued on Monday, Roche said that he often saw Kavanaugh getting back home late, and drunk. Roche said that Kavanaugh, normally a bit reserved, became “belligerent” when drunk. He added that “even by the standard of the time,” Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker.

He said that Debbie Ramirez was a close friend of his, and he described her as a “vulnerable outsider” ("Puerto Rican from a less privileged background" in the statement) who would be easy prey for some of the more predatory students at Yale. He said, “Is it believable that she was alone with a wolfy group of guys who thought it was funny to sexually torment a girl like Debbie? Yeah, definitely. Is it believable that Kavanaugh was one of them? Yes.”

However, Roche apparently also didn’t know about the alleged incident until recently, when the New Yorker contacted him for its article about Ramirez.

Roche had no prior knowledge of what happened between Ramirez and Kavanaugh. But he said he absolutely trusts Ramirez and doesn’t think it’s possible that she would invent something like this....

“Debbie and I became close friends shortly after we both arrived at Yale,” he told the New Yorker. “She stood out as being exceptionally honest and gentle. I cannot imagine her making this up.”...

...(With a BA in architecture from Yale), Roche is the CEO of a software company called Helix Re (in San Francisco)...provides “advanced technology solutions” for real estate owners, operators and tenants...prides itself on working with only a small group of top-tier private companies...

https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/james-roche/

___________________________________________________________________

Sean Langille @SeanLangille (Fox News producer):
#Kavanaugh on @RonanFarrow report: "If such a thing had happened, it would have been the talk of the campus"

Jane Mayer @JaneMayerNYer (co-author with Ronan Farrow of New Yorker article on Ramiriz) | 4:38 PM - 24 Sep 2018:
And so it was - a classmate who heard about it at the time told me he has thought of it every time he's heard Kavanaugh's name - for the last 35 years!

____________________________________________________________________

More Kavanaugh classmates withdraw support as new allegations emerge
Caroline Orr - September 24, 2018

...Louisa Garry, one of Kavanaugh’s former classmates who initially defended him but has now rescinded her support, was recently featured in a propaganda blitz funded by the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative group working to install Kavanaugh onto the Supreme Court.

The right-wing group reportedly pumped at least $1.5 million into the ad campaign featuring Garry. The sole purpose of the propaganda operation was to defend Kavanaugh against the accusations of sexual assault.

In one video, Garry offered her endorsement of Kavanaugh, saying she has known him for over three decades and trusted that he was the right man for the job. She referred to him as a “good and decent man” with an “unblemished personal record” and then, without evidence, claimed that the allegations against him were nothing but a “last-minute smear campaign.”...

https://shareblue.com/brett-kavanaugh-classmates-drop-support-deborah-ramirez-se...

ETA_______________________________________________________________

Mockery--game over?

Kavanaugh mocked after citing virginity, strict social calendar in latest defense
Karma Allen | Sep 25, 2018
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kavanaugh-mocked-citing-virginity-strict-social-...

ETA_______________________________________________________________

Protesting too much:

Christine Blasey Ford Steps Through The Right-Wing Looking Glass
Richard North Patterson | 9/24/2018
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-republicans-christine-blasey-ford_u...

ETA_______________________________________________________________

No wonder women were lined up to attest to Kavanaugh's good character, the basketball team was brought in, the avoidance of FBI re-opening background investigation, the rush to a vote, the hiding of documents(?), the trolling on social media--the deluge:

Who Is Elizabeth Rasor? Mark Judge's Ex-girlfriend Recalls Kavanaugh's Teenage Years at Georgetown Prep
Chantal Da Silva | 9/24/18

...speaking to The New Yorker, Elizabeth Rasor said she felt "morally obligated to challenge Judge's account that "no horseplay" took place at Georgetown Prep with women," adding that she could not "stand by and watch him lie."

In fact, Rasor alleges that Judge admitted to engaging in an arguably far more disturbing act, saying he "ashamedly" told her of an incident in which he and other boys took turns "having sex with a drunk woman."

Rasor said Judge had claimed the act was "consensual" when he confided in her. He also made no mention of Kavanaugh being a participant in the incident.

“She said that Judge did not name others involved in the incident, and she has no knowledge that Kavanaugh participated. But Rasor was disturbed by the story and noted that it undercut Judge’s protestations about the sexual innocence of Georgetown Prep,” Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer wrote in The New Yorker...

https://www.newsweek.com/who-elizabeth-rasor-mark-judges-ex-girlfriend-recalls-k...

Kavanaugh's virginity defense is pretty fucked up. It's not so much that it can't be true. It's just that it's very very improbable. This is the earlier part of the 80's and AIDS hasn't really hit the national conscience and when it does it becomes the gay people disease and shortly afterwards also the drug addicts disease and that notion is helped along by the Reagan administration. There are young males running around all over the place and for a very large % of them status is something to be attained with conquests and the rules on how that is accomplished are really loose.

Keeping in mind that Kavanaugh is going to an elite school of 1%'ers. Plays for the football team--drinks a lot and runs around with the in-crowd in that elite school. The world is his oyster and 'what happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep'. And that's him in on all their obscure in-jokes as per his high school yearbook. It's him and the parties and it's him going on to Yale and always living it up. And it's not only Blasey Ford any more--it's Debbie Sanchez--it's Renate Dolphin (who dropped out of the people at first defending him when she found out that in that h.s. yearbook she was one of the jokes) and it's a yet to be named Michael Avenatti client who apparently has much more to add and Avenatti has narrowed down very much who that client is--she's worked for DOJ, she's worked for the State Dept. and she's had security clearances--so there's more coming on Mr. Kavanaugh. Again the virginity defense doesn't fly very well.

So also keeping in mind that Mr. Kavanaugh is a very intelligent individual--he knows the law extremely well--he's also well spoken and can swerve around subject matter and giving answers he doesn't want to. Also keeping in mind that the statute of limitations for goings on of the nature of what he's been accused is long gone. Is it even right to bring it up?--and I would say yes--he's escaped any kind of criminal liability but that does not mean he's not guilty of damaging other people's lives and he should account for that that he's done. And I think this pertains very much to whether he should be seated on the supreme court. He's certainly amongst the brightest but he's not amongst the best and IMO this will follow him forever--will taint the way people look at everything he does. He should drop out--barring that Trump should realize how controversial he is and dump him and find someone else who doesn't have his baggage.

I don't expect either are going to happen though and one thing that's kind of funny to me is that a week or so ago I was critiqued for wanting to turn Kavanaugh's nomination into a political football. But it always was a political football. It was a political football when McConnell held up Merrick Garland for 400 days killing his nomination--and it's not at all like Garland isn't pretty conservative in his own right--the main issue with Garland was he was nominated by Obama. As well Kavanaugh--not on the list of Trump's nominees until very recently is another political gambit by Trump to protect his presidency. When Kavanaugh worked on Ken Starr's investigation he was all for indicting and prosecuting President Clinton but according to Kavanaugh 9-11 changed everything and made him rethink all of that. I don't buy it and IMO Trump put his name up--not to serve the people but to serve himself first by protecting his presidency from prosecution and his party fell right in line circling the wagons around him.

Anyway if they continue on with this nomination it's going to turn into more of a political football and if they confirm Kavanaugh it's going to be one toxic confirmation and we'll see what happens in November then. I expect the House is turning over---we'll see if the Senate does too. But this shit is not going to help the Republican Party--and I'm thinking here is Mitch McConnell pulling his strings--by hook and by crook packing the Court with his guys and in this particular game of winner take all chicken he's going to win the race but he's going to go off the cliff doing it. Basically he's a dumbass.

>107 lriley: Actually, it's my understanding that there is no statute of limitations in Maryland. IANAL, though.

>108 sturlington: As to that, the local Montgomery County paper reported that a complaint has been filed against Kavanaugh. The police denied it. Which leads to my question. If Kavanaugh was a minor at the time, would the police treat any investigation they might open today as if the possible perpetrator were a minor and shielded from all public scrutiny? Would he be charged as a minor, if it came to that?

Attorney Sent Letter to Chuck Grassley and Dianne Feinstein Claiming Federal Court Employees Willing to Speak About Brett Kavanaugh

Cyrus Sanai made his first attempt to reach out to Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in a letter dated July 24.

Sanai told the committee leadership that “there are persons who work for, or who have worked for, the federal judiciary who have important stories to tell about disgraced former Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, and his mentee, current United States Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. I know that there are people who wish to speak out but fear retaliation because I have been contacted by more than a half-dozen such persons since Judge Kozinski resigned in disgrace.”

a brilliant suggestion from a male NYT reader:

To the Editor:

One of the senators on the Judiciary Committee should ask for a show of hands before Thursday’s session: How many women in the hearing room have ever been sexually assaulted? Then the senator should ask them to keep their hands up if they reported the incident and if there’s a record somewhere to support the claim. Let the nation see this and judge Christine Blasey Ford’s credibility.

Mormon Women’s Group Calls for Probe of Allegations Against Kavanaugh

The Mormon Women for Ethical Government, an activist women’s group formed in response to President Trump’s election, issued a statement on Monday aimed at influencing the four Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee who are also members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are: Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee of Utah, Jeff Flake of Arizona, and Mike Crapo of Idaho.

“If these accusations are proved false, an investigation will prevent harm to the court’s legitimacy,” the statement said. “If they are true, then Judge Kavanaugh must not be confirmed.”

>111 2wonderY: Except would be a violation of the women's privacy.

>113 sturlington: It would be a voluntary exercise. My guess is that most women at this point are willing to admit at least this.

In the article >112 2wonderY:, they state 2 out of 3 of their leadership group has experienced sexual assault.

Now this journalist, Lili Loofbourow, is perceptive in her analysis ~

Brett Kavanaugh and the Cruelty of Male Bonding

The awful things Kavanaugh allegedly did only imperfectly correlate to the familiar frame of sexual desire run amok; they appear to more easily fit into a different category—a toxic homosociality—that involves males wooing other males over the comedy of being cruel to women.
...
One thing we’ve learned about Kavanaugh, then, is that he perpetually overshoots. To put it bluntly, he lies. Rather than admit he was flawed, or made some mistakes he regrets, or simply acknowledge that different people might have seen him differently—as they demonstrably did—he’s doubling down on an unsustainable and untrue account of himself and his reputation.
...
The fatal flaw in the Republicans’ accusations of “conspiracy” is that if you wanted to falsely accuse someone of sexual misconduct, you’d likely choose something damning and unambiguous. You probably wouldn’t include—as both allegations against Kavanaugh do—witnesses in the room who were his friends. You wouldn’t (in Ramirez’s case) admit to having been drinking. You’d have no memory gaps, express no doubts or confusion, and you’d probably claim to have been raped. Instead, the stories that have arisen so far can only really be corroborated by the perpetrator’s pals.

These male witnesses universally remember nothing. Now, it’s possible they don’t remember because it never happened. Maybe they were too drunk to recall. Or maybe they’re tapping into a long tradition of male in-group protection, partly to avoid being implicated themselves. Mark Judge remembers nothing so much that he’s gone into hiding—his first and only comment to the journalist who tracked him down was, “How did you find me?” The other men Ramirez says were in the room at Yale also have “zero recollection.” It could be there’s just nothing to remember, but there are other possibilities, like a mutually exonerating code of male secrecy. Brett Kavanaugh is on the record instructing his buds to keep Omertà after a 2001 boat trip to Annapolis, Maryland—even from their wives. “Reminders to everyone to be very, very vigilant w/r/t confidentiality on all issues and all fronts, including with spouses,” he wrote after apologizing for a variety of things, including “growing aggressive after blowing still another game of dice.” By this time he wasn’t in high school. He was in the White House.

Does Kavanaugh know the woman lawyer the Rs have hired?

ETA:

Senate Republicans hire female prosecutor to question accuser and Kavanaugh
Nancy Cordes, Ed O'Keefe CBS News September 26, 2018, 12:36 AM

...Rachel Mitchell was described by Grassley as a career prosecutor with decades of experience prosecuting sex crimes. She comes from the Maricopa County Attorney's Office in Phoenix, where she heads the Special Victims Division, which covers sex crimes and family violence.

...A GOP lobbyist familiar with the process told CBS News that Mitchell was "a Jon Kyl suggestion." Kyl was Kavanaugh's "Sherpa" during his confirmation process before Kyl was tapped to fill the late John McCain's Senate seat...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chuck-grassley-rachel-mitchell-question-brett-kavan...

(Read somewhere that Mitchell is not currently in this position. Wonder if she has political ambitions? Kyl is filling but doesn't plan to run for McCain's seat.)

Why?--republican Senators need a female career prosecutor with decades of prosecuting sex crimes to interrogate what amounts to a squeaky clean overgrown boy scout is beyond me. These serious grown men (leaders of their political party) can't handle that themselves and yet they get to vote him onto the Supreme Court? Maybe if they can't wear their big boy pants they shouldn't get to vote. Brett released his 1982 day calendar--what more does anyone need?--it proves he didn't have any sexual assaults of anybody on his schedule and he blurted out to everyone without anyone asking that he was a virgin well into his college years. He only had a couple perfectly legal (got that wrong too) beers now and again as a high school senior and 18 was the drinking age (actually 21).

Not just his accusers--but numerous of his classmates at both the prep school and Yale and even his high school yearbook paint a different picture. This guy is full of bull. Almost every time he opens his mouth he lies and he'll say anything to get his ass confirmed.

This is almost where I miss McCain. I mean I didn't like the guy but I couldn't see him looking at this kind of a clown show and staying silent.

Julie Swetnick alleged that Kavanaugh and others while in high school spiked the drinks of girls at parties with intoxicants to make it easier for them to be gang raped. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/michael-avenatti-identifies-kavanaugh-accuser-as...

Twitter: No wonder Mark Judge is in hiding.

Bill Cosby Prosecutor On Prison Sentence: ‘Justice Was Served. Many women got to be heard.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65sJIFbJv40

>117 lriley: I believe she's going to question Prof. Ford to avoid another debacle like 1971.
Watching that old bunch gave me the queasy feeling of pervs wanting Prof. Hill to give them explicit answers.

The one thing I do believe about Kavanaugh is that he was a virgin. His two accusers experienced attempted rape and (major ew) exposure. Unless another woman comes forward, his claim of virginity stands.

#120--all these activities of his during that period of time lead me to believe otherwise though there may be no way of definitively proving that.

I can only watch so much of the Hill grilling at any given time to be honest. It is painful to watch some of these people spewing out all their biases as if they're the most normal thing in the world. I can't recall a hearing ever though (and for a long time {as in a good 10-12 years or so as a guess} c-span was like an every day thing for me--and I still watch off and on) either in the House or the Senate where representatives of either major party took no part in the questioning and let a surrogate do it for them. To me this is a joke. If you're an elected official and you can't engage with someone of the opposite gender you don't belong in your job. Keep in mind a disproportionate number of representatives and Senators come from a legal or law background and numerous prosecutors among them. Also keep in mind that Lindsey Graham is currently a Senator from South Carolina and he was a main figure grilling W.J. Clinton at his impeachment trial. What's his problem?

David Brock gives his opinion of Kavanaugh, from up close. It ain’t pretty.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/i-knew-brett-kavanaugh-during-his-years-re...

>121 2wonderY:

After writing a hit job on Anita Hill's character, then reversing himself, I don't really trust Brock's view.

>121 2wonderY: Huh, sounds like Hillary Clinton wasn't being paranoid about 'vast right-wing conspiracy'...

This circus has more rings, apparently:

Mark Judge's girlfriend Elizabeth Rasor not only heard from Judge about he "and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunk woman",
Rasor was reportedly at the party in which Judge and Kavanaugh assaulted Christine Blasey Ford:

Mark Judge’s former girlfriend is ready to talk to FBI and Judiciary Committee, her lawyer says
Greg Sargent | September 26, 2018

...It is not clear whether Kavanaugh would ultimately be implicated even if Rasor did testify, but her willingness to do so does highlight just how limited the hearing — at which only Ford and Kavanaugh are expected to testify — is shaping up to be.

...would also seem to increase pressure on Republicans to subpoena Judge to testify, though there’s no indication that they will give ground on that point.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/09/26/mark-judges-girlfri...

ETA______________________________________________________________________

More smoke:

Anonymous letter accuses Brett Kavanaugh of physically assaulting a woman in 1998, but Senate Judiciary Committee members aren't buying it
Bryan Logan | 9/27/2018

The letter sent to Colorado Republican Sen. Cory Gardner details a 1998 incident in which the writer said Kavanaugh physically assaulted a woman while intoxicated in Washington, DC.

The writer claims that her daughter and several friends of Kavanaugh were present when the alleged assault happened.

"When they left the bar (under the influence of alcohol), they were all shocked when Brett Kavanaugh shoved her friend against the wall very aggressively and sexually," the letter reads, according to NBC News, which said no names were provided in the letter and claimed the alleged victim chose to remain anonymous.

...Judiciary Committee members questioned Kavanaugh about that allegation this week, which Kavanaugh has denied.

...A fifth previously unreported accusation surfaced late Wednesday, in which a Rhode Island resident allegedly told Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a woman the resident described as a "close acquaintance" in August 1985. That alleged incident also occurred while Kavanaugh was intoxicated, the report said...

https://www.businessinsider.com/brett-kavanaugh-new-allegations-emerge-1998-2018...

ETA______________________________________________________________________

Kavanaugh questioned about Rhode Island sexual assault allegation
Jordain Carney - 09/26/18

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was questioned during a phone call with Judiciary Committee staff about an allegation that he sexually assaulted a woman in Rhode Island in the mid-1980s.

Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse's (R.I.) office received a phone call on Tuesday morning "making allegations concerning a rape on a boat in August of 1985" according to transcripts of a call between committee staff and Kavanaugh released on Wednesday.

The allegation, given to Whitehouse's staff and read on the call with Kavanaugh, claims that in August 1985 a "close acquaintance" of a Rhode Island constituent "was sexually assaulted by two heavily inebriated men she referred to at the time as Brett and Mark."

...The constituent that called Whitehouse's office said they confronted the two men involved in the alleged incident on the morning that it happened.

The constituent realized that Kavanaugh was one of the men allegedly involved "when he saw Kavanaugh's high school yearbook photo on television over the weekend," according to the transcript released on Wednesday.

...Kavanaugh has denied wrongdoing in each of the incidents. The alleged Rhode Island incident is the fifth known allegation related to Kavanaugh.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408666-kavanaugh-questioned-about-rhode-isla...

A fifth accusation emerged yesterday, about an alleged rape in Rhode Island on a boat. It surfaced and was retracted so fast that few major news outlets even attempted to cover it.

The Hill seems to be the only one to cover it:
Kavanaugh questioned about Rhode Island sexual assault allegation

The retraction was covered by less dominant outlets
Jeffrey Catalan Recants Newport, RI Brett Kavanaugh Claim

But it appears that the Judiciary Committee is handling all sorts of calls and claims now. I saw a rumor that Republican operatives are seeding false rumors to devalue the ones that have already appeared on firm ground, but I can't find that reference today.

However, two other men have claimed to be the person who actually assaulted Blasey Ford:
https://www.newsweek.com/two-men-claim-kavanaugh-did-not-assault-christine-blase...

How much more surreal can it get?

ETA more detail on the last item:

One of the men was interviewed twice by committee staff. He also submitted two written statements, one on Monday and a second, more in-depth statement on Wednesday.

Committee staff spoke to a second man over the phone Wednesday who also said he believed he, not Kavanaugh, had the disputed encounter with Ford. "He explained his recollection of the details of the encounter" to staff, the release states.

Both men were not named.

Fox News and Republican twitter are ablaze with indignation against Julie Swetnick's allegations, some of which are covered in this mildly worded opinion piece:

https://nypost.com/2018/09/26/third-kavanaugh-accusers-accusations-riddled-with-...

I have to say, that I agree with many of these objections. However, Democrats are protecting this story with the same vigor as the much more pertinent ones from Blasey Ford and Ramirez.

Ah, found the article mentioned up above

Are Republicans Releasing Anonymous Kavanaugh Claims to Discredit Legitimate Ones?

If Republicans are in fact trying to discredit all of Kavanaugh’s accusers, there are early signs that it’s working. Breitbart is blaring bright red headlines about a “flood of anonymous discredited accusations,” while The Federalist is highlighting the off-the-wall tweets of the man in Rhode Island.

Democrats, for their part, seem to be seeing through this gambit. One senior Democratic aide told Politico reporter Elana Schor that Republicans are “releasing anonymous allegations in an effort to make all allegations look frivolous. We’re focusing on the ones that have names attached.”

An accuser putting their own name and reputation on the line is a lot more credible than one who doesn't. Forget about the Rhode Island and any other anonymous accusers. Really--the way I see it--McConnell and Grassley need to bite the bullet--open a real investigation and get to the bottom of these allegations against Kavanaugh or Donald Trump could even pull the plug and put someone else up who is less controversial. McConnell and Grassley two doddering old duffers (and mind you I'm 61 now--not too far away from them) whose last ambition in life is to pack the court with right wingers intent on recreating what American life was like back in the 1950's. Going to ram Kavanaugh's confirmation through no matter what.

I swear Kavanaugh could shoot someone down in broad daylight in front of the Lincoln Memorial with 10,000 people watching and neither Grassley nor McConnell would blink an eye. They'd vote to confirm anyway. At least Trump's analogy about getting away with doing the same in Times Square would work for those two.

Watching Kavanaugh - Oh, boo, hoo!

Several moderate Republican governors call for a thorough investigation before proceeding.

Republican governor says Kavanaugh allegations 'sickening,' calls on Senate to postpone vote

eta

Hogan joins Govs. Charlie Baker of Massachusetts, Phil Scott of Vermont and John Kasich of Ohio

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan calls for delay in Kavanaugh vote

Fox News commentators live today:

If Trump is watching Fox News, Brett Kavanaugh might be in trouble

Chris Wallace: “This was extremely emotional, extremely raw and extremely credibly and nobody could listen to her deliver those words and talk about the assault and the impact it had on her life — and not have your heart go out to her.”

Martha MacCallum: “You have to believe that the Republican senators right now are asking themselves whether or not this was a good idea — whether or not they have robbed themselves of their opportunity to ask pointed questions in a way that perhaps might be more compelling.”

He lost me at 'revenge of the Clintons'.

How many beers? 'The chart'??

ETA_________________________________________

Make it stop

Preet Bharara @PreetBharara | 1:53 PM - 27 Sep 2018

on Twitter

"Kavanaugh is indignant about using a high school yearbook entry as part of a Supreme Court confirmation....but eager to use a high school calendar instead?"

"Wow Kavanaugh, why so emotional? You on your period or something?"

"The most crazymaking thing about this hearing:

Every Republican agrees Ford very likely was assaulted, but is misremembering the details. Memory is fallible. It happens.

Zero of them are willing to extend that principle to Kavanaugh. It's as if only women's memories can fail."

"Please help me keep score. Brett Kavanaugh has interrupted, cut off, angrily responded, made snide remarks to virtually all Democratic Senators & has been incredibly respectful to Republicans. Is this what we should expect when parties appear in his courtroom?"

"I don't want a Supreme Court Justice who thinks being a defiant asshole is a good choice in this or any arena."

"Brett Kavanaugh has spent this entire hearing looking like someone is microwaving tuna in the front row."

"Whenever Kavanaugh's lips make this shape, his sphincter relaxes into a charming smile.

"

"If Kavanaugh was covered like we cover women, we’d be calling him:

-hysterical
-emotional
-crazy
-bitchy
-irritable
-hormonal
-shrill"

Key senators for Kavanaugh's vote meeting in Capitol Office
Ted Barrett | September 27, 2018

(CNN)Four key senators huddled privately in a Capitol office Thursday, just minutes after the Senate Judiciary Committee wrapped its day-long, blockbuster hearing of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, a woman who accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault.

Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia were spotted going into an office on the Capitol...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/27/politics/senators-meet-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-co...

Kavanaugh was unhinged, crying, ranting, threatening; he showed himself to be as unfit for the SCOTUS as the man who nominated him is for the office of POTUS.

Despite what happened today, they are going to confirm him. And I think that will finally break this country.

Two more groups call for further investigation before committee vote:

American Bar Association

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brett-kavanaugh-american-bar-association-aba-fbi-in...

America Magazine, a Jesuit order publication that had endorsed Kavanaugh now rescinds that endorsement

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/09/27/brett-kavanau...

I am still speechless with rage this morning so I will let Rebecca Traister speak for me: https://www.thecut.com/amp/2018/09/kavanaugh-confirmation-hearing-republicans-fo...

I have never, as a woman, so acutely felt the truth of my systematic dehumanization by our culture and our government as I do today.

Jesuits educated Kavanaugh:

It is time for the Kavanaugh nomination to be withdrawn
The Editors. America. The Jesuit Review: September 27, 2018

...Dr. Blasey's accusations have neither been fully investigated nor been proven to a legal standard, but neither have they been conclusively disproved or shown to be less than credible. Judge Kavanaugh continues to enjoy a legal presumption of innocence, but the standard for a nominee to the Supreme Court is far higher; there is no presumption of confirmability. The best of the bad resolutions available in this dilemma is for Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to be withdrawn...

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/09/27/editors-it-time-kava...

_____________________________________________________________

American Bar Association call for FBI investigation "striking because the organization gave Kavanaugh its highest rating of unanimous, "well-qualified" for the Supreme Court".

American Bar Association: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations
Manu Raju | September 27, 2018

...In a strongly worded letter...(American Bar Association)..."because of the ABA's respect for the rule of law and due process under law"..."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," said Robert Carlson, president of the organization, in a Thursday night letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein.

"Each appointment to our nation's Highest Court (as with all others) is simply too important to rush to a vote," Carlson wrote. "Deciding to proceed without conducting additional investigation would not only have a lasting impact on the Senate's reputation, but it will also negatively affect the great trust necessary for the American people to have in the Supreme Court."...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/27/politics/kavanaugh-american-bar-association/index...

_______________________________________________________________

Even Alan Dershowitz on Fox calling for FBI investigation although Prez tweeted continuing support for nominee*.

Alan Dershowitz: Postpone Kavanaugh confirmation until FBI can investigate accusations against him
Alan Dershowitz | Sept 27, 2018

...the testimony of the two witnesses has created a credibility tie. Such ties are best resolved by looking at corroborating evidence. At the moment, Kavanaugh has the better of the corroborating evidence, especially the statements by the other people who were allegedly at the party where Ford claims Kavanaugh attacked her. But that could change after a full and thorough FBI investigation and further testimony...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/09/27/alan-dershowitz-postpone-kavanaugh-con...

* Judge Kavanaugh showed America exactly why I nominated him. His testimony was powerful, honest, and riveting. Democrats’ search and destroy strategy is disgraceful and this process has been a total sham and effort to delay, obstruct, and resist. The Senate must vote!

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
3:46 PM - 27 Sep 2018

_______________________________________________________________

Wikipedia entry for 'Devil's Triangle' changed to match Kavanaugh's answer
Z. Byron Wolf | September 27, 2018

...sensing that it needed an online presence, someone on Capitol Hill, operating from a congressional IP address, decided to update Wikipedia to include an entry for "* "Devil's Triangle", a popular drinking game enjoyed by friends of Judge Brett Kavanaugh."

Congress-Edits is a Twitter bot that tracks Wikipedia updates from congressional IP addresses. The entry has since been removed...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/27/politics/devils-triangle-edit/

__________________________________________________________________

Former KGO host and child porn convict Bernie Ward recalls Kavanaugh school
Matier & Ross | Sep. 26, 2018

Bernie Ward, the “Lion of the Left,” as he was known for years on KGO radio before his 2008 conviction (released in 2014) for possession and distribution of child pornography,... recounted his years as a marriage and sex education teacher at Washington’s Georgetown Prep, where his students included both Kavanaugh and sitting Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Ward described how an atmosphere of excess pervaded the Jesuit boarding school where he taught in the early 1980s.

“The drinking was unbelievable,” Ward told the Post. “It was part of the culture. A parent even bought the keg and threw one of the parties for the kids. They took umbrage when I compared their rooting around with girls to dogs in heat.”...

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Former-KGO-host-and-chil...

My editor doing the work of the FBI:
Mark Judge worked as a bag boy (presumably the Safeway) the summer before his senior year, per p. 98 of his book.
He graduated in '83. So Ford's recollection of the summer of '82 adds up.

Julia E. Ainsley @JuliaEAinsley (NBC)
9:53 AM - 27 Sep 2018

Statement From U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham

“Judge Kavanaugh has just emphatically denied the recent allegation being levied by Michael Avenatti and his client. He says he does not know the woman in question and emphatically denies the accusations. I would remind everyone that dozens of women who knew Judge Kavanaugh during the time period in question completely vouch for his good character.

“Mr. Avenatti first tweeted Sunday night that he had new and explosive information, and he was immediately contacted by the Senate Judiciary Committee to provide information. He has chosen to release these claims the day before Mrs. Ford’s hearing and two days before a vote.

“From my view, just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, it just did. The lawyer to porn stars has just taken this debacle to an even lower level. I hope people will be highly suspicious of this allegation presented by Michael Avenatti.

“I have a difficult time believing any person would continue to go to – according to the affidavit – ten parties over a two-year period where women were routinely gang raped and not report it. I also find it curious these charges were not brought forward until 2018, two days before a confirmation vote.

“Why would any reasonable person continue to hang around people like this? Why would any person continue to put their friends and themselves in danger? Isn’t there some duty to warn others?

“This is outrageous, internally inconsistent, and I hope the U.S. Senate will see this for the smear campaign that it is.

“It is outrageous to suggest that Brett Kavanaugh at any time in his life behaved this way. His life is inconsistent with any of these allegations. All women who have worked with and for Brett Kavanaugh when he was in a position of power have nothing but glowing things to say about the way he has conducted himself.

“This is a decent man who has lived an honorable life and is being smeared by the likes of Michael Avenatti.

“I very much believe in allowing people to be heard. But I am not going to be played, and I’m not going to have my intelligence insulted by the Michael Avenattis of the world. I will not be a participant in wholesale character assassination that defies credibility.

“If Republicans bail out on this good man because of the smears and character assassination perpetrated by Michael Avenatti, we deserve our fate.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., let loose on his Democratic colleagues Thursday over what he called the "sham" hearing to probe sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, in a display that earned him praise from the White House and scorn from the left.

Graham blasted Democrats toward the end of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with the Supreme Court nominee and accuser Christine Blasey Ford. She alleges Kavanaugh forced himself on her when both were high school students in the 1980s.

But Graham alleged the Democrats' handling was all about politics.

"This is the most unethical sham since I've been in politics,” a visibily angry Graham said from the dais while pointing at Democratic senators. “And if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn't have done what you've done to this guy.”

Graham added: “Boy, y’all want power and I hope you don’t get it.”

Graham personally addressed Kavanaugh to apologize for the questioning of his high school yearbook comments and his beer drinking habits.

“If you’re looking for a fair process, you came to the wrong town at the wrong time,” Graham said. “This is hell.”

Democratic senators have been bringing up Kavanaugh's yearbook as they question him about Ford's allegation of sexual assault when they were teens. Kavanaugh denies the allegation.

The senior senator from South Carolina also had pointed words for any Republican senator who is considering not voting to confirm Kavanaugh.

“To my Republican colleagues,” Graham said. “If you vote no, you are legitimizing the most despicable thing I’ve ever seen in my time in politics.”

Graham’s words drew quick praise from White House officials, with President Trump’s counselor Kellyanne Conway praising the lawmaker for “excoriating the outrageous and unfair treatment” of Kavanaugh.

Press Secretary Sarah Sanders also tweeted her support for Graham’s words.

“Lindsey Graham has more decency and courage than every Democrat member of the committee combined,” Sanders tweeted. “God bless him.”

Why Brett Kavanaugh’s Hearings Convinced Me That He’s Guilty
Jonathan Chait | Sept 27, 2018

I think Brett Kavanaugh is probably lying...small chance (that he is telling the truth when he professes his innocence) gives me some sympathetic human reaction to his emotional testimonial. If he is somehow innocent, as he claims, he has been subject to a horrifying and humiliating ordeal.

That, however, does not justify confirming Kavanaugh to a lifelong position on the Supreme Court. He has, for one thing, all but abandoned the posture of impartiality demanded of a judge. A ranting Kavanaugh launched angry, evidence-free charges against Senate Democrats...

Why they took this revenge against Kavanaugh, rather than the first justice who was appointed after the 2016 elections, when Democrats’ anger over both the election and the treatment of Merrick Garland ran hotter, he did not say. Kavanaugh does not seem able to imagine even the possibility that Democrats actually believe the women accusing him of sexual assault. He is consumed with paranoid, partisan rage.

The method Republicans have used to defend Kavanaugh has consisted of suppressing most of the evidence that could be brought to bear in the hearing, and then complaining about the lack of evidence.

...The accretion of curious details ultimately overwhelms the small possibility that (Kanaugh) is a man wronged. The conviction he summoned is the righteous belief of an adult who feels he should not be denied the career reward due to him by the errors of his youth, and who decided from the outset to close the door to that period in his life. Perhaps he believes he has made amends for his cruelty. I see a liar who has the chance to prove his good faith innocence, and has conspicuously refused.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/why-brett-kavanaughs-hearings-convi...

ETA________________________________________________

My recollection and observation is that teenagers are intensely aware of legal drinking age--of their own and of neighboring jurisdictions.

Kavanaugh wrongly claims he could drink legally in Md.
ALANNA DURKIN RICHER | 9/28/2018

BOSTON (AP) — Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has repeatedly said that he was legally allowed to consume beer as a prep school senior in Maryland. In fact, he was never legal in high school because the state’s drinking age increased to 21 at the end of his junior year, while he was still 17...

https://apnews.com/e4a48c01f3bf4094b9faea33cd049729

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., let loose on his Democratic colleagues Thursday over what he called the "sham" hearing to probe sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, in a display that earned him praise from the White House and scorn from the left.

Graham blasted Democrats toward the end of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with the Supreme Court nominee and accuser Christine Blasey Ford. She alleges Kavanaugh forced himself on her when both were high school students in the 1980s.

But Graham alleged the Democrats' handling was all about politics.

"This is the most unethical sham since I've been in politics,” a visibily angry Graham said from the dais while pointing at Democratic senators. “And if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn't have done what you've done to this guy.”

Graham added: “Boy, y’all want power and I hope you don’t get it.”

Graham personally addressed Kavanaugh to apologize for the questioning of his high school yearbook comments and his beer drinking habits.

“If you’re looking for a fair process, you came to the wrong town at the wrong time,” Graham said. “This is hell.”

Democratic senators have been bringing up Kavanaugh's yearbook as they question him about Ford's allegation of sexual assault when they were teens. Kavanaugh denies the allegation.

The senior senator from South Carolina also had pointed words for any Republican senator who is considering not voting to confirm Kavanaugh.

“To my Republican colleagues,” Graham said. “If you vote no, you are legitimizing the most despicable thing I’ve ever seen in my time in politics.”

Graham’s words drew quick praise from White House officials, with President Trump’s counselor Kellyanne Conway praising the lawmaker for “excoriating the outrageous and unfair treatment” of Kavanaugh.

Press Secretary Sarah Sanders also tweeted her support for Graham’s words.

“Lindsey Graham has more decency and courage than every Democrat member of the committee combined,” Sanders tweeted. “God bless him.”/

By Monica Showalter

As Sen. Lindsey Graham unexpectedly elevated himself to statesman during the last of the Senate hearings on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh Thursday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein dropped herself to bottom of the barrel as a political hack. Her performance, from start to finish, was a disgrace. It was so bad, so loathsome, even to the left, that it's hard to think it won't cost her her Senate seat, where she is in a tight race this November.

Dems will use #MeToo to get you, too
By William L. Gensert

In the circus that was the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford, we saw a woman with multiple degrees who is proud to know so very little about so much and who can't remember even recent things. I think that had I taken a polygraph test on the day after my grandmother's funeral, I would remember it. But not "Chrissy" – she is an empty abyss, down which all memories of any importance disappear. She can't remember "when" or "where," but she is 100% sure that it was Kavanaugh who assaulted her.

Dems will use #MeToo to get you, too
By William L. Gensert

(Let's stop calling being groped "rape." It may be sexual assault, but it is not rape. To call it so cheapens the suffering of countless woman who throughout history were real victims of rape.)

The glasses were a nice touch, oversized to make her look childish, complementary to the tiny, childlike voice and the studied immaturity. She tried so hard to cry, but the tears just wouldn't come (at least not like Kavanaugh – probably because his were real). It was also genius to have her continually call Supreme Court nominee Judge Kavanaugh "Brett." It dispensed with his many achievements as well as making him seem like a close friend who betrayed her in the most heinous of ways.

Taking up six minutes of the first ten allotted Republican minutes to correct a letter she herself wrote was also brilliant. This Ford was prone to stalling.

Oh, and poor Christine, so afraid to fly, yet forced to traipse the globe on jets.

And now for her supporters and champions: they are the vanguard of the Democratic Party, including a woman who had a Chinese spy working for her for twenty years; a man who lied about serving in Vietnam; a guy who readily admits that at 17, he committed the very same crime they collectively were accusing Kavanaugh of (and who has a make-believe friend named T-Bone); a woman who began her political career by having an affair with Willie Brown; and a woman who, echoing rape apologists of the past, thinks men should "shut up" and take it.

Coincidentally, Blasey Ford's attorney's office once represented fellow accuser Julie Swetnick, of the now discredited gang-rape allegations, in a sexual harassment case she had against a former employer. Small world, isn't it?

These are the people who would sit in judgment of the rest of us.

Democrats are willing to surrender all pretense of morality in order to get what they want – and they do it with smiles on their faces and no concern for how much it costs anyone personally or the nation nationally. It's just that simple. Watch them for any amount of time, and you will feel as dirty as they claim Kavanaugh is, as they believe we are.

In the world they want us to live in, that they themselves refuse to live in, an accusation is supposed to be enough to ruin a man, a family, a reputation, and a career. Truth is unimportant. In fact, truth is an impediment, something to be ignored in service of the greater good, which is their good.

My views on the Kavanaugh matters--

I think Ford's allegations do not constitute what the law calls 'rape' but they do properly constitute what the law calls 'sexual assault.'

Second, it seems to me that such allegations, if true, if founded in fact, are entirely good grounds to reject a president's nominee--no matter what the office is.

No presidential nominee has a right to be confirmed. The Senate's confirmation--or its denial of that--is the very thing that is supposed to take place. The Senate decides to confirm or deny confirmation of a president's nominees to appointive office. For me, it's clearly within the scope of proper Senate authority to "advise and consent" (or not consent) that Senators determine at their discretion that a person credibly alleged to have (ever) committed sexual assault, is not fit for the office for which he or she is nominated. All the more so if that office is Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

So, then, the senators have only to ask themselves and to judge, based on the testimony given at the confirmation hearing,

"Is the witness's allegation of assault a credible one--i.e. 'Should I believe her (Ford) or him (Kavanaugh)?' "

and for me, that answer, in this particular case, is, I should believe her.

That it is perhaps both true and disgusting that 'Democrats would use any device, any stratagem, to prevent Trump's nominee from being confirmed,' is simply not the point.

The point is: did or didn't the nominee, Kavanaugh, probably behave as alleged by Ford? If it's believed that he probably did, then the Democrats' tendencies to behave in as shamelessly partisan a manner as those they so vehemently condemn across the aisle are beside the point here.

Trump botched the nomination--and Kavanaugh, by apparently failing to advise Trump about his past behaviors and their likely impact on his capacity to be found fit to be confirmed by the Senate, did Trump a great (and a greatly stupid) disservice. He ought to have spared the nation this pathetic drama by notifying Trump of the vulnerabilities to his appointment's confirmation by his own reckless past behavior.

Harvey Weinstein lost his highly-paid post as film studio executive and now faces criminal charges; that's old news.

For Kavanaugh to have imagined that he might skate through the Senate confirmation having probably done what he's alleged to have done--and which he answers by calling the allegations themselves "disgraceful" (not an impressive kind of reply) -- shows in and of itself that he lacks the kind of basic good-judgment which ought to be a minimum requirement to serve on the Supreme Court.

Like there aren't plenty of quite good candidates! Sheesh!

______________________________

Note to Teens and Twenty-something young men:

if you, drunk or sober, (never mind which), do in your 'exuberant youth' what Kavanaugh here is alleged to have done while at a house-party in your high-school or university days, you can just put a big "X" over your future chances to serve on a court by some future president's appointment. (and that probably goes as well for a growing number of desirable careers in the public-eye.)

It looks like the timeline will be:

1:30pm today — Judiciary Committee votes favorably* on Kavanaugh

Saturday — Cloture motion filed

Monday — Cloture vote

Up to 30 hours of debate

(Probably) Tuesday — Final Senate vote on Kavanaugh.

Paul McLeod @pdmcleod (Buzzfeed)
6:53 AM - 28 Sep 2018

_______________________________________________________________________________

* Kavanaugh Headed to Approval in Senate Panel With (GOP Sen Jeff) Flake’s Support
Laura Litvan | September 28, 2018
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-28/kavanaugh-headed-to-approval-...

Oh goody here come the defenders of toxic masculinity riding in on their white horses. I don't even have to read their comments--I've heard the arguments a millions times over by now. This farce of a hearing has exposed all of these bad-faith arguments for the hypocrisy that they are. It is nakedly apparent now that the GOP is only interested in preserving their power and the power of rich old white men at the expense of every democratic institution they profess to hold dear. If you don't believe me, just watch as they ignore the American Bar Association's call to investigate further, even as they claim that Kavanaugh is so well-qualified because of his ABA endorsement.

>147 proximity1: That it is perhaps both true and disgusting that 'Democrats would use any device, any stratagem, to prevent Trump's nominee from being confirmed,' is simply not the point.

Bingo!

ETA: Never mind.*
WOW!

WSJ: Mitchell advised Republicans that to continue questioning Kavanaugh she was required by her oath in Arizona to inform Kavanaugh of his rights after he lied to her about July 1, 1982 entry on his calender. Maryland statutes was last question she asked, then break was called..

Alan Covington @Alan_Covington
4:33 AM - 28 Sep 2018
__________________________________________________________________

*
I erred in believing that the WSJ “story” was authentic and deleted my retweet as soon as I learned the tweet below was fake but didn’t have time to tweet a correction until now. Sorry for the delay.

Laurence Tribe tribelaw
10:49 AM - 28 Sep 2018

>151 margd:. Can you give a link for that, please?

People always ask me, Are Democrats evil, stupid, or sick? Some of each, I say. All of you have proven to me that only derangement can lead to your conclusions. But what's going on in this hearing is pure evil, just as it was 20 years ago with Clarence Thomas. Deception in the name of the the cause, the cause being pro-abortion, which isn't worth sacrificing your soul over over the lives and reputations of innocents, whether they are in politics or not. I mean, look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She doesn't look evil? She looks like the wicked witch of the west.

Some idiot said this will "break the country". "If Kavanaugh becomes a Supreme Court justice, it will break the country." What does that moronic claim even mean? How do you break a country, any country? How do you break the best country on earth with 320 million people in it? All because of one day? One man, one judge? THAT will destroy America? Destroy in what sense? I'm looking out my window right now. So far, no hellfire, no destruction.

Talk about hysterics. That's why none of you is worth debating. So effing deranged. How does a normal, sane person respond to hysterics? He can't, because there's no point, no way to get through the impenetrable illness that only doctors and medicine can treat. I just wish there weren't so many of you.

All for the cause, all for the cause, as it always has been with revolutionary leftists and terrorists whose weapons are fear and intimidation and winning by losing.

A visibly emotional Judge Brett Kavanaugh abandoned his prepared script and delivered a blistering opening statement denying the allegations of sexual assault leveled against him by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, calling it a “calculated and orchestrated political hit.”

In his sometimes tearful delivery, Kavanaugh, with his wife, Ashley, family and friends behind him, immediately denied Ford’s allegation that 36-years ago he pinned her down and attempted to remove her clothing.

“I will not be intimidated by withdrawing from this process. Your coordinated and well-funded effort to destroy my good name and destroy my family will not drive me out,” Kavanaugh said. “You may defeat me in the final vote, but you’ll never get me to quit. Ever.”

He also detailed the “10 long days” between when Ford first publicly made the accusation and Thursday’s hearing.

“In those 10 long days, as was predictable and I predicted, my family and my name have been totally and permanently destroyed,” Kavanaugh said. “The 10-day delay has been harmful to me and my family, to the Supreme Court, and to the country.”

Kavanaugh said he welcomed “any kind of investigation.”

“Senate, FBI, or otherwise. The committee has now conducted a thorough investigation,” Kavanaugh said. “I know any kind of investigation—Senate, FBI, Montgomery County Police—will clear me.”

He added: “Listen to the people I’ve grown up with and played with and coached with and dated and had beers with and listen to the witnesses who allegedly were at this event.”

“This confirmation process has become a national disgrace,” Kavanaugh said, detailing the derogatory words used to describe him in recent days, such as “evil” and someone who would “threaten the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come.”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914308/kavanaugh-ford-questi...

A visual analysis of questions answered or evaded in yesterday’s hearing

>152 2wonderY: Apparently erroneous. I usually look for corroboration in mainstream media if tweeter not someone I recognize. In this case I went with retweet by Harvard Law prof as I was in a hurry to leave computer, but originator had it wrong. I edited my post (#151).
_________________________________________________

Here's what Jeff Flake just did -- and what it means for Brett Kavanaugh
Chris Cillizza | September 28, 2018

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/28/politics/jeff-flake-brett-kavanaugh-judiciary-com...

>132 2wonderY:

"If Kavanaugh was covered like we cover women, we’d be calling him: " ...

LOL!

Well, in a casual conversation just this morning (one guy speaking to another guy), I did just that.

Referring to Kavanaugh's choked-up testimony, I said to the other guy--

"and crying about it!?! Come on! That's for women!" on which point the other guy quickly agreed.

But, then, to know these things, one would have to actually either engage with a greater variety of men's opinions on this matter or at least listen to them.

listen

Never! Only post and yell!

"I was in a hurry to leave computer"

ha!