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.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|