Kavanaugh's behavior toward women

[This discussion assumes familiarity with the accusation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh that, when he was 17 and drunk at a party, he sexually assaulted a 15 year old girl, who has now come forward to tell her story on the eve of the confirmation vote to give him a life-time seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.]

Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a conservative who is opposed to abortion and gay marriage, and has given some indication that he would vote to give the broadest approval of executive power if questions about a subpoena or about charging a sitting president came before the court.    His would be the possible fifth vote, giving a majority, to overturn Roe vs. Wade, thus leaving it up to states to decide to completely outlaw abortions in their state.

Now I do not know whether he is guilty of the teenage assault, but everything I've heard and read about his accuser's account -- and how it has affected her through the years -- makes her a very credible accuser.  She's asking for an FBI investigation;  false accusers don't do that.  I certainly agree that the FBI should re-open it's background check on Judge Kavanaugh in order to investigate this claim, even though it occurred more than three decades ago.

If he is innocent, as he says he is, then it is a smear of his good name -- and one would think he would like to have that cleared up by an investigation.   If he is guilty, then senators should know this before they give him a life-time Supreme Court appointment.

His accuser says that, at a party, he pushed her into a bedroom and locked the door, threw her on the bed and jumped on top of her, grinding his body into hers.   When she tried to scream and call for help, he firmly placed his hand over her mouth.  It was only when his male friend, who was also in the room, jumped on top of both of them and they rolled off the bed that she was able to get away.

Now, here's why I tend to believe that Brett Kavanaugh was capable of behaving that way.    Within the past year, a teenage girl who was pregnant as the result of a rape, as she explained, wanted to get an abortion.  The problem was that she was one of the immigrant teens who were here in the U.S. and in custody of the Department of Health and Human Services.    She had already gone through all the requirements for a minor, and had gotten the approval from a judge (not Kavanaugh), to have an abortion.

The head of this agency is staunchly opposed to abortion, and he has tried, in her case as well as others, to put up roadblocks to allowing this to happen, even when approved by a judge.  That was the case with this girl.

This obstruction of the court-approved abortion was appealed to the Appeals Court on which Judge Kavanaugh sits.    The final decision of this court of judges was to allow the abortion;   but Kavanaugh wrote a stinging dissent., which also reflected his egregious, dismissive attitude toward the girl's plight.

In other words, he was opposed to allowing a teen age girl, pregnant from rape, to have an abortion.    That is a position that I assume follows a deeply held belief by the judge.  But is it what we want in the deciding vote on the Supreme Court, which already has four conservative justices who might vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade?

A letter writer to the New York Times, Victoria Hochberg, put it this way:

"A 17 -year-old boy, holding his hand tightly over the mouth of a 15-year-old girl to silence her protests, allegedly tried to rape her.  If he had succeeded and she became pregnant, that boy's 53-year-old self, now a nominee to the Supreme Court, would today probably vote to prevent his 15-year-old  victim from getting an abortion.

"Is this the country that American women must live in?   Have we learned nothing?  Have our leaders learned nothing?

"This man must not be allowed to rule on the bodies of women."

*   *   *

Well said.   Brett Kavanaugh looks like a mild and reasonable man -- just from seeing him in the televised hearings.    But reports of his drunken, wild partying behavior in prep school are reinforced by the principles he seems to have formed in his adult life.   That men have control over women's bodies.

I vote No on Kavanaugh for SCOTUS -- and not only because of this alleged attempted rape when he was 17.

Ralph

Paul Manafort's choice

For a while there, it seemed that Paul Manafort had a choice, despite having been convicted of felonies in his first trial -- and days away from his second trial, which would have had even more serious implications, both for him and for president Trump.   Manafort faced spending the rest of his life in jail, given his age.

The choice:   A plea deal to cooperate with the Mueller investigation versus a pardon from President Trump.   In the end, he went with Mueller.   Trump had given hints of a pardon, but could Manafort trust him to follow through?    Might it become politically unfeasible -- or even be evidence of obstruction of justice?    Might Trump simply decide it wouldn't serve Him well and renege?   Besides, he would still be vulnerable to state charges on his financial crimes.

Or -- and I haven't seen anyone else advance this idea -- the possibility that, with the mounting evidence, Trump might resign from office -- or Congress could begin impeachment proceedings.   Either would obviate a pardon.

Whatever combination of reasons, Manafort chose to go with a plea deal and full cooperation with the Mueller investigation.   His part of the bargain requires that he truthfully and completely answers any and all questions, that he testify under oath whenever needed, and that he forfeit large amounts (multi-millions of dollars) of his real estate holdings.

So what does Mueller get?   A trio of criminal law experts -- Noah Bookbinder, Barry Burke, and Norman Eisen -- summarized it in a New York Times op-ed on Tuesday.  As they point out, Manafort has already had some sessions with the Mueller team and has already told them enough that they considered it a deal worth doing.   Some pundits on TV have called what Manafort has to offer, "the keys to the kingdom."

For starters, he is the first member of the Trump campaign team who was in that infamous Trump Tower meeting with the Russians and who has now broken with Trump -- and who will now tell what that was all about and whether Trump knew about it in advance.

In addition, as head of the Trump campaign during several crucial months, including the Republican convention, he will know who ordered and who knew about changing the GOP platform to favor Ukraine interests.

But all that pales in comparison with Manafort's connections with Russia and Russian oligarchs and their connections with Vladimir Putin.  According to these authors, there were more than 80 contacts between members of the campaign and others associated with it and the Russians.   Manafort is a key in understanding all that.  In addition, he is a former business associate with Roger Stone, who seems to be in Manafort's cross-hairs as a possible link with the Russians, the campaign, and Wikileaks.   In short, if there was any collusion/conspiracy with the Russians, Manafort probably knows about it.

Another vulnerability for Trump -- if there was any dangling of a pardon as an inducement to keep quiet by the president or his lawyers, that would be another count of obstruction of justice.

The authors conclude:
"For the president, it is ominous.  Yet another person who was in Mr. Trump's immediate orbit has fallen to the rule of law.  Now that Mr. Manafort is helping the investigation and may testify in future criminal proceedings --- not to mention congressional ones -- Mr. Trump cannot be resting easy.

"But most important, for the American people, Friday's outcome is further proof that no one -- no matter how important or powerful -- is immune from justice.  Mr. Trump would do well to study the heights from which his former top aide has fallen, and the depth of his plunge."

*   *   *

Look at the body count of those who were once in the inner circle who have either been convicted or have pled guilty to felonies:    His one-time campaign chairman (Paul Manafort), his deputy campaign chairman/deputy transition team chairman (Rick Gates), his first National Security Adviser (Michael Flynn), his personal lawyer (Michael Cohen), a former campaign foreign policy adviser (George Papadopoulos), plus a few other minor players.

In all, the count of the indicted or guilty-plea includes:  four former Trump advisers, his personal lawyer, 26 Russian nationals, three Russian companies, one California man, and one London-based lawyer (who has already served his one-month jail time for lying to the investigators.

A witch-hunt, Mr. President?    You'd better get out they broomstick, because they're coming for you.

Ralph

Whatever happened to the political wisdom: "It's the economy, stupid"?

Remember during the Bill Clinton campaign for president that his campaign strategist James Carville summed it all up with that pithy phrase:   "It's the economy, stupid."

I've been wondering about that, when we talk about the blue wave expected in November -- yet the economy is doing very well by most measures.   True, real wages for workers have barely increased, while the wealthy have raked in fortunes on top of their fortunes.

Still, by all other measures, the economy is somewhere between healthy and booming.  Unemployment is only 3.9%, the gross domestic product is soaring to new heights, and the stock market breaks new records week by week.

So, why are we so confident that the Democrats will take control of the House and possibly the Senate too?    Should we be this confident?   Or should we pay attention to James Carville's warning?

The first, short answer has been offered that Carville was referring to presidential year elections, not to midterms.   The president tends to get rewarded or blamed for the economy, more than congress.

Second, there's much being said and written -- at least in the liberal media -- that puts the blame squarely on the unpopularity of Donald J. Trump.    His approval ratings are dropping . . . fast.   And party leaders are attributing this to Trump's inflammatory moves on immigration, especially the separation of parents from their children, and on Trump's inexplicably favoring of Vladimir Putin over our close allies.

Oklahoma Republican Congressman Tom Cole told the New York Times that "This is very much a referendum on the president."   He added, however:  "If we had to fight this campaign on what we accomplished in Congress and on the economy, I think we'd almost certainly keep our majority."

The Times also quoted a leading Republican pollster, Glen Bolger, saying:  "People think the economy is doing well -- but that's not what they're voting on -- they're voting on the chaos of the guy in the White House."

It shows in what the Republican campaigns are focusing on.   Instead of being able to crow about the 3.9% unemployment, their campaign is a negative one of slamming Democrats.

With Paul Manafort's flipping to cooperate with the special counsel in a plea deal just announced, shouldn't we be even more confident that Trump will be dealing with even more negative media coverage?

Let's hope so.    I'm still reluctant to ignore James Carville.   I'd be more comfortable if a couple of those economic indicators start to reverse before November 6th.   I'm not wishing for anyone to suffer regarding jobs or wages -- but we're expecting the good numbers to start reversing soon -- so I'm just wishing for it to be noticeable before, rather than after, the election.

James Carville, himself, had a simpler explanation.   According to the Times:   "He [Trump] has made himself bigger than the economy.   Every conversation starts and ends with Trump."

Ralph