He Said, She Said - Brett Kavanaugh Hearings

He Said, She Said

Note: I had to wait a while before doing this post to gain distance from the topic. I am actually writing this several weeks after the hearing and I am initially relying on my memory of the incident. However, I will probably later pull in the news articles that I have read to add other details or to refresh my memory of my thoughts. But I was collecting so many news articles that I fear my post will be long and drawn out and it could be several days before I finish.

Normally I don’t write about such topics but every once in a while I will do something different, just to show another side of me.

I watched the hearing initially on YouTube without sounds to get a first impression of Dr. Christene Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh. With Dr. Ford, I thought she looked terrified but as time went on, I got an impression of an earnest effort to describe her recollections of the events and to answer the committee’s and outside prosecutor’s questions. Brett Kavanaugh, on the other hand, seemed to be acting out his anger. I say seemed because he looked like he was yelling out his written statements but the anger didn’t look real. There were moments where he appeared to be close to tears, but, again, I couldn’t tell if it was real. I could be biased against him but it just looked fake. He also seemed petulant at some points, kind of like a kid rather than a grown man being interrogated for a job on the highest court of the land. For a Supreme Court justice, I would think you’d want someone mature and balanced, not a pouting child. 

The second time I watched the YouTube, I had the sounds on and I listened to Kavanaugh to see if my impression changed. Again, I still had an impression of fakery but it could be my first impression was overriding my second impression. He was “yelling” so that impression was correct. He was also rude to some of the Democrats when he would not answer some of their questions. They seemed to be politely asking him questions, which was their right to do and was the whole point of the hearing, but he turned petulant and would not answer questions. I got the petulant part during the first silent viewing of Kavanaugh but I didn’t realize that he was not answering some questions. I also didn’t realize that Kavanaugh was very partisan during his reading of his speech: he brought up the Clintons and “what goes around comes around”. To me, it was kind of conspiratorial and did not help his case. He just didn’t come across as impartial as one would hope a Supreme Court Justice to be.

I really didn’t think the hearing was going to help us decide because it was going to be a case of “he said, she said” and I knew that Dr. Ford was not going to be able to bring in any real incriminating evidence. It’s just not possible after 30 plus years and no real FBI investigation. There was no way the hearing was going to resolve this, unless one of them failed to be convincing. Dr. Blasey Ford turned out to be very credible and a lot of commentators also thought so. And Kavanaugh did not put himself out of the running (at least on the Republican side), even though he was rude, insolent, partisan, and did not convincingly answer questions regarding the “Renate” club, the terms “Devil’s Triangle” and “boof”, or his blackouts during drinking. However, you couldn’t convincingly say Kavanaugh did attempt sexual assault on Dr. Blasey Ford when he was a teenager because there was no hard evidence. There were only disqualifications on his side and those were mainly his character, his seeming lack of judicial qualities and lack of impartiality, but that is not enough to sway the Trump supporters or the Republicans.

The only real thing might have provided convincing evidence one way or the other was a thorough investigation (and maybe not even then). Unfortunately, a real investigation was not conducted; the judiciary committee failed to do the right thing.

So I’m left with my impressions I developed before Dr. Blasey Ford came forward with her allegations. No matter how credible she appeared to be, she didn’t have hardcore evidence. But there was enough materials before the hearings to make a decision: there’s evidence that he has lied during the questionings, once maybe a little over a decade ago and again during the more recent confirmation hearings. For one thing, he lied about the stealing of the Democrat’s plans from their servers (or something like that). He knew about pilfered documents and yet, as a lawyer, he kept silent about the theft. There’s apparently email evidence that showed he received pilfered documents and did nothing. He lied during the judiciary meetings a little over a decade ago when he said that he did not know those documents had been stolen and he lied again recently. He was and still is a member of the legal profession and yet he was part of the skullduggery. That alone is enough to disqualify him.

And the recent hearings on the assault allegations further add weight to his disqualifications: he is still lying but this time about his teenage drinking, the meaning of those words (Devil’s triangle and boof), and how “pure”, “innocent” and “Christian” he was as a kid, instead of owning up to the fact that he was immature at the time and basically did a lot of excessive drinking which might have led to some blackouts.

And the conspiratorial talk during his speech lends an image of partisanship rather than an impartial stance that he needs to have. No one is going to trust him to be impartial after his outburst in this hearing.

Why would anyone want him to be a judge? You can’t trust him, even if he was on your side because he could flip if circumstances warranted it. On so many levels you wouldn’t want him as a judge: he is a weak man who has lied too many times.

But there is one thing about this whole Blasey Ford – Kavanaugh that is disturbing. I grew up during the same era but in a different part of the US. In high school I was not connected within the whole environment so I can’t say whether my classmates did a lot of drinking or drugs. But in college there was an atmosphere of drinking, where people tried to get drunk like it was a rite of passage into adulthood. In my dorm, the sixth floor was regarded as a drinking floor and I think every Friday was drinking night and the guys did a lot of drinking. At least that is what I remember. The key thing I noted was that the kids strove to get drunk, as if that was the cool thing to do – I guess it supposedly made you an adult. There was one guy in my freshman year who was trying to impress me and he talked about how drunk he got such that in the mornings, the sunlight would hurt his eyes. And I’m thinking, “Why in the world would anyone want to do that? Why would anyone think it is fun to get hangovers and throw up?”

So during the eighties getting drunk was the in thing to do, at least in my college and frankly in my state. The other thing that was common at the time and is probably still common is the effort to get girls into bed. Guys, drunk or not, will try to get girls in bed.

Heavy drinking leads you to do stupid things.

Here’s the thing that is disturbing: my brothers grew up in the same environment. What if they have done some stupid things and don’t remember? What if a lot of guys I knew have done stupid things? I was once at a party where somebody, I don’t know who, tried to slip something in my soft drink (at least I think he/they did – I don’t have proof) and my soft drink tasted weird. My guy friends tasted my drink and couldn’t taste anything weird, but one of them went ahead and poured another soft drink in front of me. (Thank you Jeff). These were all around decent guys but someone in that room probably doctored my drink. And these were Rice University guys. Even smart guys can be stupid because they were young.

So a lot of guys during the eighties, including my brothers, could have done stupid stuff while drinking. Will a female come up and declare he did something he shouldn’t have? For something he did while inebriated? I am not saying my brothers were heavy drinkers because I don’t think they were, but they were in an environment where guys drank and did stupid things. It probably was the ethos of the time. So for a female to come up 30 plus years later and to say he did something he shouldn’t have while drunk or otherwise is a frightening prospect. Because we could be talking about a whole lot of guys. I think that is what the Republican women were reacting to: they probably know a whole lot of guys who were doing a lot of heavy drinking in their youth because it was the mores of the time and now, years later they might pay for the stupidity of their youth.

And yet, sexual assault is in a class of its own: sexual assault as a teenager is still a no-no and should be punished, just like those 5 youths who were charged with gang raping the New York jogger back in the eighties (except those 5 youths were later found to be innocent). But at the time they were deemed guilty, even though they were teenagers, and were handed down sentences. I don’t know if they were drunk; I don’t think so. So it should be the same thing for any male teenager found guilty of sexual assault, even if drunk, because men, even when drunk, know that raping is not condoned.

And yet I vacillate between the fact that when drunk, people do really stupid stuff (such as throwing refrigerators off of the 6th floor – yes, Rice students in my dorm did that) and the fact that drunk men are still (or should be) generally aware that sexual assault is a crime. I flip flop between these two thoughts.

And what about the rest of their lives? If they did something stupid only once in their life and it was in their youth and then they spent the rest of their lives as a model citizens, shouldn’t we weigh more heavily the good behavior? But then, what message are we sending to the boys of today? Hey, if you assault girls before college, you will be given a pass for the rest of your life?

Like I said, this is all very troubling. I just don’t have an answer to this.


Quotes

Lots of good writing listed below. These are only a small portion of what I read.

Article says Kavanaugh does not care for women not in his class status

As Bai puts it, “My fear is that his experiences as a partying teenager didn’t actually teach him a hell of a lot about fallibility or shame. He seems not to have emerged with much appreciation for the gray areas in which most larger truths reside.”

Slate, “How Brett Kavanaugh Erases Inconvenient Women”, Dahlia Lithwick, September 25, 2018.

Concerned, conflicted and disturbed about the need for character in a lifetime position at the court. A good assessment of the facts and a couple of questions to consider

Except that, as I’ve written before, none of us ought to be defined by the ugliest moments of our lives — and especially not our teenage lives.

Yahoo News, “What Kavanaugh Deserves – and What We Deserve from Him”, Matt Bai, September 20, 2018.

My fear about Kavanaugh isn’t that he’s a sexual predator; barring new revelations, there’s no evidence to suggest he is.

My fear is that his experiences as a partying teenager didn’t actually teach him a hell of a lot about fallibility or shame. He seems not to have emerged with much appreciation for the gray areas in which most larger truths reside.

A Supreme Court justice doesn’t need to be a perfect person, or to have led an unfailingly exemplary life. None of us can say that. But, especially on a divided court in a divided nation, we deserve a justice who demonstrates a capacity for nuance, reflection and humility.Whatever else is true about him, Brett Kavanaugh doesn’t seem to be that guy.

Ibid.

Legal assessment of the hearing by Dershowitz. Also, good reasons for having a thorough investigation by the FBI

Realistically, it is unlikely that the Senate will proceed in the manner of a court of law, because political truth has replaced scientific truth in our highly partisan age.

Fox News, “Alan Dershowitz: Postpone Kavanaugh Confirmation Until FBI Can Investigate Accusations Against Him”, Alan Dershowitz, September 28, 2018.

No matter what else the judge does in life, he will always be remembered for the accusations made against him by Ford and three other women (one anonymous) publicized around the world in the media.

Ibid.

In the end, a tough choice will have to be made by the Senate and it is likely it will be made based largely on partisan considerations. This is not America’s finest moment.

Ibid.

Good reasoning on why Kavanaugh’s statement is weak

Judge Kavanaugh didn’t sound as if he was thinking like a judge. His partisan attack on Democrats wasn’t judicial, in any sense of the word. His approach to evidence wasn’t either.

New York Times, “Why the Senate Must Seek the Truth”, Emily Bazelon, September 28, 2018.

If you’re thinking like a judge aiming to discover the truth, it’s also hard (impossible?) to justify the lack of a neutral investigation and the absence of other witnesses, beginning with Mark Judge, the friend of Judge Kavanaugh’s, whom Dr. Blasey says saw and participated in the assault, but not ending with him.

Ibid.

Some of the “lies” Kavanaugh told – not the same ones I’m thinking of.


Interesting perspective on the hearings from a lawyer.


Laying out the reasons that Kavanaugh is lying.

That, however, does not justify confirming Kavanaugh to a lifelong position on the Supreme Court. He has, for one thing, all but abandoned the posture of impartiality demanded of a judge. A ranting Kavanaugh launched angry, evidence-free charges against Senate Democrats.

Intelligencer, “Why Brett Kavanaugh’s Hearings Convinced Me that He is Guilty”, Jonathan Chait, September 27, 2018.

Why do I believe Kavanaugh is lying? The charges are credible, and his accusers are willing to put themselves at risk, with no apparent gain to bring them to the public. Kavanaugh has said too many things that strain credulity for all them to be plausibly true. He almost certainly lied about having had access to files stolen by Senate Republicans back when he was handling judicial nominations in the Bush administration. His explanation that the “Renate Alumni” was not a sexual reference is difficult to square with a fellow Renate Alumnus’s poem ( “You need a date / and it’s getting late / so don’t hesitate / to call Renate”) portraying her as a cheap date. His insistence “boof” and “devil’s triangle” from his yearbook were references to flatulence and a drinking game drew incredulous responses from people his age who have heard these terms. His claim that the “Beach Week Ralph Club” was a reference to a weak stomach seems highly unlikely.

Ibid.

What experts on sexual violence says

He demonstrated a great deal of hostility during the hearing, especially toward some of the female senators on the committee. He had a contentious exchange with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) at the outset, where he cut her off mid-sentence numerous times. There was also the exchange with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn), which he later apologized for, where he seemingly tried to flip the power differential by turning the question back on her.

The results of hundreds of studies to this point suggest that levels of hostility toward women, which includes a drive to exert power over women, are positively related with levels of sexual violence.

LA Times, “Here’s What Experts Who Study Sexual Violence Say About the Credibility of Christine Blasey Ford’s Testimony”, Melissa Healy, September 28, 2018.

The value of good temperament. Jennifer Rubin is a powerful writer who sometimes has choice phrases that makes me smile

We have recently tracked the destruction of anything resembling a conservative temperament. Eliot A. Cohen, a powerful foreign policy voice among #NeverTrumpers, eloquently diagnoses the problem, describing the Judiciary Committee rage festival in which Senate Republicans used their time for “partisan baying at the opposition”:

“Perhaps the collapse of modern conservatism came out most clearly in [Judge Brett M.] Kavanaugh’s own testimony—its self-pity, its hysteria, its conjuring up of conspiracies, its vindictiveness. He and his family had no doubt suffered agonies. But if we expect steely resolve from a police officer confronting a knife-wielding assailant, or disciplined courage from a firefighter rushing into a burning house, we should expect stoic self-control and calm from a conservative judge, even if his heart is being eaten out. No one watching those proceedings could imagine that a Democrat standing before this judge’s bench in the future would get a fair hearing. This was not the conservative temperament on display. It was, rather, personalized grievance politics.”

The Washington Post, “A First Class Temperament: Who’s Got It?”, Jennifer Rubin, October 1, 2018.

Government by screeching bullies is not a political system any of us should desire. Ibid.

Ibid.

A viewpoint from someone who was sexually assaulted in the ‘80’s. Also provides a good reason for not giving someone the Supreme Court position, even if he has lived a life of probity after that single assault – you would be sending the wrong message to boys.

However, we cannot send teenage boys the message that they can sexually assault someone and, as long as they eventually become good citizens, we will elevate them to one of the most important positions in our society. We cannot send the message to teenage girls that attacks on their bodies don’t matter because the perpetrator is young like them.

USA Today, “I Was Sexually Assaulted in the Eighties and Thought It Was My Fault”, Kirsten Powers, October 2, 2018.

Good reasoning on why Blasey Ford’s testimony was more credible than Kavanaugh – comes from someone who knows Kavanaugh and would prefer to support Kavanaugh.

…he delivered on Thursday, by way of defense, a howl of rage. He went on the attack not against Ford—for that we can be grateful—but against Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee and beyond. His opening statement was an unprecedentedly partisan outburst of emotion from a would-be justice. I do not begrudge him the emotion, even the anger. He has been through a kind of hell that would leave any person gasping for air. But I cannot condone the partisanship—which was raw, undisguised, naked, and conspiratorial—from someone who asks for public faith as a dispassionate and impartial judicial actor. His performance was wholly inconsistent with the conduct we should expect from a member of the judiciary. The Atlantic, “I Know Kavanaugh But I Wouldn’t Confirm Him”, Benjamin Wittes, October 2, 2018.

The Atlantic, “I Know Kavanaugh But I Wouldn’t Confirm Him”, Benjamin Wittes, October 2, 2018.

Similar Posts