Republicans in the Senate, led by His Obnoxiousness Mitch McConnell who still insists that there will be a vote this week -- are looking for cover to vote Yes on Kavanaugh. Just don't uncover any smoking guns, they pray; don't even find anyone who seriously challenges anything the judge has testified to -- or ranted against.
So, while we wait to see what the FBI really uncovers, if anything -- and what the Republicans actually do about it -- I share two letter to the New York Times that speak my thoughts exactly.
#1 From Todd R. Clear, Neward, NJ, a professor at Rutgers Law School:
"Re 'High Stakes Deal of Tears and Fury Unfolds in Senate' (front page, Sept 28):
"It is no longer necessary to decide who is telling the truth, Christine Blasey Ford or Judge Brett Kavanaugh. By his belligerence, wild claims of conspiracy and slippery partisanship, Judge Kavanaugh showed that he does not, on the basis of his demeanor or temperament, merit a lifetime appointment to the nation's most important deliberative body. The Senate should vote no."
#2 From Mitchell Kapner, Cary, N.C.
"Before the senators vote on whether or not to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh, I think they should ask themselves the following: In his sworn testimony on Thursday, did Judge Kavanaugh seem . . . judicious to you? Did he seem to be a man who would be dispassionate, impartial and non-partisan in his opinions? Did he seem to be a man who could rise above the petty politics of the day and render judgments fairly and objectively?
"The answer to each of the above was, to me, clearly no, no and no. And that is also how the senators should vote: no."
In addition, we have the numerous ways in which Judge Kavanaugh misrepresented the obvious truth in small ways, from giving false definitions to references in his self-written, yearbook page to the dubious claims about the extent of his youthful drinking.
And now we have an explosive report coming out last night from NBC's national political reporter Heidi Przyby, who has information about some recent text exchanges between mutual friends of Kavanaugh. They are from the same tightly-knit circle of friends at Yale, that included both Kavanaugh and Deborah Ramirez, the second woman who has made a complaint of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh.
The text exchanges between these friends refer to recent efforts by Brett Kavanaugh himself, as well as his "team," contacting them and asking them to "go on record to defend him." The emails also allude to efforts to discredit Ramirez -- as well as efforts to get a copy of a picture in which they both appeared at a wedding of a mutual friend, some ten years after the alleged sexual misconduct occurred. The two women friends, who were at the wedding and who exchanged the texts, say that Ramirez had seemed extremely uncomfortable being around Kavanaugh at the wedding and that she tried to stay as far away from him as possible, clinging to the woman friend.
Part of the problem is that in his testimony, Kavanaugh had (1) implied that he hardly knew Ramirez; and (2) had said that he knew nothing about her allegations until it was published in a New Yorker investigative article, whereas these texts predate that publication date, suggesting that Kavanaugh tried to enlist his friends in a cover up before the publication came out.
At this point of vetting this latest information, these efforts could be anything from mild suggestions to actual potential witness tampering. Either way, experts have said it is a terrible PR strategy in such a situation and that is likely to backfire and hurt Kavanaugh.
There is another news story about Kavanaugh having been involved in a bar fight. while at Yale, where police were called; he was questioned but not charged. There is an existing police report about their being called to the bar because of the fight. Not in itself disqualifying -- but it certainly pokes holes in the picture he painted of himself: devoted to his studies, sports, service projects, and church -- and an occasional beer or two.
I'm struck by how many negative stories are coming out now from friends of Kavanaugh, many of them saying that they are responding because of the false picture he has given of himself in the hearings -- and they want to correct the record.
And now we have an explosive report coming out last night from NBC's national political reporter Heidi Przyby, who has information about some recent text exchanges between mutual friends of Kavanaugh. They are from the same tightly-knit circle of friends at Yale, that included both Kavanaugh and Deborah Ramirez, the second woman who has made a complaint of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh.
The text exchanges between these friends refer to recent efforts by Brett Kavanaugh himself, as well as his "team," contacting them and asking them to "go on record to defend him." The emails also allude to efforts to discredit Ramirez -- as well as efforts to get a copy of a picture in which they both appeared at a wedding of a mutual friend, some ten years after the alleged sexual misconduct occurred. The two women friends, who were at the wedding and who exchanged the texts, say that Ramirez had seemed extremely uncomfortable being around Kavanaugh at the wedding and that she tried to stay as far away from him as possible, clinging to the woman friend.
Part of the problem is that in his testimony, Kavanaugh had (1) implied that he hardly knew Ramirez; and (2) had said that he knew nothing about her allegations until it was published in a New Yorker investigative article, whereas these texts predate that publication date, suggesting that Kavanaugh tried to enlist his friends in a cover up before the publication came out.
At this point of vetting this latest information, these efforts could be anything from mild suggestions to actual potential witness tampering. Either way, experts have said it is a terrible PR strategy in such a situation and that is likely to backfire and hurt Kavanaugh.
There is another news story about Kavanaugh having been involved in a bar fight. while at Yale, where police were called; he was questioned but not charged. There is an existing police report about their being called to the bar because of the fight. Not in itself disqualifying -- but it certainly pokes holes in the picture he painted of himself: devoted to his studies, sports, service projects, and church -- and an occasional beer or two.
I'm struck by how many negative stories are coming out now from friends of Kavanaugh, many of them saying that they are responding because of the false picture he has given of himself in the hearings -- and they want to correct the record.
And then there are the ultra-conservative policy positions on abortion, gay marriage, and presidential power and protection. No, no, no -- a thousand times no.
How many reasons does a senator need to vote no on Kavanaugh?
How many reasons does a senator need to vote no on Kavanaugh?
Ralph
No comments:
Post a Comment