​Oh, cool.  So, it turns out there's a recent text message that shows Brett Kavanaugh -- nominee to the Supreme Court -- tampered with a witness who Debbie Ramirez had named as being AT the gathering where she was sexually abused by Kavanaugh. 

"“Don’t F****** TELL PEOPLE BRETT GOT IN TOUCH WITH ME!!!”  I TOLD YOU AT THE TIME THAT WAS IN CONFIDENCE!!!”

Since I'm sure that Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) is a regular reader of these pages, a head's-up because she hasn't voted to confirm YET.

You can read the story here.

Okay, here's a very foundational observation.  This is something I've believed my entire adult life, and what I expect to always believe.  It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or a Republican, or whatever your political positions, religious faith or personal philosophy.  What that belief is, is -- If you knowingly lie under oath to the United States Senate even once about pretty much anything (reserving the right that some unlikely exception exists in life), it disqualifies you to be a lifetime Supreme Court justice.  You don't have to be a perfect person, or anything close to one -- but you do have to tell the truth under oath.

I would like to believe that that's a core standard that all people believe in -- when asked as a general, blind principle without any specific person or situation attached -- but most especially at the very least all United States senators.

And no, I'm not naive enough to think all people do believe that.  Nor even all United States senators.  I'm sorry about the former, but understand.  I'm appalled by the latter.  And actually understand, too -- which doesn't make it any less appalling, and maybe even more so.

Just to make a few things very clear.

All the concerns involving Brett Kavanaugh are not about what he did in high school and college.  It's about if he committed attempted rape and sexual assault at any time in his life.  And about if TODAY he lied under oath repeatedly. 

Thems are the basics, folks.  Anything else is folderol.

And as basic as they are, let's clarify them so the basics are actually understood.

Purely for the sake of argument, let's take a giant leap and assume that during the entire confirmation process Democrats are indeed just playing politics and Republicans aren't, as so many pure as the driven snow Republicans faux-angrily insist.  And let's say (once again, just for the sake of argument) Sen. Dianne Feinstein should have released the letter from Dr. Ford earlier than she did, and she held on to it for totally irresponsible and even deceptive reasons.  And that's even say that Democrats don't care one whit about the truth, they just want to hold the Supreme Court seat open in hopes that they win the White House in 2020 and can nominate a "damn liberal" (which I believe is their official name, as far as I can tell from what's being said).  Let's assume all of that, for the sake of argument.  That brings up the following basic, clarifying questions --

Do Republicans believe, despite how reprehensibly the "damn liberals" (tm) act, that it is important in a Supreme Court confirmation hearing to find out the truth? Because if they don't believe that, then they don't have a single whining complaint against the Democrats.  But if they do believe finding the truth is important -- why aren't they trying to??

And second, do Republicans believe -- and forget who the nominee is or their party, just as a general basic rule, sort of along the lines of what began these ruminations -- that it Is important to know if a Supreme Court nominee is a rapist, sexual assaulter and perjurer?  If they do, then shouldn't they try to seriously find out??  And if they don't...well, now we're back to that whole "I'm appalled" thing.

(Side note: having had six previous background checks is meaningless here.  The parameters for FBI background checks for confirmations are set by who made the nominations and almost never go back to high school and college.  Rather, they tend to be about the nominee's work experience, family, existing conflicts of interest, and life as an adult.)

And that's if you really, truly assume all the absolute worst about everything about Democrats.  If on the other hand you're sane and even just reasonably fair-minded, and you understand the reality that Democrats actually think it's important to find out the truth and don't want a rapist and perjurer on the Supreme Court, then it makes those subsequent answers reprehensible, whatever the answers are. 

And once again that brings us back to -- this is all about the Republican Party.  Because considering their actions in simply having to raise the questions on issues that should be a basic given, they've painted themselves into a corner between a rock and a hard place where whatever they answer is...well, reprehensible and appalling.

There's so much that can be said about the Judiciary Hearing yesterday.  On the one hand, you had a Stanford professor and well-regarded psychologist saying she was 100% sure it was Brett Kavanaugh who sexually attacked her.  On the other hand, you have Brett Kavanaugh aggressively and adamantly denying she is absolutely wrong.  Indeed, so adamant and aggressive that I have zero doubt there are those on the far-right (let alone Republicans senators who will have to vote on his confirmation) who were heartened by that and had their support of him unequivocally strengthened.

I'll keep this simple, and ask one basic question.

If you were accusing someone of attacking you and were lying about it -- would you put another person in the room who could refute your story?

Actually, simple and basic as that it, let's make it even easier.  If you were accusing someone of attacking you and were lying about it...and decided for some reason to put another person in the room who could refute your story -- would the person you chose to put in that room be the best friend of your attacker?

But, hey, let's just round out the trifecta and throw in one more simple question for good measure.  If you were the best friend of someone who was nominated to be on the Supreme Court of the United States, and he was scheduled to be at a hearing in the U.S. Senate over a claim of something terrible he'd done, and you were named as the only witness in the room who could totally refute the changes, and you knew he was innocent and the event never occurred -- would you go in hiding??

Me, I'd ask officials when do you need me there and I'd immediately buy a ticket to get to Washington, D.C., and make sure I was there at least a day early just to be sure I wouldn't miss it.  But, hey, that's just me.

And honestly, if it was me and I was on the committee, I couldn't even conceivably imagine not subpoenaing the one actual witness to whether the event occurred or didn't.  Unless I thought it wouldn't go well for my guy.  Or unless I really wanted to know the truth.  But, hey, that's just me, too.

Okay, let's even toss in a bonus, simple question.  If you were innocent of three vicious personal attacks for crimes you didn't commit, and you were given a dozen opportunities to say under oath that you wanted the FBI to investigate the stories of the people you knew were liars -- would you go relentlessly out of your way to avoid saying "Dear, God, yes, please, bring in every investigator you can," and twist and turn to avoid just answering the question at all?

I'm not going to get into why I feel certain that Dr. Chrstine Blasey Ford was completely credible. Nor attempt forensic analysis to show why evidence shows Brett Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assualt.  I'm just going to say that both people can't be right.  Dr. Ford says that she is 100% certain it was Brett Kavanaugh.  And Brett Kavanaugh angrily says that, oh, sure, Dr. Ford was attacked, but it just wasn't him.  And it wasn't Mark Judge. They can't both be right.

Given the four really simple, basic questions above, there is zero credibility to what Brett Kavanaugh angrily, weepingly denied.  And so there isn't much reason to analyze the minutiae.  "Well, she didn't remember..."  "Well, she might have thought..."  "Well, the other people there say that..."  Well...well...well.  And but, however.  And oh, sure, she remembers some things from a traumatic, emotional event 36 years ago, but not every single detail.  (Question: what memories leap out for your at your happiest birthday party growing up?  Follow-up: what day of the week was it?)  None of that matters, important and helpful as those details are.  What matters is -- those four basic, simple questions about basic, simple human reactions that are common and foundational to all people.  And Brett Kavanaugh fails completely, pathetically on all of them.

I understand that there are people who don't like believing women who say they were attacked.  And who want to believe a staunch conservative who was nominated by a man they hold in adoration.  And who love that the nominee came out fighting and so aggressive because that must mean he's strong and right!!!

But as another famous con man, Prof. Harold Hill said, "You are closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge."

Brett Kavanaugh wasn't strong and angry because he believed he'd been wronged.  He was totally a different person from the choir boy he's been trying to present himself previously for weeks (and in his "Fox News" interview just days before) against the exact same charge -- yet now, facing losing his confirmation, he attacked, almost violently at times.  He was belligerent, continually interrupting, raging, weeping, and a bully to change the focus.  Hardly a convincing way to present oneself when trying to show people you would be an even-handed, fair-minded, in-control Supreme Court Justice.  Indeed this was the same tactic we saw used by Clarence Thomas 27 years ago, and Trump in 2016:  it's known as "Deny, attack, make yourself the victim."  Imagine if he'd been a woman testifying as hostilely and emotionally as that, how aghast and disqualifying so many on the far right would have seen it.  For someone who was charged with becoming violent when losing control of himself, it seemed like the worst possible evidence to put forward.  But so many supporters missed that because they didn't want to see it.

And all the blatant hints were there to see what a con job his lying outrage was.  This isn't about evidence -- that's for an a trial and requires a full investigation with witnesses and cross-examination (which Dr. Ford and the other women have called for, and Brett Kavanaugh has gone out of his way to avoid).  This is about who a person is at their core, and when under oath, swearing to God whose deity Kavanaugh kept using as a protective shield.

In his very opening statement, Brett Kavanaugh bizarrely blamed all this as part of a "Clinton conspiracy."  It was so loopy that even he later acknowledged, after coming back from a break, how wrong he was for the charge, and apologized.  And analysts afterwards gave him some credit for doing that.  Except he didn't deserve any credit -- his charge of a "Clinton conspiracy" wasn't an off-the-cuff remark he made in the heat of the moment.  It was something he had spent time actually crafting for his opening statement!!  It was a prepared attack.  And what I'm sure happened is that during the break, someone said, "My God, Brett, what are you thinking???  Apologize when you go back in! Or else you're going to look like a nut job."

And more hints.  Like Kavanaugh saying, "I like beer.  Beer, I like it.  I like beer.  I admit it, I drink beer.  I like beer.  Beer.  I like beer a lot.  Beer, beer, beer.  I really like beer."  I don't think I've heard someone say "beer" that much even in a beer commercial.  He likes beer...A LOT.  A think that's a pretty big hint that he drinks beer to excess.  And not an unreasonable hint that he actually did get ragingly, blindingly drunk a lot.  Like his friends and college roommate and even his best friend Mark Judge in his book all said.

And the biggest hints were the bizarre number of blatant obvious lies he told, to the point of pathological.  Although this was worse than most pathological lying, because when you do it to Congress, it's a crime.

The most utterly egregious lies -- like saying that the year book entry about how all of these guys were each a "Renate alumnus" was merely about how that simply meant they were all merely friends with her.  Seriously???  Then when didn't they all say they were a "Brett alumnus"?  And if it was such an honor, why didn't he ever tell her about it?  (For 36 years.)  And more to the point, if that's all it meant, why did he say at the hearing under oath and keep repeating that he was mortified by it??  What's there to be mortified about, if that's all it meant, that they were just friends?  Further, he dismissed it as meaning that they all had sex with her because he said none of them did.  So, it couldn't mean that, he insisted.  But that misses the point of the entry -- what they were doing is what high school boys so often do:  they were bragging, being smarmy, they were suggesting that they all had sex with her, to look cool to everyone.

And his lie that his yearbook entry about the "Devil's triangle" was just reference to a game like "Quarters."  Except there is no game like "Quarters" you can find called "Devil's triangle."  There is, however, a street term "Devil's Triangle" that means two guys on top of a girl.  And...well, gee, that might not have been too convenient, though, at a hearing where he was charged with being one of two guys on top of a girl, attacking her.  By the way, for anyone who might somehow think he was actually being honest about that, and that's what the phrase actually meant -- it was discovered that after the hearing someone with a House of Representatives IP Address tried to change the Wikipedia entry for "Threesome" (which describes it also being known as a "Devil's triangle") to add that it also meant a drinking game played by Brett Kavanaugh and his buddies.  Since being discovered, that's been deleted.

He even lied about the most basic, meaningless things, which is the first hint that one is a pathological liar.  At the very end of her questioning, Sen. Kamala Harris asked Mr. Kavanaugh if he had watched the preceding testimony of Dr. Ford.  He answered, "No."  That struck me as bizarre at the time.  After all, if you're in court, you sit there for days listening to the testimony of the person accusing you of something so you can refute it.  And it turns out that it sounded bizarre for a reason.  Because it was (say it all together now) a lie.  Under oath, sworn to God.  It turns out that a bit earlier, the Wall Street Journal had put out a news story that mentioned Brett Kavanaugh had been watching Dr. Ford's testimony.  But he just had to lie about it.  Perhaps because he then wouldn't have to answer any questions about what Dr. Ford had said.  Except he wouldn't have had to because it was Kamala Harris's last question, and she was the final Democrat to ask. It was just a total, unnecessary lie under oath to keep himself from the truth.

And when asked the most straight-forward questions, he did what he did all day (and perhaps all the time), he lied and obfuscated.  Like when asked about his college roommate saying that Kavanaugh had often been wildly drunk, his repeated answer to that was how the fellow had issues with his other roommates -- yet that has nothing to do with the question.  The issue was about what the college roommate said about him, not what the other roommates felt about one another.  Or when Kavanaugh kept saying that ALL the other people at the party who Dr. Ford named as being present said he didn't do it.  Except that's a lie, too -- they only said they didn't recall.  And of course there was no reason from them to recall -- to them it was a nothing event, from 36 years ago.  They hadn't been sexually attacked and didn't know that Christine Blasey had been.  And as much as Brett Kavanaugh kept saying that even her best friend Leland Keyser said she didn't denied knowing anything...he all too conveniently left out the actually-important part -- that what Ms. Keyser also said was that she believed Dr. Ford.

I actually thought the Democrats did a very mediocre job with their questioning.  Some were affective, but not only were most fairly unfocused and a bit rambling, but more importantly when Brett Kavanaugh was caught in any of these blatant lies, they didn't point that out.  They just got the lie on record and moved on.

In fact, oddly, the best questioner may have been Rachel Mitchell, the female prosecutor the Republican men brought in because they were too frightened to handle questioning Dr. Blasey Ford themselves.  But to their consternation, when Ms. Mitchell started question Brett Kavanaugh, she was asking him very direct questions which were fact-based.  And when he was flustered by that, you'll notice that she quickly had that job taken from her, and all of a sudden, unexpectedly, the Republican men took over.  Was that pure coincidence?  It's certainly possible.  And it's far more certainly unlikely.  Because the rest of the way, when the Republican men took over, they barely asked questions, but instead pretty much just made statements of support.  And kept telling Brett Kavanaugh how sorry they were for what he was going through.  Something they conveniently didn't have to say to Christine Blasey Ford even once because none of them dared question her.

I'll leave the rant by Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to the dustbin of history.  How he has fallen to a sub-strata even below that of Partisan Lackey.  Trying to suggest this hearing was a "new standard" that would diminish the Senate forever.  Never mind that Neil Gorsuch went to the exact same prep school as Brett Kavanaugh and wasn't asked a single question about serial sex abuse, rape and blind-drunk violence, and was confirmed.  And never mind Republicans going a year without even giving a hearing to Merrick Garland.  If you want a "new standard" (tm Lindsey Graham), start there.  Brett Kavanaugh was asked blunt questions about charges of repeated sexual abuse and excessive drinking because he was a sexually abusive drunk.  Who lied repeatedly under oath and who Republicans want to confirm to the Supreme Court.

And in the end, we're left with two things:

Those four simple questions that you can't get away from, no matter how hard you try to close your eyes.

And that this is all about the elected officials of the Republican Party.

I made it a general rule not to listen to Trump make a speech, or say much of anything.  I can watch a 20-second clip on the news, which is sort of my limit.  But yesterday, he actually had an unprecedentedly-rare ​press conference, so I watched.  I made it through 10 minutes, which is far more than I thought I had it in me, but 9-1/2 minutes longer than is good for one's well-being.  ("Endured" is the way a friend put it, and he only made it through five minutes.)  And I was still galled by it three hours later, gnashing my teeth and wanting to punch walls.  From what little I heard from the reporters, they seemed incredulous at the time.  That includes the one reporter who before asking his question told the president that he hoped he would call on a couple women to ask questions, too.
 
What finally got me to turn off, infuriated, is when Trump said something along the lines of, “I have a lot of judicial nominees to fill, 145.  I have to fill 145.  Because Obama didn’t fill them.  I don’t know why, he didn’t care about it.  So I have 145 judges to fill.  But who’s going to want the job if you have to go through this?”  I almost started yelling at the TV screen – “You think President Obama didn’t care about filling those judgeships??!!!!!!!  The reason you have 145 is that Republicans BLOCKED THEM ALL, to leave them open in case there was a Republican president  next to fill them.  Including Merrick Garland on top of it all.  You think President Obama didn't care about filling a Supreme Court seat?  You sick little man.”
 
And now there’s a fourth charge yesterday afternoon, though it’s anonymous.  One of the defenses against Brett Kavanaugh after the accusation by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was that there was only that one charge, and things like what she was alleging usually are serial and have many occurrences.  Well…  Yeah.  And now they’ve started pouring out. 
 
By the way, someone on social made a tremendous point.  The press actually got a hold of Kavanaugh’s high school calendar that he is offering into “evidence.”  (And yes, how totally bizarre is that, to still have it???)  But what this guy picked up on is that the 1982 calendar notes that Kavanaugh went to Ocean City for Beach Week.  Fine.  By itself, out of context, that's meaningless, just an empty tidbit.  But keep in mind that he released this calendar to defend him against Dr. Ford.  However, having presented the information, it is now available for everything – and in the official, sworn declaration made on Wednesday by Julie Swetnick (Michael Avenatti’s client), she includes mention of running into Brett Kavanaugh at numerous parties at…Ocean City!!!  And she made that declaration without knowing of the existence of his calendar.  Of course, that’s not “proof” of anything, but it certainly places him at the spot of the attack.  By his own admission.  So, while he thought he was providing evidence against Christine Ford’s charge, not only wasn’t he, but he actually was providing evidence FOR Julie Swetnick.
 
And more than Trump and Kavanaugh, this is – as I keep writing, all the time – all about the Republicans.  They could have stopped the nomination before it occurred.  From the first Mitch McConnell (R-KY) knew Kavanaugh was a tough sell and told Trump he should nominate someone else, but what he COULD have said was, “If you nominate this guy, we will make it an open hearing, we’ll release all his documents as required, and they’re damning, and he will have almost no support, and it will make you look terrible.  And you’ll lose the pick because Democrats could take the Senate as a result of it, and you’ll never get anyone through.”  And I think Trump migh well have backed off.  And further, they could have stopped it at any point along the way, KNOWING (as I'm sure they do) how bad this guy is.  And even now, even as much as they desperately want a conservative on the Supreme Court, rushing a vote for Friday – when they took a YEAR not voting on Merrick Garland – is totally, 100% meaningless.  I suspect some on the Judiciary Committee may think all the women are lying, but I’m sure plenty enough know who Brett Kavanaugh is by now.  And to push this ahead, to RUSH this ahead, trying to confirm a man for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court who many Republican know, or at the very least suspect, is a serial sexual abuser and likely-alcoholic is sickening.  If, as some Republicans are now actually saying, “Maybe we should have taken a week at the beginning to have that FBI investigation,” well…if they really feel that, they CAN DO IT NOW.  There’s no reason the vote can’t be pushed back a week or two.  None, zero. There are six weeks before the mid-terms.  They have plenty of time.
 
Honestly, I’m not convinced there will be a vote on Friday.  I say that writing this before the hearing begins.  So, we'll see.  What I expect today is for Dr. Ford to come across well, adding detail and context to what she has alleged, as well as showing a real person, not just words we've read, and Kavanaugh can only pretty much just keep saying the same “that’s not true, I didn't do it.”  Although now he’s acknowledging that he did some things that made him cringe.  (I’d love her to pick up on that, and in her statement say, “He did some things that made ME cringe, too, and I haven’t gotten over it 36 years later.”)  And beyond that, he will also have to answer questions from Democrats about his drinking, his blackouts, and other charges that have come to light.  And with all that, and with her charges now having a face and voice to it, I think it will be hard for even these Republicans to hold a vote the next day.  But if anyone can do it, these slugs can.
 
It's pathetic, sickening, awful.  And whatever happens, this all is going to backfire on Republicans in such a HUGE way in the mid-terms. Just six weeks from now.  I’m sure of it.  Not just it being a case of so much of the public – and women, especially – turning against Republicans and Trump on principle, but in visceral outrage that fuels their enthusiasm to go out and vote.   And voter turn-out is so small during mid-terms that any upswing is massive -- to the point that I think now the Democrats have a reasonable chance of taking the Senate.  It’s still not likely, but it's far more possible than before.  And I believe Republicans know that, too, because I think it's specifically why they are fighting to hard to confirm Kavanaugh...despite sensing or knowing that he is a sexual abusing drunk.
 
This is about the elected officials of the Republican Party.

I have no idea whether or not Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed for the Supreme Court.  I think it's likely he will -- but anyone who gives you a certainty (even if they turn out to be right) is just guessing.  While I do think the odds right now favor him getting confirmed, I would not be remotely shocked if he withdraws, or if his name is withdrawn for him, or if he stays on but gets voted down.  In part, the reason I don't know -- nor does anyone yet -- because I don't think the story is fully told yet.

What I do know is that the Republicans screwed up this nomination SO horrifically that they have created a disaster for themselves with the mid-terms, whatever happens with this nomination.

If Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, polls shows that the public and women voters most-especially will be aghast at the Republican Party who bullied this nomination through, and that includes Independent voters in the middle who are undecided, and even moderate Republicans.  Even a "Fox News" polls shows that the public doesn't want Kavanaugh confirmed by a huge margin of 10 points.  That's unprecedented with Supreme Court nominees.

But also, even if Kavanaugh is not confirmed, Republicans have screwed themselves.  That's because not only will that same public and most-especially those same women be just as virulently outraged at Republicans who staunchly, rigidly, gallingly have defended someone who was so problematically seen as a sexual attacker that he had to withdraw (or was voted down)…but also, the Republican base is will be utterly furious at their own party for having the majority yet not being able to confirm someone they see as such a fine conservative and Trump's man -- and wimping out.  Consider what Tucker Carlson said on "Fox News" yesterday when talking about the possibility of Kavanaugh not being confirmed -- "Republicans in the Senate do not care about you."  No, he wasn't merely complaining about the few Republicans in the Senate who may not support Brett Kavanaugh all the way, but no, no, screw them ALL.  And this after the Republican Senate has carried the water for Trump like lapdogs since the day he was elected, at the expense of their souls.

But the thing is -- it's not just how Republican senators vote that has outraged so much of the public, it's how they GOP has handled the whole confirmation process.  It was bad enough when the public saw Republicans unwilling to release hundreds of thousands of pages of documents about Kavanaugh's time in the White House, or that Republicans dumped 100,000 pages of material the night before the hearing began.  All that pointed profoundly to a hearing where Republicans had no intention of being fair and open for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.  But once the allegations of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford surfaced, votes aside, it was clear that Republican abuse and bullying of women intensified.

The public saw --

Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) bullying Dr. Ford to ensure she testify when he wanted her to and under his conditions.  Statements from senators like Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that demeaned Dr. Ford, that maybe she was "confused," even before hearing her testify.  Trump refusing to call the FBI in to investigate the accusation.  The Republican majority of the Judiciary Committee refusing to subpoena the witness Dr. Ford said was actually in the room when the attack she said occurred.  Tweets by a top Grassley aide Mike Lee, the Chief Counsel for Nominations, the staff member leading the committee's investigation, were SO biased in expressing his determination to confirm Kavanaugh giving lie to protestations of fairness, that they were later deleted.  And of course Trump himself, unable to stick to the script, damning Dr. Ford by saying if the events she described were so terrible, why didn't she report them to the FBI 36 years earlier.  (Never mind of course that one doesn't report accusations of sexual assault to the FBI.)  And just yesterday, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) took to the Senate floor and slammed all of these stories about Brett Kavanaugh -- which, to be clear, now include an article in the New Yorker magazine about an incident of sexual abuse by Kavanaugh at Yale, and attorney Michael Avenatti announcing he has a third victim about to go public, as well as a report that a Maryland D.A. might possibly be looking into a fourth case -- as being, according to GOP leader McConnell, all just part of a big Democratic conspiracy.  Which means Mr. McConnell doesn't believe any of the stories are true, that all the women are liars.

And then there's also this passage in the New Yorker article --
​

Yes, that's right.  Republicans actually knew a week earlier about the second woman claiming to be a sexual abuse victim of Kavanaugh.  And they not only buried it, but worked to rush the confirmation process through, so that it couldn't come to light.

So, even the vote aside (which is a whole lot to put aside), the Republican Party has done the near impossible.  They took what is now largely regard in history as the GOP's reprehensible treatment of Anita Hill in 1991 when she testified about sexual abuse by then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas...and not only didn't learn their lesson from it, but actually made it worse!!!!

Even before having any idea how people will vote, I would suggest that the Republican Party has done themselves irreparable damage in the upcoming mid-term elections just six weeks away.  And the party was facing a Blue Wave before this.  And to be clear, it's not just the numbers of voters Republicans have impacted negatively from their handling of the Kavanaugh nomination, but the intensity.  And in a mid-term election, which is usually poorly attention, voter enthusiasm, the get-out-the-vote effort, is critical.  And the GOP has now outraged voters beyond their detestation of Trump alone.

And now, once you get past all that about the confirmation process, now add in the Senate voting.  That whole part about how if Brett Kavanaugh gets confirmed, voters (and especially women voters) are going to be outraged beyond measure -- and if he doesn't get confirmed, women voters (and voters across the board, including the furious Republican base) are going to be almost equally outraged.

And keep in mind that whatever happens with the confirmation, events don't end there.  There still will be journalists investigating the story, there will perhaps be other women coming forward, there could be D.A.'s in Maryland (where there's no statute of limitations) looking into any criminal actions, and the reality remains that Brett Kavanaugh will be on either the Supreme Court or the federal bench, and open to impeachment.

The Republican Party has created a nightmare for themselves, just weeks before the mid-term.  However the confirmation process turns out, they are damned if he's confirmed and damned if he isn't.  And they did it all to themselves.

It couldn't happen to a more deserving group of folks.

Many Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee, as well as Republican spokespeople and commentators have said that there is no point in having a hearing on Thursday where Dr. Christine Blasey Ford will testify on her allegations of being sexually attacked by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.  Their reason, they explain, is because it will just be a case of "He said / She said" and no one will know any more than they do know.

They are wrong.  We may not know more.  Or may.  But it is not "He said / She said" and we will most definitely know more.

The questions that Dr. Ford will be asked by Republicans most-likely will be concerned of her memory of the event and her drinking at the time and who, if anyone she told.  The "She said" part.  Democrats on the committee will likely be addressing many different issues related to the story, but not remotely limited to the night in question.  Many will probably be about who Brett Kavanaugh was at the time, and in the years following -- and importantly who he is today.  They'll want to know how his friend Ed Whelan knew about Dr. Ford and began to track her online and start to spread knowingly-false rumors about some other mythical doppleganger of Kavanaugh who Christine Ford also knew at the time -- despite her name not having been released yet to the public.

They'll also want to know about the writings of his friend Mark Judge -- who Dr. Ford says was in the room at the time -- who discusses his poorly code-named friend "Bart O'Kavanaugh" and their mutual drinking rampages.  They'll also want to know about other parties he went to during those years and the ones that followed at Yale.  

And they'll now want to know about the new article in The New Yorker by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer (which you can read here) that has a new allegation by Deborah Ramirez of a sexual assault at a drinking party at Yale.  This story -- with names and attributions -- is a "He said / She said" tale, but some of the quotes, whether the specific incident is accurate, are damning.  These include statements on the record from Kavanaugh's college roommate, which the articles notes, "He said that he never witnessed Kavanaugh engage in any sexual misconduct, but did recall him being 'frequently, incoherently drunk.' He described Ramirez as a vulnerable outsider. '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.'”   And the article has an on-the-record statement from Elizabeth Rasor, who was Mark Judge's former girlfriend of three years at the time --.

"Rasor stressed that 'under normal circumstances, I wouldn’t reveal information that was told in confidence,' but, she said, 'I can’t stand by and watch him lie.' In an interview with The New Yorker, she said, 'Mark told me a very different story.' Rasor recalled that Judge had told her ashamedly of an incident that involved him and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunk woman. Rasor said that Judge seemed to regard it as fully consensual. 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."

And the article makes clear that Republican aides on the Judiciary Committee knew about the Ramirez allegations a week ago, as Republicans senator tried to rush the confirmation through as fast as possible.

That's the supposed "He said" part.

It's not "He said."  It's a hearing to try and get to the bottom of all the reports of Brett Kavanaugh's wild drinking, sexual societies and insistence today, under oath, of his choir boy life, complete with being a swell coach of his daughter's basketball team, always an important credential when confirming a Supreme Court justice.

There are leaks from the White House that while doing a Judiciary Hearing prep session to get ready for Thursday, Kavanaugh was asked mock questions about his drinking and sex life that made him so uncomfortable that he was struggling and refused to answer them.  That won't work so well with Democratic senators.

(Obligatory quip:  It seems that Judiciary Hearing prep is far more difficult to slide through than Georgetown Prep.)

I don't know what the full reality of all this is, of course.  There are a lot of damning hints, but they mean nothing, other than as damning hints.  But this is the important part (perhaps even more so than the above, which is say A LOT) -- two damning hints have stood out.  To be clear, they certainly don't mean that Brett Kavanaugh did anything wrong, but they are impossible not to pay attention to.

The first was that news reported by the Yale student newspaper of Kavanaugh participating in a secret society while at college there, known as (sorry, this was its nickname) "The Tit and Clit Society."  As well as being in the DKE fraternity known for its misogynistic parties and members chanting, "No means yes, yes means anal."  Again, this isn't even close to proof of -- well, I was going to say "reprehensible behavior," except that it is, so let's go farther and more to the point -- criminal behavior.  And it's about who Brett Kavanaugh is, not merely his version of what he says happened that one night.  And equally to the point, it's something Kavanaugh will no doubt be asked about and have to address at the Senate Judiciary hearing.  It's probably among the questions in his Judiciary Hearing prep he felt uncomfortable about and didn't want to answer.

The second matter is worse.  

Yes, really. 

It began over the weekend when Stormy Daniels' lawyer Michael Avenatti sent out a tweet that suggested he may have some information about other matters, and then posted a more specific follow-up.  And then announced that he his now representing an un-named client with an accusation about Brett Kavanaugh.  (This would be a third woman, since he said it is not Deborah Ramirez.)  Again, none of that means anything by itself in the slightest.  It could be just a tactic to force an issue, but have nothing behind it.  However, his track record of "coy hints" coming to fruition is quite good.  Which brings up a tweet he sent out Sunday night.  It included the attachment of an email exchange he had with a fellow named Mike Davis -- who is the Chief Counsel for Nominations for U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.  Again, my disclaimer:  this exchange the two men had isn't proof of ANYTHING.  But whatever one thinks of Michael Avenatti, he is not a stupid man and he knows the law.  And for a lawyer to not only send what he did to the Chief Counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee, but actually post it publicly, he has to know that if he can't back it up, he's not only in deep, incredibly serious trouble, but his legal career will take a massive hit.

Squeamish souls (which includes me) may want to avert your eyes.  Really.  I only was able to skim it, and had to do that several times before getting the full details.  (Davis's email to Avenatti is at the bottom in gray, and Aventatti's follow-up reply is above it.)

I'm sorry that the words are so small.  They were small in the original.​  (You can temporarily increase the font size displayed on your monitor.  In Windows, the command is CTRL+.  To shrink the font size back, it's CTRL-)
​

​(To those who can't read this above, I'll just quote the opening from Michael Avenatti.  "Dear Mr. Davis: Thank you for your email.  We are aware of significant multiple house parties in the Washington, D.C. area during the early 1980s during which Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and others would participate in the targeting of women with  alcohol/drugs to allow a ‘train’ of men to subsequently gang rape them.  There are multiple witnesses that will corroborate these facts and each of them must be called to testify publicly.”  He then lists a series of graphic, troubling, profoundly uncomfortable questions to ask.)

I continue my Disclaimer Fest.  None of this is evidence of ANYTHING.  It might all be untrue.  Kavanaugh's discomfort at answering questions in his prep session might be about something else entirely.  But the point is --

This is not a "he said-she said" situation.  There are a lot of questions that Brett Kavanaugh is going to have to answer from Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee.  He can say he won't answer.  He can say he doesn't remember.  He can say it's all untrue.  But the hearing will not simply be a case of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford making her accusations and being asked questions to back them up, and then Brett Kavanaugh "emphatically denying" her charges and being asked questions to support that, hearing over, thanks for coming, goodbye -- and then the committee will have to decide whose story to believe   No, there are going to be A LOT of questions about who these two people are and who they were, to establish a foundation on deciding who and what to believe.

That's the point.

And importantly, it's also not about who Brett Kavanaugh was when he was a 17-year-old minor, 36 years ago.  Or even an 18-year-old adult at college.  It is about who Brett Kavanaugh is TODAY, how he is answering questions now, when actually under oath.  Hoping for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

I don't know what the truth is.  I do know -- as I've mentioned -- that I know someone who is very longtime friends with Christine Blasey Ford and is a professional and believes her.  That isn't proof.  Nor does it relate to all the other stories.  But this is no longer, "Well, there's just this one accuser.  And if it was true there would be others." 

​There are others.

And as much as Brett Kavanaugh may want to believe that "What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep" -- it doesn't.

And as always:  this is not about Trump or Brett Kavanaugh.  It is about the elected officials of the Republican Party who know all this and are trying to ram the lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court through.

On MSNBC last night, they played a one-minute clip of Trump talking with Sean Hannity for yet another rally speech.  Afterwards, the panel commented how surprising it's been that he was been able to stay reasonably on message in a fairly low-key way for him, saying things about Dr. Christine Blasey Ford like "She has to be given a chance to have her say," as well as noting that that It's been a week and we should move on at this point.  What surprised me is that in that same clip he said to Hannity that some people could ask, "Why didn’t somebody call the FBI 36 years ago?" -- and no one mentioned it on the panel.

I still don't know how that is possible.  It was an egregious comment, not to mention an idiotic one.  When you're 15 years old (or any age, for that matter), you don't call the FBI because someone sexually attacked you.  The FBI has only been brought up today because Brett Kavanaugh is nominated to serve on the Supreme Court, and they do background checks.  One would think that that's pretty basic, and it doesn't require being president to have a grasp on that concept.  But further, it's also pretty well-established all the many and understandable reasons women don't go to the police if they've been raped -- let along sexually attacked and were able to escape.  So, on many levels this was a truly awful thing to have said, clearly demeaning the accusation because no charges had been filed when she was a terrified, traumatized teenager.  The Trump comment came late in the evening, and I do suspect there will be more reference to it today.

UPDATE:  I wrote most of this article last night, but before posting it this morning I first checked the news for any new stories that might relate to it.  It referred to the wonderful Stephanie Ruhle going on a rant on her MSNBC show, Velshi & Ruhle about this very quote.  Alas, it's likely that other analysts won't deal with that quote, though not because they missed it.  Rather because Trump went off message yet again and this time with a morning tweet.  It's is similar and awful, and basically says that if there was really an attack he’s sure it would have been reported, so let’s find that out.  It's possible that some reporters will put the two quotes together and note that Trump is beginning to stray off the reservation.)

But back to Dr. Ford and her lawyers.

Last night, the Ford lawyers released their conditions that they would agree to for Dr. Ford to testify.  Most notably they include --

1. Ford does not want to be questioned by an outside counsel.
2. Ford does not want to testify in the same room as Brett Kavanaugh.
3. Ford wants the Senate to subpoena Mark Judge and other witnesses.
4. Ford wants no time limit on her opening statement.
5. Work to ensure Dr. Ford's safety.
6. Can't testify before Thursday.
7. Public hearing with limited cameras.
8. Kavanaugh testifies first, Ford second.

Not being a Senate testimony expert, those seem pretty benign, considering all the things that could have been demanded, including an FBI investigation.  I'm sure there will be some give-and-take in negotiations (I suspect they'll insisted that Brett Kavanaugh, as the accused, go second), but it seems that the starting point should lead to her testifying next week. 

A friend also said he was surprised that they didn't include requiring an FBI investigation first.  I was a little surprised, as well, but they did request it earlier, and in the end it's something that only the president can order, so making it a condition to the Senate, which has no authority on such a thing, perhaps made it moot for the list.

My favorite condition on the list is the first one, and I hope they hold firm on it.  It's obvious that the Republican senators are cowardly and afraid how they will appear, 11 older white men, several of who have already made damning, biased statements about Dr. Ford's charges.  I know that some analysts have noted that there have been occasions when a committee had an outside counsel asking questions -- most famously for Joe McCarthy's investigative committee and during the Watergate investigations.  But those situations were during investigations, and I know of no precedent where outside counsel was used to interrogate during confirmation hearing, as if it was a trial.

By the way, speaking of question -- Chris Matthews yesterday had some great, basic questions to ask Brett Kavanaugh at the hearing that couldn't easily be dismissed with "I don't have a recollection of that event."  Among them -- Did you drink in high school? Did you ever drink to excess so that you'd blank out? How many beers did it take for you to be drunk?

Beyond all this, Republicans have to know -- or are so focused on their obsessive task at hand that they are not seeing the obvious -- that this confirmation hearing is not the end of the story.  It's still possible that criminal charges could be filed in Maryland which doesn't have a statute of limitations on matters like this.  While that's not likely, what is almost certain is that news reporters will be investigating.  One legal expert put this in the best, most succinct way -- "In six months, some reporter is going to win the Pulitzer Prize for uncovering all this."  Tracking down witnesses and evidence that Dr. Christine Ford is telling the truth that Brett Kavanaugh sexually attacked her with Mark Judge.  And if Kavanaugh has been confirmed, bullied through the process by Republicans senators, ignoring the testimony of a woman presenting her traumatic experience to them -- just as they did 27 years ago with Anita Hill -- the GOP is going to have disaster on its hands. Pushing the man to the Supreme Court who she said sexually attacked her.

You'd have thought Republicans would have learned from that experience in 1991, grossly mishandling Anita Hill in her Senate testimony against a Supreme Court nominee.  But despite their insistence to the contrary, apparently not.  The best I can figure is that many of them don't actually think it was mishandled. 

And in the end, I must finish the way I think all discussions of this topic should end -- it's not about Trump, it's all about the elected officials of the Republican Party.
​

Lest it fall through the cracks amid attention so focused on the Dr. Christine Ford's letter, there were A LOT of strong reasons to vote against Brett Kavanaugh even before it emerged.  For starters, perjury is never a good quality in a Supreme Court Justice.  Or a Federal Judge, for that matter...

There's a question concerning all this that hasn't really been discussed must yet.  It's possible, of course, that the charges being made in the letter turn out to be false or unproven.  However, it's just as possible (and being totally subjective, I'll say it's probable, or even likely) that they're true.  If the former, then the nomination moves forward as before, and Mr. Kavanaugh will be voted on based on all the rush-through reasons the committee has allowed.  But -- IF belief in the charges or evidence of them progress to the degree that Kavanaugh withdraws or enough Senators believe the accusations and reject him, that raises the little-discussed question.  If Brett Kavanaugh is not approved for the Supreme Court because of having committed attempted rape over 30 years ago and lied about it today, doesn't that suggest he shouldn't be on the federal bench at all?   And that he should be impeached or resign?  

By the way, one of the Republican talking points through all this is to ask if one should be judged on the actions a person took over 30 years ago when in high school.  I would suggest that we're not talking about applying for a job at Burger King, but a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, when standards of employment are the highest -- and should be.  And attempted rape is most probably disqualifying from that job.  (Not to mentioned, as noted above, any lifetime job on the federal court.)  But far more to the point is that this is NOT just about what happened over 30 years ago...but today.  If Republicans want to talk about how a person grows from their past transgressions, and that we should look at them today, great!, let's look at Brett Kavanaugh today.  Because today, if the allegations are true, Brett Kavanaugh is a man denying vehemently that he he ever committed attempted rape, and assuming he's brought back before the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate the matter, he's a man who -- today -- (unless he decides to confess) is willing to lie under oath about it.  That's who Brett Kavanaugh is today.

(Side note: I think it's proper for the press to report, as they have, that when Brett Kavanaugh has denied the charges, he "vehemently" denied them.  But I think it's proper, as well, that if the press does that, for them to make just as clear that Dr. Ford has "emphatically" affirmed her charges.)

I don't know for absolute certain what the truth is here.  I have my belief and reasons for it (among them, as I noted on Monday, it turns out that I have a distant overlap with someone who is longtime friends with Christine Ford.  They talk often, and he is absolutely sure she is telling the truth), and think that the action did happen.  But make no mistake, the issue at hand isn't only about three decades ago, but today.  And what should be done in full, beyond just the Supreme Court, should the charges turn out to be true.

There's been one particular oddity about the fight over Brett Kavanaugh's nomination for the Supreme Court.  It's surprised me a bit on its own merits, but also since I haven't heard it discussed in the media ever since the nomination was made.  (That doesn't mean it hasn't been, just that I haven't heard it...)

From the first, Republicans knew that this would be a deeply controversial fight.  Even Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told Trump he should nominate someone other than Kavanaugh.  When the Federalist Society gave Trump their list of five "approved" nominees (which is another matter all its own...), Kavanaugh was on it, but at the very bottom.  But that's who Trump nominated -- for the reason most people all presume, that Kavanaugh is seemingly against the legality of indicting a sitting president.  And so Republicans were stuck with this fight.

And not just a fight, but a bitter fight that made them look small and corrupt, hiding tens of thousands of pages of documents.  Defending a perjurer.  Defending someone whose position on abortion may cause massive problems for Republicans in upcoming state elections.  (Keep in mind that about 80% of women are against overturning Roe v. Wade.)  And perhaps cause problems even for the senators themselves.  Defending someone whose presence on the Supreme Court will always be a target for opponents and a reminder of these senators' egregious actions and which could be held against them when the tables are turned and Democrats are in control in the Senate and White House.  And all over a nominee who is at risk of being impeached for his perjury when Democrats are next in control.

And all for a "fight" that has little meaning for them.

Consider:

This nomination isn't like an election where, if you lose, then your opponent wins.  This is just a nomination.  And if for some reason Brett Kavanaugh is voted down (unlikely, I know, but it's always been possible), then it's not like Republicans lost the seat on the bench.  Trump will just nominate someone else -- and someone who is just as deeply conservative.  In fact, probably the first choice on the Federalist Society's list.

And that's the oddity.

Unlike most fights, this was a no-lose situation for the Republican Party.  Not for Trump precisely -- we can figure out one big reason he nominated Mr. Kavanaugh.  And while that's probably a matter of some concern to Republican Senators, it's far less so that for the potential indictee in the Oval Office.  The main thing Republican senators care about is having a very conservative justice sitting on the Supreme Court with a lifetime appointment.

If at the very beginning of this nomination process Republican leadership very quietly behind the scenes told Trump not just that they preferred a different candidate (which Mitch McConnell did do), but far more forcefully made abundantly clear that they would be releasing all of the requested documents as requires, and that leadership would give their members the opportunity to vote their conscience, that GOP senators didn't have to be lock-step with one another, and they wouldn't have their careers tied to a deeply-flawed, problematic nominee, one with an exceedingly-negative approval by the public, then it might have been so obvious from the very first that Brett Kavanaugh would have no chance of getting confirmed, and he might have withdrawn his name, or Trump might not have made the nomination in the first place. And if that happened, Republicans wouldn't have "lost" anything -- because it all would have been immediately followed by a new nominee just as conservative as Kavanaugh.  And one without all the "perjury-abortion-blocked documents" baggage, one who wouldn't burden the senators' own careers, one would wouldn't be at risk of being impeached and losing the seat -- and one who would sail through the nomination process and bring Trump and the GOP a semblance of acclaim for just a fine jurist.

But instead, Republicans chose to fight this battle.  Over a nominee who will forever color them and the party.  They chose, as they always have, to cave in to Trump, to their own almost-inexplicable detriment.  For pretty much no reason at all, because the next nominee would have been just as conservative, and perhaps even admired.  It was like putting all their chips on the table and going all-in for Harriet Miers or Alberto Gonzales -- or even Clement Haynsworth or G. Harrold Carswell, all of whom were considered for the Supreme Court but never got there.

At a certain point, this withdrawal scenario ceased being viable.  If Kavanaugh's name was removed, it would have pushed the process too far back and risked the next nominee being voted on by a remotely-possible Democratic Senate.  So, I understand why they're fighting for him now.  But at the start??  They could have had their cake and not only eaten it, but gotten an extra slice with a butter-cream rosette on top.

So, once again, this Kavanaugh nomination is not about Trump.  We know who he is, we know why he nominated Brett Kavanaugh.  Once again, this is all about the elected officials of the Republican Party.  They could have avoided this all -- and easily.  And benefited.  But once again, they caved to Trump and acquiesced to their lowest instincts to allow the disaster of a nominee to head towards a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.

​This is about the Republican Party.  Again.

I didn't watch much of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings yesterday.  Several reasons.  One is that I didn't want my head to explode.  Another is that unless Merrick Garland is sitting there, it's like watching fiction that can still hurt you.  Also, when selecting a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, I don't want to hear all that much about how he thinks he's a great guy because he coaches girls basketball which will impact their lives forever.

My friend Myles Berkowitz has occasionally coached his daughter's basketball team, which is probably far more impressive than Brett Kavanaugh doing so since Myles readily admits he doesn't know all that much about basketball.  (Football is his sport.)  Other than telling the girls to hound the best player on the other team and also giving Al Pacino's big locker room speech from the movie Any Given Sunday -- in a Pacino impersonation -- yes, really ("We're in hell right now, ladles.  Believe me"), which mortifies his daughter, he basically tells them to just run around.  He did watch the hearings and called me afterwards and ranted about Kavanaugh praising himself for what he does.  The G-rated version of Myles' comments were basically, "Hey, since I coached girls basketball, does that mean I'm qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice?  And trust me, this doesn't change the girls' lives forever.  They won't even remember their coach 20 minutes later.  Believe me.  The only thing they'll remember about you is that you got them juice boxes."

One thing did stand out for me, though.  And on the surface, it seems a minor thing.  The video you might have seen of Judge Kavanaugh ignoring the Parkland father who had lost his daughter and tried to greet him.  It was a small moment, and bending over backwards to be fair, I thought it remotely possible that either Brett Kavanaugh didn't know who he was speaking to, or perhaps he had so much on his mind (this was a Supreme Court confirmation hearing, after all) he just didn't want to be distraction.  Subsequently, I've seen a more extended video, and heard an interview with the father who made clear he was well-identified.  Still, was rude, it still struck me as minor, given what the event was.

But then last night, I saw this from the excellent reporter Natash Bertrand of The Atlantic.  She wrote --

"Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter died in the Parkland shooting, tells @CNN that Kavanaugh not only wouldn’t shake his hand—he asked security to remove Guttenberg from the hearing, and identified him by the bracelets he wears to commemorate his daughter."

So, this is no longer about rudeness.  This is about character.  This about who the person is who will be getting a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court to sit and pass judgement on the laws of the nation.  And rather than being the cool dad who loves coaching girls basketball, he's a cold, heartless, self-righteous, mean-spirited, hypocritical churl.

Give me Myles Berkowitz on the High Court compared to that any day.