One of the latest efforts by the Republican Party is to try and blame the college bribery scandal on entitled, liberal Hollywood elites.  Meghan McCain did as much on her The View rant the other day when she attempted to paint herself as the victim (yet again) somehow.  (I can't quite figure it out, but it involved Hollywood Liberal Elites not considering Arizona State University an Elite College like Yale and Harvard.  And no, I'm not kidding.)  And all of this effort -- as far as I can tell -- is because two actresses were on the list.  So, apparently, in Far Right Conspiracy Theory World that means everyone was a Liberal Hollywood Elite. 

What I find remarkable (although not surprising, given the empty state of today's Republican Party, throwing away the concept of morals to support Trump, accused pedophiles, wife beaters, pathological lying, neo-Nazis and more) is how Ms. McCain or most anyone on the far right actually know the political affiliation of all the donors.  For all I know, they indeed all are liberals.  Everyone of them.  It's absolutely possible.  Though what is even more possible -- in fact, probable -- is that they aren't.  For all I know, 70% are conservative Republicans.  (For those keeping score, note that I'm being fair enough to not say that they could all be Republican.)

I don't have a clue who they all are.  And most anyone being fair would say the same.

What I can say, and do have a clue of is that  --

Among money that can be directly accounted for, at least $220,000 went to Republican entities.  Much of that to Mitt Romney, and a lot to the Republican National Committee, the Republican Senatorial Committee, and the Republican Campaign Committee.  So, there you have it, and...Oh, okay, wait a moment.  Not only that but also Lori Loughlin and her husband donated to Marco Rubio  (R-FL) and Mitt Romney (R-UT).

Well, gee, so much for that "Hollywood Liberal Elite Theory."  It was really cool while it lasted...  (Okay, with today's GOP, I have no doubt that this crackpot, disproven theory will nonetheless continue along with Pizzagate and HillaryIsTheRealOneWhoColludedWithRussia.

To be clear, there were donations to Democratic politicians and Democratic organizations.  But then, I'm not someone blaming this all on reactionary Republican wingnuts -- or whatever the opposite is of Liberal Hollywood Elites.  (Given that "Liberal Hollywood Elites" is often wink-wink code for "Jews," perhaps the opposite may be simply "Christians."  Though again, I'm not blaming the scandal on them.  As a fun sidenote, though, I did find a lovely interview with Lori Loughlin on the Christian Broadcast Network website where she talks about balancing her family, work and faith.  It's very sweet.)  Scrolling through the list, a quick glance appears reasonably split somewhat evenly between political parties.

(Disclaimer: Years ago, I very briefly had an agent who was just starting out. The agent's assistant was Lori Loughlin's sister. We had lunch once, though as personable as she was that was largely the limit of our interaction since she rarely responded to my emails which ultimately was one of the main reasons I left the start-up agency after only about six months, because I thought an assistant returning a client's emails was not an unreasonable expectation, at least as a starting point .  I do not blame this on Lori Loughlin.  She was busy balancing her family, work and faith.)

In the end, though, I think the only common denominator that we can fairly make about the people who paid bribes to get their children into colleges is that everyone of them were all financially well off.  This is the polite term for "rich."  So, if Republicans and Meghan McCain truly, honestly want to put the blame on anyone, that might be at least a good place to start.  

Not that they will.  Because it would give their brand a bad name.  

Okay, worse name.

Several friends were disappointed (again) that Paul Manafort didn't get the maximum sentence yesterday aasked me my thoughts.  They're similar to what I wrote after the first sentence though with a lot more information now to add to it.

I absolutely am utterly understanding of all the people who wanted Paul Manafort to get the longest sentence that was possible and being disappointed (and a little surprised) it wasn't more.  But as I said the other day, I think that's mainly an "I want revenge" attitude, not one related to the law and how it impacts sentences for other people upcoming.  In the end, although disappointing that it wasn't more, this is all fine.  Not only is 7-1/2 years in federal prison really pretty awful, most especially when you're starting it when 70 years old and used to a grand lifestyle of high-living…but the New York City indictments from the D.A. could bring him up to 16 more years -- and keep in mind that he's already plead guilty to all the facts he was indicted for, which is a pretty high hurdle to overcome.  AND there are still likely to be further charges by the New York State Attorney General.  AND FURTHER, it's not even certain that Robert Mueller is done with him, and could bring additional federal indictments, this on Russian conspiracy felonies (boy, would Manafort's lawyer be red-faced about that), not just financial crimes.  On top of which (yes, there's more!) the U.S. Justice Department petitioned the court for him to pay $25 million in restitution.  So, while being bothered that he doesn't already have 30 years in prison and accept that the concept of "May he rot in hell" is very understandable, I can't lose much sleep over his sentence yesterday not being the maximum.  Paul Manafort was not celebrating his good luck last night.  Yes, I wish Manafort got more.  A lot more.  More than was even allowed.  But his future nonetheless is really very dismal.  

But my biggest reaction to yesterday's sentence is focused more on the many other Really Big Names yet to be indicted who are far more complicit in even bigger national crimes than Manafort.  And that because (to me) I think the New York City District Attorney may have been even the biggest news.  It not only give Manafort potentially more time in prison (up to 16 additional years), but more importantly it had to have given a horrifically bad night to Don Jr., Eric, Ivanka and Jared.  And Trump.  It not only shows how even New York City -- not just the state -- is going after them, but that the D.A.'s office has already been investigating it and were so prepared that they were ready to go the INSTANT the federal sentencing came down.  More than anything, perhaps, it's that blatant preparation that should stoke the most terror in their bodies. 

It may even be the most important news here.  It shows how prepared they were – it not only shows how prepared they are, but that they are well-passed “fishing expositions”  or trying to figure out if there are any crimes hidden.  It shows they they know precisely what they’re looking for, and they found it.  Further, and on its own pinnacle, none of these indictments, if proven guilty, can be pardoned.  And the fact that the D.A. went after mortgage fraud - which, as I said, could get up to 16 years in prison - and these potential defendants are all realtors involved with mortgages, they all have to have been in hell last night.  (If they're smart, which admittedly may not be the case…)  And this is just New York City, not even New York state.  Or the feds.

So, to me, as much as most of the attention was on Judge Jackson's sentence, those New York City indictments to me wee the biggest part about the day's sentencing news, even though it wasn't directly related to sentencing.

Yes, I know that Paul Manafort had a sentencing guideline of 19-24 years and yet was only given four years in prison. And I know that it's a ghastly short sentence given his conviction of a wide swath of critical felonies, some with people at the heart of an attack on the United States.  And I know that black people and other minorities get much longer sentences for far lesser crimes, even -- literally -- shoplifting, (Just this week, a black man in Boulder, CO, was detained by eight policemen with guns drawn for suspiciously picking up trash in front of his own home.)  And I know that the actions of the judge throughout the trial were described by many lawyers as bizarre and biased towards white collar crime.  And that the judge's reasoning for the light sentence ignored a great many larger realities -- including that Manafort was only tried only 18 counts before this judge rather than many more because he had pleaded guilty in his earlier trial, and as part of that plea Robert Mueller agreed to not charge him more.

But -- amid the understand and substantive outrage at the sentence -- I think a few things should get not lost in the reaction.  And first among them is that the former campaign manager of Trump was just sentenced to four years in prison.  And though four years is very light considering what he could have gotten and what he was convicted of, it's four years. I suspect most people would be distraught to spend four years of their life in prison, especially if you'd lead a life of ease and were 70 years old.  And there is still another sentencing ahead, where Manafort is up for 10 years in prison.

Now, it's possible the judge there, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, will give him a light sentence, as well.  And maybe the judge will make the sentence to run concurrently.  But then, Manafort may get the full 10 years and it may run consecutively.  Which means Manafort could conceivably spend 14 years in prison until he is 84 years old

And of course whatever his sentences, he could end up with less time in prison for good behavior.  Or get pardoned.

But my sense in all this is that this first judge, Judge Ellis, is known from his actions at the trial and previous actions to be a wild card, and it's unlikely that the Judge Jackson will be the same.  And given the general widespread reaction by the legal community at the lightness of this sentence, it seems reasonable to think Manafort won't get off as easily next week. So, in the end, he may well end up with at least a total of 10 years in prison until he's 80 -- or more.  This was a very sickeningly light sentence.  But Paul Manafort has a terrible future waiting him.

I suspect he will get some years knocked off for good behavior.  I suspect too that this will come from this Judge Ellis, and less so from Judge Jackson, especially since she knows that Manafort got off incredibly lightly with his other sentence.  But all this is a guess.

Pardoning Manafort though is another matter entirely, and not as cut-and-dried as one might think.  To begin with, if Trump does pardon his former campaign manager, it could open the door to obstruction of justice charges leading to his impeachment.  And further, if Manafort is pardoned, he would be compelled to testify in Congress openly and honestly.  And if he didn't, he would not only have to serve his full time in prison, but could be charged with obstruction of justice.

In the end, I understand the galling outrage at Manafort's light sentence, and share it.  But I also understand that that's mainly from almost a sense of vengeance, since the length of the sentence really doesn't change much.  Nor do I think it will give comfort to anyone facing their own indictment, since it's pretty well accepted that this speaks far more about Judge Ellis than it does about the Manafort crimes.  And ultimately, this is the campaign chairman of the the president of the United States going to prison.  For a minimum of four years.  Which could be 14 years.  Until he's 84 years old.

Paul Manafort may have been relieved that he didn't get 24 years in prison.  I can't imagine he's relieved by his future.  He was a beaten man in court.  In a wheelchair.  His hair gray. Facing massive debts.  Facing health issues.  And facing another sentencing next week.

Anyone who takes pleasure in how light this sentence was compared to what it could have been is missing the larger picture.  This was not a Good Day for Paul Manafort.

Earlier today, Nell Minow, my fellow co-head of the Apology Institute of America, sent me a Facebook posting about a profoundly weak non-apology from a British politician over a deeply racist comment she made.  It's my turn to return the favor. This just in from the lawyers of Roger Stone who today submitted a court filing that apologized for his Instagram post today that trashed the ethics and threatened the life of the judge of his pending trial. 

Looking through our AIA manual's guidelines for "Meaningful Apologies," I'm wondering how socially -- and legally -- substantive a one-sentence "Gee, I'm sorry" is when you've trashed and threatened the life of the sitting judge for your upcoming trial, and further how heartfelt when you have someone else say it for you... Especially since it doesn't even include the classic, "If I offended the judge..." or even "This isn't who I am" (which is particularly problematic since it is exactly who Roger Stone has spent a career trying to make clear in as public a way as possible that it is precisely who he is).  Especially since you already have a gag order on you ordered for your past actions by this same judge.

By the way, to be clear, being "legally substantive" is not generally a condition that Ms. Minow and I look to for grading the quality of an apology.  But when an apology is offered for threatening the life of the judge for your upcoming trial (not to mention slamming her work and ethics), and your lawyers feel obligated to file a court brief in response, then the little-known and even-more rarely used "legal" codicil does kick in.

Roger Stone did include his own two-sentence P.S. to his lawyers' filing, basically saying, "What they said," noting that he never meant to disrespect the court.  Although it's impossible to read his original comments along with that photo as anything but total, sneering and unadorned disrespect.

Usually, at a bare minimum, throwing oneself prostrate before the court to beg for mercy is considered a good place to start before even getting into what you're apologizing for and why.  And secondly, having a letter from your doctor to support the explanation of your condition requiring the plea is pretty much thought to be highly-valuable to present to the judge, as well.

A one-sentence "Gee, I'm sorry" from your lawyer and your own two-sentence, "Ditto, sort of," is the equivalent of putting paint on the debris of a Vegas casino after it's been imploded and saying, "Ah, there, it's back to its old self now!! All's well."

And if you simply are so craven that you can't manage any of that or actually apologize in any way yourself, then trying "That wasn't me, your honor, but my evil twin" is probably better as apologies go than having someone else say "Gee, I'm sorry" for you.
​

After Michael Cohen said he wouldn't be testifying before the House Oversight Committee because of threats from the White House, a friend wrote me last night wondering how even past Republican presidents (Nixon notwithstanding...) would react to Trump witness tampering.  I replied with a slight correction to put it in a more proper perspective -- there is "witness tampering," I said, and there is "witness tampering like a mob boss."

I think Trump's actions here paint him into a no-win corner.  On the one hand, Michael Cohen doesn't testify and Trump comes across horribly, shown as a crime family don threatening a witness against him. On the other hand, Michael Cohen does end up testifying, and Trump comes across horribly, from his testimony.

In the end, Cohen will be testifying.  Chair of the House Oversight Committee Elijah Cummings was pretty blunt and clear about that yesterday.  "As the night becomes day, and as the day becomes night, Michael Cohen will be testifying before our committee."  You don't get much more pointed than that.  Mind you, it doesn't mean that Cohen will answer all the questions, but he will be testifying.

There's a certain, profound irony in all this, as my friend Myles Berkowitz pointed out.  Michael Cohen made his career with Trump as Trump's "fixer," strong-arming people and threatening them.  And now, here he is, being on the receiving end, threatened by Trump (and his fixer replacement, Rudy Giuliani).  To be clear, I don't blame Cohen for feeling threatened by the president of the United States.  Just that when God wants to make a point about one's past transgressions, He seems to be pretty upfront about it.

By the way, there's one question in all this I've been waiting to hear.  The whole core of Trump's threats against Cohen are mainly focused on Cohen's father-in-law.  Yet amid all this veiled threats, I haven't heard anyone ask -- "What are the criminal offenses that you are suggesting the father-in-law has committed???"  I'm not saying there aren't any.  Or that there are.  Just that it would nice to hear someone ask, to put Trump on record.  To find out if Trump even knows what on earth he is talking about.  Does even he know?  Is it all total bluster based on rumors and innuendo, or is Trump threatening with ready-for-court evidence?  Is he using his same crackerjack investigators who insisted had uncovered all this supposed,evidence in Hawaii about Barack Obama that "you wouldn't believe what they're finding" that of course never existed -- or has he used federal agents to track down his thuggish blackmail?  Or...what?  At least just ask.

Actually, it goes even further.  I saw a clip last night which surprises me that it didn't get more attention for being so ludicrous.  They didn't say if it was said yesterday or just recently, but Trump was on "Fox News" talking on the phone with Jeanine Pirro.  And after going into another of his rants about Michael Cohen and Cohen's father-in-law, the maniacally sycophantic Ms. Pirro of all people asked him matter-of-factly the most basic, normal question. "What is the father-in-law's name?" she wanted to know.  And Trump's remarkable reply was -- and I swear this is true -- "I don't know."  Really!  Honest.  He said, "I don't know.  But you'll find out soon and..." yammer yammer yammer, deflect. 

Wait, "I don't know"????  Seriously??!!  Trump has been threatening Michael Cohen over these horrible damning things about his father-in-law repeatedly for the past two weeks (even longer)...And He Doesn't Know the Man's Name!!!!

Forget for a moment how idiotic it is not to know the man's name just on general principle, which raises questions about what you do know about him.  But consider how idiotic it is to simply say, "I don't know," to the question!  If you actually don't know -- which is bad enough -- Rule #1:  Don't admit it.  Just answer, "We'll get into all that later.  I don't want to get into any specifics about anything, there's legal issues and time enough for all that.  For now, let's just say, as simply as possible, Michael Cohen knows what I'm talking about, and it will be big."

But no, he said, "I don't know."

And that, in a nutshell is Trump.  A bullying mob boss witness-tampering thug.

But in the end, he's acting like all bullies do, most particularly when someone punches back.  After his mid-day rant speech yesterday trying to strong-arm Nancy Pelosi and bully his way into the House of Representatives to give his State of the Union Address, she pushed back even harder and officially rescinded the House invitation for the State of the Union Address while there was a government shutdown.  And how did the bullying, thuggish Trump respond just hours after his screed having called the Speaker "dominating" and not caring about crime and how this has never been done before and on and on and on?  Backed into a corner by someone who couldn't be pushed around, he wrote --

"As the Shutdown was going on, Nancy Pelosi asked me to give the State of the Union Address. I agreed. She then changed her mind because of the Shutdown, suggesting a later date. This is her prerogative - I will do the Address when the Shutdown is over. I am not looking for an alternative venue for the SOTU Address because there is no venue that can compete with the history, tradition and importance of the House Chamber. I look forward to giving a 'great' State of the Union Address in the near future!"

Well, my, my. This is quite the change in meek tone after trying to bully the Speaker and smear her and Senate Minority Leader Schumer earlier in the day, finally forced into accepting reality and accepting the perfectly thoughtful suggestion that she made in THE FIRST PLACE!

"The True Art of the Deal" by Nancy Pelosi.  (Ghostwritten by no one.)

Leaving Trump to going back and obstruct justice by bullying and witness tampering those weaker than him.  Which is what mob boss thugs do.

​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.