The Record Supports Christine Blasey Ford

This may sound counterintuitive. But the Republican-led whitewash hearing into allegations that Brett Kavanaugh assaulted Christine Blasey Ford actually ended up supporting her case, not Kavanaugh’s.

Ford withstood Rachel Mitchell’s interrogation

As bmaz noted, the Republicans hired a skirt: Maricopa sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell.

Mitchell conducted all of the questioning — save one impetuous outburst from Lindsey Graham — of Ford. And Mitchell tried diligently to challenge Ford’s account. She started by asking Ford to review all her statements and correct and inconsistencies in her past statements, something she did not do thoroughly with Kavanaugh. She then challenged Ford’s story in a few places, first by shadowing the Ed Whelan theory that the house in question must belong to the parents of Kavanaugh’s doppelganger, Chris Garrett (later testimony would make clear Garrett was how Ford first got introduced to the Kavanaugh crowd); Ford dismissed that by answering that the house in question might be in a broader area. Mitchell tried to suggest that Ford’s symptoms — including PTSD and anxiety — might come from other reasons; but because this is Ford’s academic expertise, Ford swatted those away with science. Mitchell made much of the fact that Ford declined to travel to DC in spite of her dislike of air travel, even though she travels for a yearly family visit and vacations. Mitchell also tried to insinuate that some political actors either coached her or paid for Ford’s polygraph, but Ford’s lawyers pointed out they had paid for it, as is the norm. And Ford’s own timeline simply didn’t support the claim she was politically coached. Mitchell invented a claim, out of an indistinct claim by Ford, that she had wanted to keep her testimony confidential up until the original hearing. In the end, Mitchell got Ford to admit — relying on her expertise — that five minute sessions like this hearing weren’t the best way to get the truth from victims of trauma, which would seem to support a longer investigation, not the kind of hearing Mitchell had been paid to star in.

Ford withstood all those questions with grace (and the timely intervention of her attorneys).

Kavanaugh spent 45 minutes ranting like a belligerent drunk

Chuck Grassley unwisely let each witness take as much time as they wanted for opening statements.

After Ford took a normal amount of time, Kavanaugh, bidding for Trump’s support, took a full 45 minutes for his statement.

His statement was delivered shrilly, with an angry red face, just short of screaming. Coming after hours of testimony he was sometimes a violent drunk, Kavanaugh looked during his statement like the drunk you avoid in the parking lot of a bar, because it’s just not worthwhile human interaction. I don’t rule out him drinking while watching Ford’s testimony, nor did others.

In short, Kavanaugh looked like a guy who could not manage rage, just as numerous witnesses had described him being as as a drunk.

The Mark Judge Safeway timing suggests a late June/early July assault

One reason Ford repeatedly said she’d like an FBI interview is because she assumed that if she could date an exchange she had with Mark Judge after her assault, she might be able to narrow down when the actual event occurred. Republicans want to avoid having Judge’s public comments about drunken debauchery in the time period reviewed by any credible questioner.

Judge has written about that in his book, describing working at the local Safeway for a few weeks to pay for Football camp.

According to Kavanaugh’s calendar, football camp started on August 23 that year.

Ford testified that her exchange with Judge took place 6 to 8 weeks after the incident.

Ford: We had always been friendly with one another. I wouldn’t characterize him as not friendly. He looked ill. Says it happened 6-8 weeks after the incident.

If Judge was working for the few weeks prior to Football camp to pay for it and his and Kavanaugh’s exchange with Ford happened 6 to 8  weeks earlier, that would put the assault in early July.

That would mean this entry, for an event on Thursday, July 1, 1982, in Kavanaugh’s calendar would be solidly within that range.

The Republicans fire their prosecutor after she corroborates Ford’s story

And Kavanaugh’s testimony actually supports Ford.

Start with the claim, in his opening rant, that he usually only drank on weekends. That makes no sense because Judge’s book about the period describes being dysfunctionally hungover routinely while he worked at the Potomac Safeway to earn money for Football camp.

Kavanaugh claims this had to be a weekend bc they all worked. But Judge said he routinely went to work badly hungover.

Then Mitchell started questioning Kavanaugh. She started by asking him to review the definition of sexual assault, as she asked Ford to do. Kavanaugh got a weird set to his lips.

Shortly thereafter, she turned to his calendar, getting him to confirm that he wrote everything in there. In her next round, Mitchell’s first questions were about the July 1 entry. After filibustering about the earlier workout session (about which he wasn’t asked), Kavanaugh admitted that the entry showed he got together at Tim Gaudet’s —  with Mark Judge and PJ Smith — and Chris Garrett, whose nickname is Squi.

In other words, Kavanaugh confirmed he was at a small gathering with the boys Ford said were there, as well as the guy who had introduced her to these boys.

Durbin’s questioning followed, after which Lindsey Graham took over questioning from Mitchell and went on a tear, calling it an unethical sham. Having gotten Kavanaugh to identify a get-together that matched Ford’s description, Mitchell was done questioning for the day.

Effectively, the GOP hired a prosecutor to question a victim, but decided the alleged perpetrator could not withstand the same prosecutor’s questions as soon as she had him identify a get-together that resembled the one described by Ford.

Kavanaugh thrice stopped short of denying being a blackout drunk

One problem with Kavanaugh’s testimony is that he and his alleged accomplice, Mark Judge, are reported to be blackout drunks. Judge even wrote a book admitting to the fact. So Kavanaugh went to some lengths trying to avoid admitting that he had ever blacked out, even while he admitted, “I like beer,” over and over.

The first came, in her first round, when Mitchell asked Kavanaugh what he considered too many beers.

Mitchell: What do you consider to be too many beers?

Kav: I don’t know, whatever the chart says.


Mitchell: Have you ever passed out from drinking?

Kav: Passed out would be no, but I’ve gone to sleep. I’ve never blacked out. That’s the allegation, and that’s wrong.

That’s when Republican Senators started to look worried. They gave Kavanaugh one of his three lifeline breaks.

Kavanaugh repeatedly dismissed his freshman roommate’s claim that he was a shy man who became belligerent after drinking by pointing to the squabble that one freshman roommate had with another, as if the normal animus between freshman roommates makes the observation of one invalid.

Finally, Blumenthal raised an incident from college that Kavanaugh had admitted he didn’t recall, only to have Kavanaugh insist he remembered all of it.

Let me ask you this. In a speech that you gave, you described, quote, falling out of the bus onto the front steps of the Yale Law School, at 4:45 AM.

Kavanaugh interrupted to try to prevent Blumenthal from finishing the quote.

The quote ends that you tried to piece things back together, end quote, to recall what happened that night. Meaning?

I know what happened. I know what happened that night.

The appellate court judge actually didn’t claim that he remembered it, just that he knows what happened.

Kavanaugh refuses to call Mark Judge

As a reminder, Ford alleges that Brett Kavanaugh tried to rape her in the presence of admitted dead drunk Mark Judge. Republicans refused to call Judge over and over.

Then Kavanaugh refused to answer questions about Judge’s own accounts of the period. In response to a question from Patrick Leahy about whether he was the drunk described as Bart O’Kavanaugh in Judge’s book, Kavanaugh refused to answer.

3rd Q: Are you Bart O’Kavanaugh.

Kav: not answering.

Kav finally says, “you’d have to ask him.” Which is the point.

Blumenthal noted to Kavanaugh that Judge’s statement was just six cursory and conclusory sentences signed by Judge’s lawyer, not a sworn statement.

So here’s what we saw yesterday: Christine Blasey Ford was unflappable and consistent. By comparison, Kavanaugh — at least in his statement — appeared to be precisely what he denied he was. His denials that he was a blackout drunk (and therefore that he assaulted Ford but didn’t remember it) were not credible and stopped well short of supporting his claim. And his own calendar, and the Republicans own prosecutor, identified a get-together that matches the time and attendees identified by Ford.

The GOP tried to set up a whitewash of this evidence. But instead, it failed, and they were left with screaming men.

And that won’t stop them from voting out his nomination.

258 replies
  1. fastenbulbous says:

    So how soon after confirmation will the Bush era papers start coming out?
    I wouldn’t want to be Judge right now, he’s pretty inconvenient….
    (I hope Barto’s liver explodes)

  2. klynn says:

    Thank you.

    Thank you for seeing the pieces of truth and putting everything together in a post I hope goes viral.

    As a Take Back The Night event founder for college campuses in Ohio over 30 years ago, thank you.

    Our memories count. And you know that personally.

  3. Francine Fein says:

    I couldn’t stop looking at his wife’s face…it was so telling to me. Mostly her “expression” was just sad and she seemed to be far far away in thought…I think she’s seen his belligerence, meanness, and disrespect many times. I’ve been around alcoholics in my long life, some that I’ve cared deeply about. I saw myself in her face. After one of the breaks, they changed the angle of the camera and she was just enough in view to see that she was still there, but not enough to see her face. That he exposed his family to this, says a lot to me about his so called family values. Regarding his statement that he sometimes fell asleep but didn’t ever pass out — I once worked at the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Research Center. There’s a big difference between falling asleep and passing out. There are lots of studies to verify the differences.

    Thank you, Marcy for your continuing research — getting down in the weeds. I learn so much from you and from the commenters. Mostly I have nothing intelligent to add, I’m a lurker, but I sure do appreciate learning as I read.

    • orionATL says:

      “I couldn’t stop looking at his wife’s face…it was so telling to me. Mostly her “expression” was just sad and she seemed to be far far away in thought…”.

      nor could i in clips i saw.

      she knew, alas for her.

    • rqila says:

      Yes, me too.  I watched her at least 80% of the time.  I’ve been surprised 24 hours later to see how loutish and drunken Kav looked in clips because I just never even saw him, being so riveted by her.

      I’ve always been fascinated by the women “behind” tippy-top leaders:  Barbara Bush, Hillary Rodham, Lynne Cheney.  Is it collusion?  Denial?  Plausible deniability?  Stupidity? Amorality?  Negotiated indulgence in exchange for power? I don’t know; but I didn’t see a far-away look on Ashley Estes’ face.  I saw a mask, that did tear-up once, and I wondered why about that, too.

      To me more creepy was the way Kavanaugh held his daughter’s hand in the room of senators as he took some victory lap last week.  He couldn’t or wouldn’t or didn’t take her hand, he gripped her wrist, grabbing it repeatedly, while they walked through a closed room filled with clapping adults and security guards; he would not let the child walk two steps without being gripped.  Why?  I’m sure it’s meaningful though I’m not sure how.  I think back to when I would grip a child’s wrist like that, missing their hand.  I was distracted, not fast enough to catch their hand but terrified in a piece of my mind they would squirm away into some danger, a speeding car or over a cliff.  The clutching was my fear.  What was Kavanaugh terrified of for his child in that room?  about his child in that room? There was nowhere for her to go, no danger for her there. (danger from her?).

      I’ve wondered if it just presupposes a parent totally detached from his kid; he doesn’t know her age, know her capacities.  Doesn’t know that a child that big won’t dash away into traffic; doesn’t have an appropriate thermometer to judge her perspective.

      Maybe that’s not blameworthy. (Maybe that’s not right). But something about that whole perp walk just didn’t feel right at all.  As a parent, it just felt creepy.  Something’s just not right behind the closed door of that family.  And maybe we actually did catch a glimpse of it a little bit at least.

  4. Pete says:

    I posted this on Twitter to Marcy and bmaz and repeat here.

    The Kavanaugh parade will likely move to him claiming his toilet seat on SCOTUS. Is there “value” in any of the women filing a sex crime complaint with relevant legal jurisdictions? Get this out of social media and politics into legal space.

    • bmaz says:

      The simple answer is no. I’ve said this before, but despite all the yakking you hear from people that “there is no statute of limitations for sex offenses in Maryland” I do not believe that is right. While it may be the case now, in today’s Maryland law, it was not when the Kavanaugh crimes were alleged to have occurred. And the thing is, when statutes of criminal limitation get extended or abolished, that is only as to going forward. Under a case by the name of Stogner v. California, the Supreme Court made clear that extensions to criminal statutes of limitation can NOT be made retroactive to allow prosecution for crimes that were not prosecutable under the statute in place at the time of the offense, all because of the prohibition on ex post facto laws in the Constitution. And,  frankly, that is a correct decision. So, nope, there will not be prosecution in Maryland, even if Ford were to request one.

      • Bill Norton says:

        BMAZ, Please check the Montgomery (County) Sentinel for Sept. 24. Buried in a story about Kavanaugh, the DA and the County chief say they would investigate if a complaint were filed. I do not know if their willingness to make an inquiry means they would attempt to proceed to a criminal charge.  What would stop them from investigating?

        • bmaz says:

          I am telling you there is no prosecutable crime to investigate. Any “investigation” by definition can go nowhere.

          • Frank Probst says:

            I agree with your analysis that you can’t prosecute anything from before the time that the statue of limitations was abolished, but no one seems to know exactly when that was.  Almost certainly after 1982, but it seems like something that should be nailed down more precisely, shouldn’t it?

      • MaryOk says:

        bmaz, you are correct because Montgomery County wrote a letter that said so.  Some third parties ( I forget who) asked the County to look into it and they said that Dr. Ford would have to file the complaint.  They said that the statute of limitations was 1 year and that the offense was a misdemeanor in 1982.

        Here’s a link.

        • bmaz says:

          Last warning. Get the hell out of here. I do not need some crappy cite from “Town Hall” to know what I am talking about. Take your trollery elsewhere.

          [MaryOk, the man told you to leave. Take your assault survivor bashing somewhere else. / ~Rayne]

      • David Ihde says:

        According to the local police, the allegation, if true would have been treated as a Misdemeanor in 1982 with a 1 year statue of limitation.

  5. orionATL says:

    right on target. nicely analytical. i think posts like this are very helpful in dealing with the fury that yesterday’s one-sided, fixed-on-the-fly (and i do mean “fixed”) inquiry generated in anyone with an iota of the fairness gene.

  6. pseudonymous in nc says:

    I think the Dems missed some chances yesterday afternoon, but I also think the fix was in. Power and impunity are hella drugs.

    Graham’s pantomime made it clear: credible allegations of sexual assault against one of their own are to be treated as ideological policy positions, as if it’s the same as arguing for rich people to pay higher taxes. Burn it down.

    • Ed Walker says:

      To the accompaniment of The Queen Of The Night Aria,  one of Mozart’s greatest songs. It’s a natural, because in the silly plot she is labeled the villain, when in fact is is the pious Sarastro who stole their daughter and initiated her into the patriarchal value structure of his silly cult so that she became docile instead of a force of nature like her mother.

      • Thomasa says:

        This is a dramatic piece of music. Not to be missed. Uplifting and done equally well by Lucia Popp vocal and Alison Balsom on piccolo trumpet. Both on youTube. Popp is mistakenly headlined as Maria Callis. Blasom is listed as just Magic Flute. Take a break from constant bac news and give a listen.

  7. Trip says:

    Thank you for your analysis, and of course, you are right. Unfortunately, we are nearing the Orwellian apex (if we haven’t already reached it) where facts and truth are distorted beyond all recognition or tossed in the rubbish bin outright.

    Edit: full vote being pushed this afternoon (see Rayne’s Post). Say goodnight to democracy, and shut the lights out.

    • Rayne says:

      The post was edited to reflect the SJC vote scheduled for 1:30 pm today.

      Don’t yet know when full vote is scheduled, still need to check on outcome of today’s SJC vote given Flake’s demand for a short investigation.

  8. orionATL says:

    i would have added a bit to this post about the judge’s/senators’ song-and-dance about why the fbi was not invited in, just to pile on a bit more to the mendacity evidence.

    personally, i doubt that the fbi would have been very useful in victim interviews, but in interviewing lots of people they might have added much relevant info to the boys-were-being-boys dossier, not to mention an alleged drunken asssult on a boat by mark judge and judge kavanaugh in ~1995.

    given trump’s relentless assault on the fbi, however, i might be assuming too much about its institutional integrity, not to mention its trained competence.

      • orionATL says:

        forgot that entirely. that might end up his real undoing, as it may well be trump’s.

        in any event, it feels like kavanaugh belongs in the big house for a few years.

        but that would be so unfair to do to an upstanding gentleman like Judge, compared to some ordinary county/city politician, or some businessman schmuck down the road from here a bit.

      • rip says:

        It may just be me, but I almost think that all the noise about Kav’s sexual pecadillos may actually be to distract from his financial dealings and problems.

        In any case, it’s hard to stomach someone of his character representing the US in the SCOTUS.

        • Rayne says:

          Yep. It’s incredibly weird that a guy who can produce calendars going back 36 years can’t produce the receipts explaining how he paid off so much debt so quickly.

  9. pseudonymous in nc says:

    I don’t know whether McConnell is fine throwing his House colleagues under the bus for two years in exchange for packing the court, or whether Republicans are simply governing like a party that doesn’t expect free and fair elections.

    • Anon says:

      McConnell is first and foremost about the Senate. I honestly doubt he cares what happens to his house colleagues. Or other people. From the beginning he has fought for his senate power and he will continue to do so long after Trump has moved on.

  10. orionATL says:

    on another matter, i notice operating in the background of kavanaugh commentary is a theme that could be summarised as “assaults on young women by drunken boys were common in the ’80’sand ’90’s. the unspoken continuation of that claim seems to be that such gross abuse of interpersonal trust is no longer a problem.

    if that were the case, we would not be hearing so much about sexual assault on college campuses and at frat houses. nor would we have the education eftort on many campuses involved in the “no means no” campaign.

    it seems drunken sexual assault on women is a major issue today. the brutal viking raids on england and ireland are not so far removed as we might wish to claim.

    • Trip says:

      It’s part and parcel of this administration. Look where DeVos focused her attention; in protection of the accused.

  11. 200Toros says:

    Dems blew this. K was such an utter disaster, they should have been easily able to tear him apart. They were WAY to easy on him. It seemed to me that they came with their prepared questions and stuck to them, and didn’t really listen to him. So they blew the really huge opportunities that developed – like Mitchell finding the date and location of the party, they should have jumped all over that. Date and Location, now we can have no more objections to FBI investigation! And they should have completely eviscerated him for his blatant lies about the meanings of the slang terms in his yearbook profile, they totally blew that easy slam-dunk, as Tracy said in another thread.  ABA calling for FBI investigation is hopeful…

    • Trip says:

      They fucked up big time. But it didn’t help that the second part was almost entirely comprised of angry old white misogynistic men testifying to lies, yelling their bloody heads off, instead of asking questions. And where did all of their extra time come from? Those who are such sticklers for ‘rules’, tradition and process?

      • Frank Probst says:

        I don’t think they handled it that badly, tbh.  The guy was obviously lying about his drinking.  He was belligerent with some of the Democratic Senators, including two of the women, and he filibustered most of his answers.  Trying to nail down a potential time and place for the assault would have been a mistake, because unless you hit the target precisely, you’ve blown your chance at a thorough investigation.  I think having Mitchell point it out–and the Republicans immediately jumping in to take over the questioning–was pretty damning all by itself.  That clip can be played over and over and over.  And I think the main thing the Dems needed to do was to cement the idea that an FBI investigation was needed.  And so far, it’s looking like it worked, but it’s still early.

        • maybe ryan says:

          Frank, it’s not time and place.  It’s Squi.  Kavanaugh said didn’t know her.  But Squi was basically his bestie, and he and Ford had been going out all summer.  The Dems needed to push him on this.

          “You say you didn’t know Ford.  But the guy whose nickname appears 13 times in your summer calendar, more than any of your other friends, whose house you stayed at in Rehoboth three weekends, that summer, dated her most of the summer.  So under oath, I’d like you to answer, how well did you know Ms. Blasey Ford.  How many times did you see her that summer?”

          As Josh Marshall likes to say about Trump Russia, though you can’t see black holes, you can determine their extent because there’s an event horizon around them and things keep disappearing beyond it.  Everything in this case disappears when it crosses the Squi line.  Whalen disappears, Squi’s real name disappears, the connection between K and Ford is obscured from sight.  I suspect the location of the attempted rape also disappeared at the Squi line (ie, Whalen is correct – it was Squi’s house.) Did the number of boys at the party get muddled at the Squi line, because Squi was the fourth?

          I said below that Ford was reticent.  Consider just how reticent – Kavanaugh’s claim not to know her, absolutely critical to his defense, can be destroyed.  But only going through Squi.  She chooses not to follow that line of narrative.  Why?

          There is something she’s holding back, I think because it was even more traumatic, and she thought she could keep from reliving that trauma.

          Squi is the event horizon of the black hole which is Kavanaugh.

          • Mulder says:

            Definitely ryan. I agree something isn’t right about this. Squi aka Chris Garrett was her intro to the BK circle. Some crazy questions…Did he set her up to be attacked by Judge and BK for “fun”? Does Dr. Ford wonder/suspect (or know) that and hence her reticence to discuss in her testimony? As you suggested, too painful or terrifying?

            Or simply that Squi knows what happened because he was tight with BK and of course they talked? Was Dr. Ford “going out” with Squi at the time or had they stopped prior to the gathering? What was her contact with him after? Will she remember?

            Many questions that I hope the FBI can ask about.

          • MaryOk says:

            I am of the view that Ford is not credible to this point.    Still I agree that Squi knows a lot.  The only reason he has not been interviewed is that he was not identified as being someone at that gathering.  Ford protected him during the hearing – why?  Whelan decided to point in Squi’s direction.  Why?

            Squi may or may not know about this party, but he knows Ford.   A true investigation into high school carries more risk for her at this point.  Kavanaugh’s life is more well known than hers.

            • Rayne says:

              You’re in the minority. I suspect Dr. Ford doesn’t want to drag ‘Squi’ (Chris Garrett) into this mess because it could damage him unnecessarily, when he was not one of the two who assaulted her and Garrett has already been subjected to CRC’s and Ed Whelan’s utterly nonsensical ‘doppelgänger’ theory. I think Dr. Ford respects Garrett’s job as a middle school teacher and how disruptive this situation is.

              I’m surprised you don’t have more respect for that sentiment.

  12. Curveball says:

    Just one point. When Mitchell asked about that particular date in July on the calendar it was the end of her participation. She had dared going into what could’ve been the brewski (skis) drinking day of the incident. After that, others after Graham jumped in and handled their own questions (mostly pro-Kavanaugh speeches) from the Republican side.

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      FWIW, I caught Twitter on and off, and Mitchell was being castigated as a disaster.  If any GOP Senate staffers were following Twitter, they probably flipped out and pulled the plug on her.

      I only caught snippets, but my wild arse guess is that the GOP didn’t expect Ford to be so credible and composed, nor did they expect Kavenaugh to be so injudicious.  Once those two surprises revealed themselves, the GOP’s plans for Mitchell had to be scrapped.  It wouldn’t be surprising if Leonard Leo (?), ,the WH, and Federalist Society were all exchanging texts to get Grassley to yank her into invisibility.

      With the Jesuit magazine withdrawing its support, and the ABA recommending ‘time out’, it will be interesting to see whether the vaunted Federalist Society — including Whelan and other pals — is going to suffer a small ding to their credibility for pushing Kavenaugh.  Even if the justice is only poetic, that would be a beautiful thing.

    • JD12 says:

      The Mitchell benching really should be getting more consideration. It’s hard to tell whether it was a Hail Mary or whether they threw in the towel, but it was a significant turning point.

      It looked like she made the mistake of believing the hearing was a good-faith effort to get to the truth. She pressed Ford on all the issues Republicans wanted to know about. Ford—like honest people do—remained calm, gave consistent answers, and as far as I can remember didn’t dodge a single question. When Mitchell started questioning BK, he got flustered and defensive, then Grassley had to bail him out by calling for break and telling Mitchell to have a seat.

      That’s where they gave up the game. But surprisingly, most people didn’t notice. That’s partly Democrats’ fault for getting sucked in by Graham and forgetting about the July 1 calendar entry that matched Ford’s version of events.

      Like TeaLeaves said, Kavanaugh was ridiculously injudicious. Apparently he scrapped his prepared statement and wrote his own last minute, but I can’t imagine that any of them thought it was a good idea to be that partisan. He can’t even pretend to be impartial ever again. He went full-Trump; you never go full-Trump if you want to be a Supreme Court Justice.

  13. Karen Godfredsen says:

    I really appreciate the incredibly smart, detailed analysis on all of your posts, but particularly so in the wake of yesterday’s craziness. I am wondering if there is any recourse after he is (presumably) confirmed, despite his obvious character defects, partisanship and mental instability.  What would need to take place for a SCOTUS seat impeachment to be pursued? Can he be prosecuted at the state level since there is no statute of limitations in Maryland and if so is there enough evidence? Do we just have to accept this??? What can we do before SCOTUS becomes SCROTUS (with two obvious perpetrators of sexual assault and 5 hard core partisans sitting on that court, take your pick for what the R represents – “Republican”? “Ridiculous”? ”Rapey”? “Reprobate”? “Reprehensible”?)

    • Anon says:

      Full impeachment would require a strong Democratic majority in the house and the senate. But hearings on some open questions related to him would take only a majority in one chamber or the other.

  14. Charles says:

    First, thanks for the heroic liveblogging, Marcy. I only wish you were doing commentary on the networks.

    And thank you for winkling out Kavanaugh’s little lies in real time.

  15. BobCon says:

    Former NY Times chief editor Jill Abramson, who was notoriously canned by the Times in favor of Dean Baquet and who cowrote with Jane Mayer an excellent account of Clarence Thomas’s guilt,wrote a great account yesterday morning of how the GOP cynicall set up the hearing to create a he said – she said narrative and simple partisan disagreement.

    So today the NY Times front page has an article by Peter Baker with a narrative of a he said – she said narrative against the backdrop of a simple partisan disagreement.

    Mark my words, with the NY Times kid glove treatment of Glenn Thrush and its memory holing of Mike Oreskes, they are an institution heading toward their own crisis, either in a revolt over their coverage, ia blow up over internal coverups, or both.

    • Trip says:

      Nope. Sadly this is not new ground. Reporters pushed back against the Judith Miller narrative of WMDs, but their voices were muted, because the elite stand with the elites.

      • BobCon says:

        I think it’s fair to say the status quo may well survive a crisis, as it did after Miller, but I don’t think it will be so easy this time.

        They’re blind to their faults and changing times, and while they may weather what comes, it will cost a lot more.

  16. jayedcoins says:

    The exchanges with Mitchell about blackout, and the very odd responses (or lack thereof) to Klobuchar’s *sympathetic* approach to questioning, were the most telling moments, to me. The dodges on this topic sure smell like what is — or, at least, was at one time — a severe addiction problem. Unwillingness to admit to an obvious problem, moving the goalposts (“Well I don’t drink every day, I just binge heavily when I do!”)…

    We don’t lie about things that society doesn’t shame or punish us for, and society certainly has no problem with white college kids getting rowdy, especially when those kids are rich ones at elite institutions. Whether or not it should be that way is an important discussion, but immaterial to this particular situation… the bottom line here is that our society is not just accepting of a version of Kavanaugh that enjoys a Coors after the kids go to bed, but also a version of him that was “just a boy being a boy” in his late high school and college years, binge drinking semi-regularly and documenting it on his calendar and in his yearbooks.

    The *real* split we have in society are the ones that think the binge drinking version of kid Kavanaugh went too far and deserves punishment for sexual assault, and those that think the very existence of the binge drinking version of kid Kavanaugh is an absolution for the sexual assault in and of itself. It’s pretty gross.

    (And to be really clear, that’s not me moralizing on the alcohol part — like Marcy I am fortunate to enjoy Michigan’s craft beer scene to its full extent. Though, I will moralize by saying that I somehow manage to enjoy the finest Founder’s and Bell’s have to offer without blacking out and sexually assaulting anyone… imagine that! My point here is that society gives a person like Kavanaugh a lot of damn rope to drinkdrinkdrink AND cause a lot of ancillary trouble, and that is really, really gross.)

    The kicker to all this is, it’s a job interview, not a criminal charge. Most of these shit-heel senators that are supporting him are wealthy men that have either owned businesses or been in powerful hiring positions almost their entire lives. And we can be sure as shit if any prospective hire in those situations had even a half-credible sexual assault allegation against them, they’d shred that resume and move down the pile.

    • Anon says:

      It is also interesting how his lying encompasses even cases where the lies won’t really hurt him. From the beginning he has needed, or really only wanted, Republicans to back him. Yet he chose to lie about his involvement with republican causes and about his work in the Bush white house. Why? They would not have turned on him for it. All it did was damage his credibility but he lied anyway.

  17. klynn says:

    Bmaz on Twitter:

    Graham is just lying about this. If Ford’s case was not precluded by a statute of limitations, it absolutely could be prosecuted on Fords description and evidence. Doesn’t mean BK would be convicted on the reasonable doubt standard, but absolutely could be prosecuted.

    Forget MD… the FBI needs to investigate as part of his background fitness to serve on the Supreme Court. It’s just a matter of time…something will come out with solid evidence on his unfit behavior. Someone be brave today.

    • klynn says:

      Sorry, the edit functions did not work on my post.  The “Forget MD…”  is my statement. From “Graham” to “be prosecuted” was bmaz.

  18. Nigel says:

    And whether it would or could be prosecuted is beside the point here. That there is a case demanding further investigation is absolutely undeniable.

    Graham is more full of sh*t than a field latrine.

  19. Nick says:

    It would be interesting to determine where Tim Gaudet lived at the time to determine if the floor plan is similar to what Dr Ford describes.

  20. Bill Norton says:

    To any lawyers out there, what is your assessment of Rachel Mitchell’s questioning? A. Dershowitz said she did a lousy job. Complained she did not “cross-examine” the witness (as he might, I guess). I believe Mr. Dershowitz has an inflated sense of self but is his criticism on point? I am not taking sides here. I’m not a lawyer. I am only curious. Thanks.

    • Tom says:

      I’m not a lawyer, but I spent the last 17 years of my employment career working in the field of child welfare where I interviewed many child and adult victims of mental, emotional, physical, and sexual abuse.   I thought Ms. Mitchell’s approach was generally fine, but she was correct to state that the best approach would have been to use a forensic interview format.   That would have involved interviewing Ms. Ford in a neutral, comfortable, and private location where she would have been encouraged to take her time and tell Ms. Mitchell about her experience.   Ideally, Ms. Mitchell would have been able to elicit a free-flowing narrative from Ms. Ford rather than have her answer specific questions, except where Ms. Mitchell needed her to clarify a point (she certainly wouldn’t have “cross examined” her, in the legal sense).   For example, I wish Ms. Mitchell had asked Ms. Ford yesterday why she thought Kavanaugh & Judge were intoxicated when she arrived at the party.    That might have revealed some details as to how the two young men were talking, behaving, what was the reaction of the other party-goers towards them, were there empty beer cans/bottles lying about, etc.   Having Ms. Mitchell interview Ms. Ford in that Senate chamber with all those strangers and cameras about, and to do so while being interrupted every five minutes to let the Democrat senators ask their questions, was exactly the wrong way to go about getting as complete an account as possible from Ms. Ford.   Under the circumstances, I thought Ms. Mitchell did well, except at the end where she seemed to suggest to Ms. Ford that if she had a forensic interview (which I’m pretty sure is what the FBI would do, though I may be wrong), she might recall that actually it was not Judge Kavanaugh who assaulted her.   My own experience was that abuse victims always knew who the perpetrators were; no-one I interviewed ever remembered it was someone else.

      • Frank Probst says:

        The second that a forensic one-on-one interview came up, Blasey Ford should have asked, “Does the FBI do those?  Because I definitely asked the FBI to investigate this.”

  21. Michael says:

    Just re-read K’s 1 July calendar entry: “Go to Timmy’s for skis […]”

    The allusion to “brewskies” hadn’t registered on first reading, and the fact that it hadn’t, rattled me. That very term was common in my circle back in the 60’s and 70’s.

    (Hey…. what’s up with doing brewskies on a Thursday? Thursday doesn’t jibe with “mostly on weekends”.)

    • Rayne says:

      As he said during the hearing, it was summer. It was also just before the 4th of July holiday. Makes sense there’d be drinking during that timeframe.

      The problem is less that there was beer drinking on a weekday than drinking by minors, unsupervised by adult, on the one day so far for which written details map Ford’s description of attendees and events.

      And if the calendar is legitimate vintage and not a fabrication, “skis” was used instead of “beers” to avoid adult notice. Did he lie to his parents about his drinking or merely avoid discussing it as Ford did?

      • Drew says:

        When I was in library school in the late 1980s, we would travel up to Rutgers for Thursday afternoon/evening classes arriving about 2 pm. By that time all the fraternities were in full weekend mode (meaning heavily partying, on occasion sitting on the roof of the frathouse porch making crass comments and throwing beer cans down on arriving adult students). This definition of “weekend” might not apply to summer of 1982 Georgetown Prep students, but I wouldn’t put it past BK to make such a disingenuous use of words.

        • Eureka says:

          Great point, totally in line with how Kav represents things.

          And Thursday was the start of the NE college drinking weekend at least into the 90s as I recall.

      • Desider says:

        Come on, anyone think parents were checking his calendar or keeping a close watch on his partying? I spent high school and college getting trashed often enough as did everyone else, far before legal age, same rough timeframe

        • Desider says:

          And it’s doubtful that parents were too dumb to recognize “skis” (in summer, no less), but also doubtful Brett would overtly write “beer” or “get hammered” – nobody was getting out of joint for a couple of beers with friends, even if they found the calendar.

        • Rayne says:

          Did you keep a calendar in high school or college? I didn’t, and I graduated from high school in 1978. My kids did in the late 1990s and the 2000s but their schools made their use mandatory for signing off on homework checks.

          I wonder what else was going on at home or with him — perhaps ADD? — that Kavanaugh kept a calendar.

  22. Fran of the North says:

    The rush to judgement (full senate vote today) is most likely because GOP strategists realize that Dr. Ford’s testimony was powerful, and Bart’s was a disaster.

    The longer the sports and entertainment focused plebes have to learn about the hearing and the media’s view, the more chance for those newly concerned citizens to make their views known to their representatives.

    Heaven forbid that they actually acknowledge their constituents views.

  23. DrFunguy says:

    Not that it will do any good, but some Dems are calling attention to the sham hearings.
    Also, I agree with whomever said that they missed a golden opportunity to grill Kav re. ‘skis on July 1.
    Finally, his multiple likely perjuries (including a few yesterday) and shady finances ought to at least get more scrutiny, if not disqualify him from the federal bench.
    Assuming a blue wave, what is the procedure for impeaching a federal judge? Has it ever been applied at the SCOTUS level?

    • MaryOk says:

      Ford’s perjuries are far clearer.  The fear of flying.  The bit about two front doors may not be accurate vis a vis building permits.  Remember, none of Ford’s friends are backing her up, they believe her, but can’t validate anything she said.  Same with Debbie Ramirez, they believe her, but can’t validate.   One f Ramirez’s friends said Kavanaugh lied about his drinking, but she never saw him mistreat a woman.  Problem is “over drinking” is subjective and all of these people were drinking too.

      we’ll just have to see.

      • Rayne says:

        I have NO idea where you get the idea that Dr. Ford has been less than truthful about her fear of flying. She’s a psychologist who respects therapy given her career; she’s been in therapy herself. Why do you assume she hasn’t found methods for coping with a phobia? Do you not understand how determined a survivor might be to want to live their life fully — like traveling — and not give in to fears forced on her by her attackers?

        I am struck by your the avoidance of Kavanaugh’s calendar contents combined with attacks on women assuming they are automatically not credible. Both of them realized they were making sworn statements under penalty of law; Dr. Ford didn’t have to be helpful during the hearing but she was to a heartbreaking degree. Ramirez has nothing to gain from stepping forward but she did because she felt as Dr. Ford did.

        Also quite odd you note nothing at all about Kavanaugh’s manifold false statements. I think we have the cut of your jib.

        I seriously doubt we’ll see — the way the White House and the GOP Senate Judiciary Committee have handled this confirmation and investigation to date, the FBI has been hamstrung.

        Welcome to emptywheel, by the way.

  24. maybe ryan says:

    Someone needs to talk to Squi.  Giving him immunity could be what cracks this case open for a Congressional Committee in 6 months.

    Squi is connected to all the weirdest anecdotes in this saga, and where there’s weirdness, there is usually a deeper, more interesting story.   Ed Whelan may be a lot of things, but he’s not an idiot.  When he pointed a finger at Squi, under his real name, I initially thought it might actually be exculpating.  After all, why would they put a real name on a bullshit story?

    When it collapsed, I knew it couldn’t have been exculpating.  But still suspected something was behind it.  It’s just too idiotic to put a completely random innocent person’s name into an attempted rape case.

    Philip Bump over the weekend identified Squi, based on a photo caption where he was called Squee.  Squi is all over the calendar. I believe he’s the most frequent citation there.  Whelan was implicating one of Kavanaugh’s very best friends at the time.   Much, much weirder now.

    And then yesterday, Mitchell managed to elicit from Ford that Squi was not only the way she met Kavanaugh, but that she had “gone out” with him for a couple months.  What’s strange here is her reticence.  She won’t name him.  She’s is so oblique that Mitchell can’t quite figure out who she’s talking about, and has to pull it out of her, with Ford finally saying “the person that Mr. Whelan tried to …”  And Ford also says “I don’t think it’s right, for us to be talking about that.”

    As Marcey pointed out, it’s when Mitchell begins probing one of the parties that Squi was at that Grassley calls a timeout and yanks Mitchell.

    Still, some of the incongruity is with Ford.  She “went out with” him but won’t say dated, a pretty nebulous distinction that nonetheless she feels it’s important to make; she went to visit him at the hospital, but he was a “distant friend.”  She won’t say his name.  Perhaps most important, she doesn’t say it’s wrong to be talking about “him.”  She says it’s wrong to be talking about “that.”

    She clearly needs to hold Squi at significant emotional distance for some reason.

    Is this also related to the changing number of boys, 4 or 3, that Ford places at the get-together?   If she was going out with Squi at the time, it does make most sense to think that she was out that July night with a bunch of his friends because of him.  But she doesn’t mention this, doesn’t say he was there.  Was that pre-party get-together actually at Squi’s house as Whelan said?

    What happened between Ford and Squi that created this need for emotional distance?  Some additional trauma that is too much for her to dredge up in front of the whole nation?  How does this relate to Whelan’s weird gambit, and to its retraction.  What would Whelan’s emails tell us about what he had learned about Squi, and who he learned it from.  Would that be enough to push Squi into accepting a deal for his testimony against Kavanaugh?

    What could Squi tell us about that night?  I suspect quite a lot.

      • maybe ryan says:

        Yes, except that the odds that Squi just says he knows nothing are high.  To me, that’s the problem with subpoenaing Judge as well, despite the clamor for doing so.  There’s really no risk in lying when the question is “do you remember an informal get-together 35 years ago?”

        Subpoenaing Whelan’s email first opens up the possibility of finding the hook that forces Squi to talk.  Something triggered Whelan to pursue that gambit.  Something kept Squi from suing him.  Something smells really rotten there.   Honor among thieves is the glue holding all this out of the public view.  Whelan’s email is the solvent.


        I definitely think they need to talk to Squi. And hopefully to subpoena Whalen.

          • maybe ryan says:

            Thanks.  Had only just realized the investigation was live after posting, and hadn’t read about it any further before editing my post.

            What a crazy situation. I have work to do, but can hardly pull myself away.

      • Drew says:

        I don’t know the legal ins & outs (voluntary, involuntary, subpoenaed, required, interviewed, or whatever) but it does seem to me that this is a significant insight. I think that it would best be elicited and understood in an interview where his narrative could develop, and the questioner would not necessarily be adversarial (at least not entirely). I expect that, to some extent, he could in some way be required to give such an interview.

        I don’t think there is anything to the Whelan theory–but Squi may well have a strong attachment to Kavanaugh (did he sign one of the early character testimonials from Prep graduates?). There may be other stuff that would make Blasey inclined to try to protect him. But so many things bounce around him that I think there’s strong reason for the FBI to find out what. [Of course, I’m as curious as anyone, but it really isn’t about the public needing to know as being important to uncovering the facts]

        • maybe ryan says:

          He was Kavanaugh’s best friend that summer.  Three weekends at Squi’s place in Rehoboth.  13 entries in the calendar, more than anyone else

          He was Ford’s boyfriend for much of the summer.

          Kavanaugh says he never knowingly met his best friend’s girlfriend.

          Squi is absolutely at the very center of this situation.

    • Frank Probst says:

      My suspicion is that she’s trying to avoid saying his name because of the Whelan debacle.  She doesn’t want to be the jackass that says his name on television.  I have no idea what kind of person he was in high school, but right now, he’s reportedly a middle school teacher.  Whelan isn’t a household name, but he isn’t a nobody, either.  When his tweets came out suggesting that this man may have sexually assaulted a 15 year-old girl, they were seen by a lot of people.  I think that this had to be looked at by the principal of his school, even though the claims were bullshit.  We have no idea what happened to that guy.  If the school consulted an outside attorney, they very likely would have been told that even though it’s bullshit, it’s now out there now, and from a liability standpoint, you should probably make sure your ass is thoroughly covered by filing a report with Child Protective Services.  They’d investigate it, find out that it was flatly denied by the alleged victim, and close the file.  That way, the school is covered if anything happens between him and one of his students in the future.

      • pseudonymous in nc says:

        Exactly this: “I think that that case with Mr. Whelan, who was looking at my LinkedIn page and then trying to blame the person, I just don’t feel like it’s right for us to be talking about that.”

        She didn’t want to say his name on live television and have it reported verbatim by countless people, probably because she felt it was validating Whelan’s Inspector Zillow act. And Rachel Mitchell respected that and didn’t name him either.

        • Trip says:

          I think this is spot on. Also immediately following that ‘super sleuthing’ by Whelan, Dr Ford was barraged with threats to the point that she had to abandon her home. Her attorney said she spent countless hours with the FBI following his published theory. I wonder if Whelan, and the named man, were somehow folded into this separate investigation, since Whelan had scoped her out, before her name was released? I know it’s doubtful, but one can only hope.

          • maybe ryan says:

            Is there any reason to believe the threats only came in after Whelan’s theory?   Or did the threats just become public at that point.

            I see Whelan as most likely Kavanaugh’s cutout here.  I don’t think Whelan is naive about Kavanaugh or anything else.  But I still can’t see Kavanaugh volunteering “yeah, I tried to rape her, but I think we can pin it on this other guy.”

            I also think the whole “Whelan looked her up in LinkedIn before her name went public” issue is a doughnut hole.  It’s most easily explained by the fact that the Post had already asked the White House about her.  WH denied they talked to Whelan about it.  But why would I believe that more than anything else the WH says?  I definitely don’t think Kavanaugh said “I never committed a rape, but if anyone says I did, it’ll probably be this Ford woman, so you should get going on research just in case.”

          • Howamart says:

            ‘She spent “countless hours with the FBI”? What limits are there are on what they could have talked about, absent a charge to complete an official investigation? Could the FBI have her deeper story about Squi, and be looking into it?

        • maybe ryan says:

          He was Kav’s best friend that summer; her boyfriend for two months.  Kav says he never met her.  He doesn’t just prove Kav is a liar about things or about boofing. He proves Kav is lying about Ford.

          She doesn’t follow this path, may not even have told anyone of his centrality prior to Mitchell’s accidentally eliciting it.

          Maybe there’s nothing under the surface here.  Even if so, he needs to be interviewed.

      • Eureka says:

        FYI, no mandated reporters (such as school officials) would abuse the CPS system this way.  No attorney I know of would advise this route.  There are other ins and outs as well… but if the school wanted to cover its ass from Whelan fallout it would need to take a different route.  Said as a former mandated reporter.

    • holdingsteady says:

      You are wrong, there is no ‘incongruity’with Ford’,  she simply isn’t wanting to disrupt her friend’s life as her own life has been.  It’s up to him to come forward or, hopefully it seems now that the FBI will interview him.  She mentioned a brother of his also.

      Furthermore, it’s not that she won’t say ‘dated’, she was simply being a human being with a bit of humor to point out the terminology at the time.

      As to the ‘changing number of boys’ that was based on her therapist’s notes which were incorrect, and had to be corrected by Dr. Ford.

      I hope this helps.

      • maybe ryan says:

        I appreciate the thoughtful reply, but disagree.

        I’m exactly their contemporaries, in the HS graduating class between them.  Dating vs. going out with was a distinction without a difference.  They were both the terminology at the time.

        The therapist notes said 4 boys attempted the rape.  Ford says that is just wrong, and I believe her.  But there was still some incongruity.  She told the Post there were 3 boys at the get-together (PJ, Judge and Kav), and the letter to Eshoo reads “me and 4 others” which would include 3 boys and her friend Leland.  But the polygraph note reads “4 boys and a couple girls.”

        Mostly, I think that this was critical to her case, since it’s the best evidence that Kav is lying about her.  Her unwillingness to pursue it is striking.  In her place, if there was nothing I was holding back, I would have just come out and say “the guy I was going out with most of the summer took Kav to his beach house three weekends that summer and was with him twice a week.  They were best friends.  I think he knows who I am.”

        I admit I could be wrong.  But I continue to believe there is a reticence here well beyond just “I want to be polite and not mention the name of someone not central to the question.”  He is absolutely central.  He is at the heart of the whole thing.

  25. Allison Holland says:

    my husband was an alcoholic. i believe kavanaugh is an alcoholic as well. the melt down that was witnessedby the world yesterday was that of a dry drunk. he hasnt been drinking and hes angry. very angry that he has been forced to stay dry. i have seen it many times.
    and about the calander. it is a teenager’s ruse. it was for his parents and a joke at his fathers. he put stuff in there for them. he wrote pre alibis. we all did stuff like that..the fake diary. the fake letters in the mail for snoopy parents. even the fake phone conversations. its such a ruse that the has world has fallen for. its a joke and i think it even upsets him because he cant tell anyone how funny it is.
    one thing alcoholics do is lie for seemingly no reason. they just lie. little lies that cover up the real lie they are covering up. their whole lives are lies and they know it so the shell cant get cracked. and besides there is nothing wrong with it, right ? he was looking for comrades. you drink right senator ? you drink too right prosecutor ? everybody drinks but prissy wives who get mad when we all drink. right ? he was desperate for affirmation that yes everybody secretly drinks just like he does. people saw the stone sad face of his wife. she needs him to get this job. i’ve been there. if he doesnt get this job her life and that of her childrens will be a living hell worse than it already is. he is a mean drunk who likes to drink a lot of the time. all of the time. her facial muscles seemed unreal to many. it was so frozen. but that is the state of the wife of a beligerent drunk. we freeze when the phone rings. we freeze when it doesnt. we freeze before he can slam the door shut after a hard days work before hes had the comfort of the booze and we stay frozen until he sleeps. and she is catholic. she cannot divorce. she is resigned. what you saw in the tiny muscles of her life behind the mask was pride in resilience and fear as to where that resilience might lead her.

    • Anon says:

      Wow, I actually had to take a walk around the room after reading what you wrote. In part because the hell you describe is terrifying though I’ve known of people who have been through it. But also because as I look back on her picture I see what you see and I realize that it was right there in front of me. I just skipped over it. I was focusing on the loud drunk in front and not on the terrified lives behind him.

      I’m very sorry to hear what you suffered.

      • Allison Holland says:

        thanks. please know there are many of us out there.

        and know too when he says he fears for his family, that he will be blown up and that we will reap the whirlwinds he means it.

        he is a walking legalized threat against decency. the real rule of law and anyone who upsets him or gets in the way of what he wants.

        • maybe ryan says:

          Yes, Ms. Holland, that was tough to read.  But thanks for sharing, both as a personal glimpse and because it did help me put in perspective some things about Kav’s behavior yesterday.

      • Bruce Olsen says:

        A lot of people don’t understand the family’s suffering.

        But have some sympathy for the abuser. They’re often victims of various forms of abuse (I was, at age 5), and have often developed defense mechanisms against that abuse which enable them to avoid any objective self-awareness later in life.

        Yes, they decide every moment of every day to deceive themselves and all those around them. But society (mostly the GOP) views them as moral defectives who choose this life and it ain’t necessarily so. Mental health parity was one reason the ACA was so forcefully opposed by the GOP.

    • Bruce Olsen says:

      I’ve posted a similar comment a couple of times; As an alcoholic I’m certain he’s also alcoholic.

      His performance was exactly like a failed intervention. Textbook denial and deflection.

      I’m surprised nobody with a platform and expertise in substance use disorder hasn’t pointed this out.

      Allison has added many more details than I had time to add, but they are 100% spot on.

      One disagreement: I don’t think the calendar needs to be interpreted as part of the alcoholic’s ruse. The entries clearly lack some candor, but it’s unlikely at that age he had begun to construct the elaborate facade that long-term sufferers of substance use disorder often construct. Depends on when he started drinking, and there’s no evidence it began much before the, ummm, alleged incident.

      But thanks for writing that, Allison. It’s a very accurate description of an alcoholic’s common behaviors. I’m not convinced he’s a dry drunk, but he certainly can’t seek help now even if he wanted to.

      • JKSF says:

        Agreed. The wild ‘cornered animal’ behavior. Grasping at excuses. Overwrought emotions. Lashing out. Pretty much all the classic signs of an alcoholic.

        Don’t think he is a dry drunk at all though. I think he still likes beer very much.

        If, on the other hand, what is suggested is that he has been under observation and not able to get good and loaded for a couple weeks, I would agree with that. It will only get worse.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Thanks for your painful insight and for enduring the high-cost you paid to get it.

      I agree with your analysis.  The puffy, belligerent anger, directed at those who could most help him get what he wants, looks like dry drunk behavior.  Causes almost as much damage and hurt as the wet kind.

      My guess is that BK has rarely been past that to any stage of recovery.  He does not demonstrate the self-awareness or humility that would require.

    • Sabrina says:

      Great comment. I too was thinking something similar about his wife. Obviously it’s hard to know, but her behavior was not congruent with what would be expected of a woman whose husband was unfairly accused. She was oddly subdued and submissive. I don’t want to speculate but her behavior and demeanor did arouse sympathy when paired with his over the top display of anger and accusations to the senators. If that were in front of a televised hearing, I can only imagine the temper that his wife has been subjected to. Also, interesting point about someone who may have been abstaining from alcohol- he did seem to want validation that indeed, “everyone” drinks. God help his family if they’d ever tried to stop him. He does not seem like a relaxing person to live with, at all. I hope I’m wrong, but I do feel bad for his family and a sense that they are unwilling participants in this narrative. Imagine, too, his wife, who is now likely unsure if this incident has ever happened. If this is the kind of man he is, she may feel she has no choice but to put on a brave front and “Stand by your man”, as that particular country song would suggest. Just very sad for everyone while Kavanaugh adamantly refuses a real investigation yet also refuses to withdraw his nomination.

      Another instance of arrogance and a sense of near-invincibility, brought to you by…The Twilight Zone.

      (Yes, this is where we all live now. Even us Canadians).

    • Desider says:

      Interesting point – we’re pretty sure Kavanaugh has money problems, and if he’s no longer on the conservative good boys list (or no longer needed), no one’s going to pay off that debt – Kav will be hung out to dry, pardon the pun, so yeah, her family retirement may be going down the shitter, and certainly their cred at the country club is a bit tarnished. But like so many housewives the world over, she’ll make do, patch things up as best she can.
      I’m pretty amazed, I was expecting this would end in a blaze of he said-she said, but a calendar entry from 36 years ago? He’s fucked.

    • MaryOk says:

      I’m sorry for your situation, but diagnosing some one you don’t know from TV bothers me.  I’ve seen posts that call attention to Dr. Ford’s skin and her yearbook and say the same.  It’s best to stay away from subjective judgements.

      • Rayne says:

        You’re fine with throwing your opinion around about Dr. Ford’s and Deborah Ramirez’ credibility based on what little you’ve seen or heard, without expertise in law enforcement and forensics — but somebody else’s opinion isn’t good enough?

        You’re concern trolling. Scram.

      • bmaz says:

        Listen, you are full of shit, have magically appeared out of nowhere to troll this blog, and that is not going to work. Aloha!

  26. bloopie2 says:

    Not certain that she’d want to, but can Dr. Ford sue for defamation now that he has called her a liar (both on TV and in the Senate).  That’s going on with Trump, right?

    • Anon says:

      Yes although he recently nullified one of those cases by admitting to the payment thus making the wide-ranging discovery process go away in exchange for admitting what everyone already knew. For Kavanaugh that would not be an option.

  27. Anon says:

    As a more general point I have to admit that I’m surprised that anyone is surprised that Flake and Corker are on board. Yes they both dislike Trump. But, odious sexist that he is Kavanaugh is squarely in the mainstream of Republican political behavior. And up to this point what have Fleka and Corker actually done?


    The reality is that while both are retiring from the Senate they are still Republican politicians and their post-electoral career paths are quite clear. They will take up a job in “government relations” and either play golf for the rest of their lives or wait out the current moment and mount another run when the winds have changed. They cannot do that if Mitch McConnell or the other Republican “leaders” hold a grudge against them. So when push comes to shove they will risk a little (or in Corker’s case nothing) to get the fig leaf they need down the road, and then do what they are told.

    At this point the only open question are Collins and Murkowski. They have actually voted their own way in the past even though Trump did threaten Alaska when Murkowski balked before. If they vote no they will pay a price with the Republicans but their electoral lives are in the hands of their constituents.

    The other two Mancin and Heidkamp will doubtless spend the night rereading polls. I would be shocked if Heidkamp votes yes but perhaps she would feel that the Democrats will back her anyway because they have no choice. Ditto for Mancin. But if Murkowski and Collins vote no then the calculus will change radically because then they would not be people who did not like his style but went with the polls. They would be the people who saved a serial abuser’s serial abuser nominee. Then the Democratic party bigwigs would be forced to choose between dropping them and shoring up the party’s brand, or keeping them and shedding voters and donors nationwide.

    • Rayne says:

      This isn’t about whether Kavanaugh is politically in sync with Flake and Corker. This is about timing.

      My guess is the numbers are so bad the Senate is lost and they MUST confirm Kavanaugh or they will end up with a more centrist/left of center jurist.

      Whatever is being held over these guys to keep them in line (money, misdeeds, future jobs, other) without regard to the entity holding power over them (Russia, organized crime, corporations, other) depends on the “delivery” of this confirmation before a new Congress is seated.

      The GOP ~must~ have a conservative court in place to block whatever future more liberal Congress and presidents may put before them; with a conservative court they can block for decades. It’s worth it to whomever is paying for this — imagine the potential monetary liability if fossil fuel companies are found to have deliberately misled the public about climate change for decades. A more liberal court would be an existential threat to them. It’d be worth it to fossil fuel dependent countries to aid this process as well, making it worthwhile to Congressional near-term retirees.

      This is a hedge against a Congress with a record number of women and minorities which is very nearly a sure thing for the 116th.

      Unless, of course, that’s what the massive Facebook hack is about: identifying with intense granularity which voters must be fucked with before mid-term election day.

      • Anon says:

        Oh I agree with you in that respect. In fact after reading your laundry list of interested parties my first thought was “all of the above”. That said my focus was on the calculus of the individuals and I for one never doubted that Flake would flake. And I wholly agree that the Republicans need, in fact demand, a conservative court. Lindsay Grahm said as much today and Ralph Reed and others outside of Congress have been saying it for weeks.

        To me the only open question is whether Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins can stomach playing along with this. Kavanaugh was already roundly opposed by their constituents before this (with the exception of the Oil companies) and while his performance may have made Grassley happy it doesn’t provide much of a fig leaf for people who know that calling an assault survivor “an Attractive Witness” who needs to “get help” is wrong.

      • Eureka says:

        Gee, it’s almost like they knew good evidence for such a case was around for decades, about when FedSoc was founded:

        Shell and Exxon’s secret 1980s climate change warnings | Benjamin Franta | Environment | The Guardian

        The 80s internal data were so on-target that today’s reported 45 admin report is basically an extrapolation:
        Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100 – The Washington Post

        Additional re Facebook:  besides the breach as reported, a family member got a bad malware link in the news feed just last weekend.

      • Howamart says:

        I hope you are right about the blue and pink and purple tide in November, but I’m not as confident. The right has effectively sown a lot of confusion among an already confused electorate (how else could Trump have even got within 3 million votes of Hillary), thrown red meat to bait their base, and could get away with large scale suppression.

  28. Frank Probst says:

    Can someone–a blog, a news site, a dedicated webpage, whatever–post the famous “65 women” letter and put green checkmarks next to the people who still stand by the statements in that letter, red strikeout lines on those who don’t, and big question marks next to the ones who won’t say?  You can have endnotes that say where the information comes from, and ways that the signers can contact the site to state–or change–their support of that letter.  They voluntarily got involved in this.  It’s not unreasonable to ask them if they want to stay involved.

    • Frank Probst says:

      Or what?  If there’s no FBI investigation, will he vote against Kavanaugh?  Because if he’ll still vote for him, this is just political bloviating.

    • Fran of the North says:

      Grassley just shut down the process after Flake’s request for a delay to enable a short focused FBI investigation, “Due to the Two Hour Rule”??? No vote on Flake’s motion.

      Can one of our attorneys comment on this?

      • Peterr says:

        The SJC cannot say “we recommend Kavanaugh to the whole Senate, but you can’t vote on him until a brief FBI background check is done, up to one week.” McConnell has sole control over if/when the Senate votes on anything, and the SJC can’t overrule him.

        Flake’s leverage is that if the investigation doesn’t happen, he says he will not vote to to confirm — and presumably Collins and Murkowski would back him on that. Flake did not make a motion, but stated that he’d vote to approve moving Kavanaugh’s nomination to the floor, but promised to vote against if the vote was railroaded through too quickly. Then the vote happened — but McConnell is stuck. If Trump doesn’t go along and reopen the background check, Kavanaugh is toast (assuming Flake holds firm and gets one more GOP Senator to back him).

        The “Two Hour Rule” that Grassley talked about is a standard Senate rule that says Committees cannot meet past 2pm without the permission of the whole Senate. They had that yesterday, but not today, and Grassley wanted to make sure their vote got taken before 2pm. This is SOP, and has nothing to do with the drama yesterday and today.

  29. AndTheSlithyToves says:

    From the Wayne Madsen Report:
    Two Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee have had good reason to attack women who have come forward with allegations that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted them while they were teens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Orrin Hatch of Utah fear that if any credence is given to Kavanaugh’s accusers, men who they have accosted in the past may be emboldened to reveal their stories.Graham and Hatch, according to our well-informed sources on Capitol Hill and in the state capitals of Columbia, South Carolina and Salt Lake City, Utah, are two of the most closeted gay men in the U.S. Senate. Graham is a never-married bachelor, while Hatch, a Mormon, is married with six children. WMR was informed about Graham by two journalists with South Carolina’s leading newspaper of record, The State, in Columbia. An opposition research official working for Hatch’s 2004 Democratic opponent in the U.S. Senate race provided information on Hatch’s closeted nature. Hatch was a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1991 and he took part in the grilling of Clarence Thomas’s sexual harassment accuser, Anita Hill.

    • Frank Probst says:

      Be VERY careful citing Wayne Madsen.  He thinks that closeted gay people are secretly running just about everything, so you always want verification from at least one other source.  That being said, there have been unconfirmed rumors about Graham for years.  I’ve never heard anything at all about Hatch.

    • bmaz says:

      Wayne Madsen is an absolute batshit nut job. That is not good source material on this blog. Neither is Alex Jones.

  30. bloopie2 says:

    If I could have asked Kavanaugh one question, it would be this:  “Abuse of women (sexual and otherwise) by men does happen, you know; I’m sure even you would admit that.  In your lifetime, how much time have you spent with women discussing their abuse by men?”

  31. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Flake is full of it.  If he were sincere in his desire for bipartisan consideration of a much criticized nominee, he would have used the levers of power available to him.  Instead, in a full blown Obama, he gave away his committee vote before anyone considered his request for a week long investigation.  He failed to tie his floor vote to his colleagues agreeing to that same investigation.  In his work, that’s a tell that he doesn’t really mean what he says and just wants to go home.  He should do that immediately.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Time isn’t the issue.  The Senate and the president have all the time they want.  As rayne always says, the issue will make a politician do what you want.  Flake gave away his leverage to make anything happen by not tying any of his votes to what he wants.

        Surprisingly, if reports about Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski are correct, she will support Flake’s unleveraged request for a week’s delay and FBI investigation.  (There’s a lot of pressure on her back home to vote no.)

        I’m surprised.  It doesn’t mean Mr. Stubborn in the WH will ask for an investigation – certainly .  But it is a signal that Murkowski’s floor vote is at issue.  That’s important.  It’s also leverage Flake chose not to use.

        • Peterr says:

          I disagree. Flake would not have  done this if he didn’t have at least one other Republican ready to back him.

          The other problem Flake had to deal with is that McConnell could bring the nomination forward even if the SJC votes against it. Thus, the leverage you think he gave away wasn’t as strong as you think it is. By doing this, with Murkowski’s support, he boxed in McConnell and Trump.

          He still has to have the guts to follow through, if push comes to shove. But for him to fold at this point would be a real stake in his dreams of being the savior that the GOP turns to in 2020 once Trump flames out beyond redemption.

        • Anon says:

          To a certain extent I think that it is an issue. But that depends upon how this plays out. If Kavanaugh is confirmed after a delay that helps to clear him, or at least gives them a bigger fig leaf, then time is not an issue.

          But the longer this goes on the odds that the other stories will mount up which means that it goes on still longer and push it into the mid-terms. That means two things. First, Republicans running will be stuck talking about the least popular nominee since Bork (and even he is starting to seem good by comparison) rather than touting their accomplishments or whatever dirt they get out of their new hearings with Rosenstein and the others at the FBI. Second, they will have an ever smaller window to vet the next person and to force a vote and after this freakshow they will have less ability to ram it through without it looking hideous. One area where I am in agreement with Lidsay Grahm is that even the cleanest conservative “scholar” will face a long public grilling after this. Where I disagree with him is that I don’t regard that as a problem.

          • Anon says:

            And to be clear when I call this a “freakshow” I am not doing so because I discount the testimony of Dr. Ford or others, quite the contrary. I call it that because of the depressing antics of the Republicans to feign seriousness while doing everything in their power to play up conspiracies and any other shady dodge against them.

        • Geoff says:

          Probably not, but even if they somehow DO decide on a one week investigation, a) it’s not enough time to be thorough, b) they can take the 302s (as DrunkBrett likes to say) and wave them around saying, hey, no conclusion, and c) they KNOW there is never going to be anything more than a he said she said in their view, unless someone recants, or dredges up a new memory, and they are never going to have hard video or physical evidence, so they can go through the motions and just avoid any new evidence just the same way they have done already.

          So this is all just BS. I mean, seriously, as much as I’d love to see an FBI investigation, it’s hard for me to think up what they could come up with that would force the Republicans to pull his nomination. But come on, they should at least be able to bring the other people that are in this story to testify under oath. That said, Brett lied about their statements, and no Democrat called them on it. They just arent doing their job, so how are we expecting them to step up and do it now? This is infuriating.

          It’s pretty obvious already we have a candidate that is so flawed he shouldn’t even be sitting as a judge on traffic court, let alone SCOTUS.

          • MissyB says:

            If “Timmie” from July 1 Calender party notation is Tim Gaudette, he is easily found on Facebook as a Georgetown Prep graduate.  He  could be interviewed to determine where his parents were living at that time. Although he appears to have signed the letter in support of Kavanaugh, he also is well-respected high-profile member of the small business community in city of residency, as well as a member of the LGBTQ community. Perhaps he will re-assess his support if he viewed any portion of Dr. Ford’s testimony yesterday. (Hope this wasn’t too much information.)

      • Peterr says:

        According to the rules of the Senate, committees make a report to the full chamber on each nomination in one of three ways: recommend approval, recommend defeat, or make no recommendation. The Senate can also take up a nomination without a report from the committee.

        McConnell has made it clear that Kavanaugh will be voted on. If Flake had voted no in committee, that does not stop the nomination in its tracks. McConnell still could bring the nomination forward, though the task of getting 50 votes would be tougher.

    • Peterr says:

      I thought he said something along the lines of “I’m voting to move the nomination forward, but not committing my vote on the floor. If this information does not come to the Senate, I’ll vote against confirmation.”

    • Anon says:

      I’m inclined to agree, see my comment above.

      In many ways this is similar to Susan Collins’ “agreement” with Mitch McConnell over the tax vote, or perhaps more similar to Flake’s own “agreement” over that same vote. Neither one enforced anything in the end, they just floundered for a way to excuse themselves for giving up the one power that they had.

    • orionATL says:

      i don’t know any revealing details, and i recognize that politicians make decisions that infuriate us (all the more because we don’t know why).

      nonetheless, what peterr says makes the most sense to me. in fact, flake may already know or sense something is going to bring this nomination to at least a tempory halt. after yesterday’s conflagration, there certainly is a building opposition to kavanaugh and as well to the unseemly hast with which grassley and mcconnell are running this thru the senate. you can run over ordinary folks in the millions and not pay a political price, but running over consequential organizations in society – american bar assoc, yale law school – can get you in trouble. and we don’t know who else is speaking up in private.

      at this parlous juncture, every day gained in non-cert status is serious a loss for kavanaugh, grassley, and mcconnell and a gain for game over.

      and all that’s been learned goes on super-k’s permanent record in america’s memory, particularly after a hurtful decision or two.

      • Eureka says:

        I agree, orion.  I think each additional day gained is helpful to a change in outcome here.  Even if the FBI investigation fails to move votes, events/info in the public arena just might.

        We’ll worry about the next nom when it comes, lol. I hope.

  32. holdingsteady says:

    My friend is posting on Jeff Flake’s Facebook page about this.
    I’m not a Facebook user, but maybe if a large number post there it could change his mind, at least for the larger vote? I know I’m dreaming.

  33. earlofhuntingdon says:

    There was much evidence from this hearing that BK is a high-functioning alcoholic. He started his drinking early, it was heavy and often. He even documented it, as did others, for his high school, college and law school years. That’s ten years running, which makes for a helluva habit to break.

    BK’s belligerent job application interview is evidence that he hasn’t stopped drinking. His artful distinction between falling asleep but not passing out was a tell. That he froze when asked what number of beers would be too much is another. He finally lunged for the legal definition for driving under the influence. That’s absurd. Too much alcohol to drive is about two beers, or one beer an hour. Kavanaugh conveyed no sense that he ever drank that little or that slowly then or now.

    BTW, the MSNBC commentary is vacuous. There’s nothing about this process that gives hope for careful consideration or bipartisanship. The MSM is normalizing Abbie Normal once again.

    Thanks for your excellent, sharp coverage of a complex broken process, one that will have enormous implications for American society for the next generation.

  34. Peterr says:

    I have not looked at Kavanaugh’s calendar, but as parts of it are discussed, it seems to me that the only people mentioned are boys. Despite Kavanaugh’s statement about its completeness, even going so far as to mark out things that didn’t happen, if my sense is right that only boys are mentioned, it puts a dent in Kavanaugh’s comments about the importance of his female friends that he spoke with often.

    • Geoff says:

      That calendar (diary, p.o.s., whatever it is “that is forward and backward looking” HUH?) is as phony as he is. It’s so obvious that it is the type of diary that will only have info that his parents can see and leaves out way more important stuff than it includes. Apparently his parents are too ignorant to ask him what “skis” are. Or he lied to them about it. If that were my son up there at that hearing, I’d have walked out or died of embarrassment. But then again, they created him, and the apple probably doesn’t fall far from the tree. (my dad used to read to us from his diaries that he kept from 1978? OOOOK, that sounds like a REALLY fun household to grow up in.) Excuse me while I ralph, I have a weak stomach.

      • bmaz says:

        Also, should be noted that back in that day, “skis” was also slang for lines of coke. Not that that is going to be investigated either under this bullshit “FBI investigation”.

  35. klynn says:

    Flake and Murkowski…you had the power to do the right thing. If you wanted an investigation, you should have use the power of your no vote. You did not.

    This is to make you feel good and not about putting the best person with the best judicial temperament on the court.


    • Peterr says:

      Murkowski’s not on the Senate Judiciary Committee. She had no vote here.

      Flake, as I said above, could not have stopped the nomination with a no vote here. That would have sent the nomination to the floor with a recommendation that it not be approved. A 10-11 vote would not stop the nomination at that point.

      The power of what Flake and Murkowski have done is to force McConnell to ask for the FBI background investigation to be reopened — which is only powerful if they stick to their decision. McConnell will lean on them hard, but I think this is a stronger play than simply having Flake vote no. It makes it easier to get Murkowski (and Collins, too) to go along.

  36. oldoilfieldhand says:

    Tim Gaudet’s address is likely in his yearbook entry, similar to Kavanaugh’s. Anyone with a yearbook or access to a year book (I’m looking at you FBI) could verify the house description and compare it to Professor Ford’s recollection. Chances are it will be a very similar floor plan to Ford’s description. Is Squi the guy who drove Ford to the party? Did he drive her home and apologize for his drunken friends’ behavior? Ask Tim

    • maybe ryan says:

      Josh Marshall re-tweeted something ultimately from @delwilber saying Gaudette’s house doesn’t entirely match.  The attendees don’t entirely match either, since Ford doesn’t mention Tom, Bernie nor Timmy.  July 1 makes most sense if the group that Blasey Ford describes met before or after “Timmy’s”, since it’d be pretty weird to be at Timmy’s house without Timmy.  Maybe a few of them were gathering ahead of time before driving together to Timmy’s.  Or maybe the night wasn’t that one.

      But, I continue to think there’s something else here.  If she’s at a house and the only people there are Judge, PJ, Kav and Leland Kayser, it’s hard not to believe she’s at one of their houses.  We know from Whelan where they all live, and none are near Columbia Country Club.  They could have driven from Columbia.  But her polygraph said 4 boys.  Which could be consistent with her leaving out a boy in telling this to the Post and Eshoo.  The most logical boy would be her connection to that social scene – her boyfriend.  So the logical place for this event is at Squi’s, with Squi there.

        • Trip says:

          I was trying to figure out what that nick meant. I never heard it before. The urban dictionary has some answers, but I don’t know if any would relate to that era.

          If it’s the first definition, it’s kind of cruel:

          Stupid and ugly fellow. Often triangle-headed with a small face, not very popular neither well liked. Has a tendency to follow others around even when he is not wanted, usually well not leave unless intimidated which is easy as “Squis” are often extremely weak and have the brain of a young child, Do not be associated with a “Squi” or even be remotely friendly as they will latch on to you and you will, in turn become a “Squi”.

  37. Geoff says:

    WP now saying that Judge will speak (if asked) to the FBI. Gee, I wonder what he will say??

    “Uh, I made it all up, no, Brett isnt Bart, no, I dont remember anything.”

    (Thanks for nothing.)

    • Charles says:

      The whole point of an investigation is to cross-compare what people say. For example, Judge says he was a heavy drinker. Who did he drink with? Did Kavanaugh ever pass out as his book seems to suggest? If so, whose car was it–they’d probably remember the episode.  And so on. If they find several people contradict Judge’s account ir if documentary evidence contradicts, they confront him. If it’s a material point, they remind him of the penalties for lying to the FBI.

      A week isn’t much time, but if higher-ups authorize the manpower, it might be done. My real concern is that someone like Brian Benczkowski will limit the manpower or that some other partisan will misdirect the focus of the investigation. A partisan could, after all, look at Ford’s story with an eye to discrediting it, while pretending he was just checking Kavanaugh.

      • Geoff says:

        I understand the point, I am just frustrated because I feel like whatever they have time to dig up, it won’t be enough to change the behavior I just witnessed. There is already ample evidence that this is the wrong person for SCOTUS, and it’s basically been ignored. Having a half ass FBI investigation will just give them cover.

        • Charles says:

          I’m sure that’s what Trump is hoping for. I fear that’s what Brian Benczkowski may be able to arrange. But I hope that the field agents will do justice.

  38. 200Toros says:

    I can’t help thinking – you know what would have been devastating? If BK had walked in, sat down, and looked all calm and peaceful. Tranquil even.

    Senator: You don’t seem to be particularly worried or anxious about these proceedings.

    BK: No, I’m not. (with a faint smile on his face)

    Senator: Why is that?

    BK: Because I’m innocent. Because of that, I’m not overly concerned with these proceedings. ( all calm and easy like)

    THAT, to me, would have been something.

    Instead, we got psycho crazy lying tantrum toddler boy, all emotionally distraught and mentally unstable. It would only have surprised me a little if he had actually thrown himself on the ground, kicking and screaming.
    How ANYONE could view that shameful performance, and think it was a display of the temperament required of a Justice, is beyond me.

    That being said, I hope his family keeps a watch on him this weekend, guy is a serious loose cannon…

  39. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Yep, Marina Hyde at the Guardian has looked into Brett Kavanaugh’s soul. There was nothing staring back. He’s mortgaged it long ago to the Republican Party, which now belongs to Donald Trump.

    That none of them care what or who he is what should scare the pants off everyone. Trump has only derision for the law, because it is meant to rein in people like him. So he doesn’t care what Brett Kavanaugh will do on the Supreme Court, unless it’s change his lifelong habit of kissing up to power to quiet the demons inside his head.

    • pseudonymous in nc says:

      I like Marina a lot, but I think Alexandra Petri’s version was better: she’s nailed down the absurdism that’s necessary for satire these days.

  40. Kim Kaufman says:

    I read on Twitter earlier but can’t find now so fwiw: Mitchell wanted to read Kavanaugh his rights because she determined he was lying about July 1, per the Arizona guidelines she has to follow.

  41. yogarhythms says:

    EW thank you for walking me back from the edge with your ever insightful examination of the record specified in BK’s calendar entry 1JUL82.   Very possible date of CBF sexuaassault… by BK MJ.

     Bmaz’s opinion with citation Stogner v. California, clarifies no criminal prosecution remedy available to CBF. Civil prosecution of. BK looms large. Would any lawyer want to represent CBF v. BK SC associate justice Supreme Court  pro bono or better yet I would gladly contribute to CBK gofundme to advance civil prosecution of BK for CBK sexual assault… sequelae.

    • Frank Probst says:

      Pretty sure that there would be a statute of limitations on civil claims, too, but I obviously defer to @bmaz and the other lawyers on here.

  42. tryggth says:


    [Content removed – appreciate the intended helpfulness behind this but we don’t need visits from the feds, thanks. /~Rayne]

  43. Jenny says:

    Thank you Marcy for the review from yesterday. Personally, I was exhausted & still am exhausted; however proud of Dr. Blasey Ford. She spoke beautifully for ALL individuals who have been violated.

    The contrast was obvious – like day & night. I was struck by the symbolism:

    Eleven Republican white men sitting in a row & a female prosecutor speaking for them to a female witness.

    Eleven Republican white men did not speak to a woman; however did stand up for a man.

    The diverse Democrats were compassionate towards Dr. Blasey Ford, thanking her for appearing & being very sensitive to her past sexual abuse experience.

    The gentle procedure by Rachel Mitchell toward Dr. Blasey Ford wasn’t enough for the old angry Republican white men so they took the anger route.

    Kavanaugh came out angry. Blustering, blaming, bellowing & boasting for about 45 minutes.

    Eleven angry men dropped the female prosecutor & blustered, blamed, bellowed & boasted in order to be heard & look tough.

    Eleven angry men have certainly learned from the Abuser in Chief. Perhaps he will have them all over for dinner at the WH for a cheeseburger & a diet coke.

  44. Frank Probst says:

    For those of you who think a week isn’t much, I disagree.  Even if the FBI investigation gets sabotaged, it’s still a week that more people could come forward to talk about various things.  Kavanaugh was obviously lying about his drinking.  The press will be able to confirm that by talking to his friends from both high school and college.  That story is DEFINITELY going to happen.  There are simply too many witnesses to contain it.  And Dr Blasey Ford was an inspiring profile in bravery yesterday.  She may inspire more women to come forward.

    The other thing to consider is Kavanaugh himself.  Either he was coached to avoid saying that he wanted the FBI investigation to be reopened, or he just couldn’t bring himself to say it.  Neither option looks good for him.  And he was so unstable yesterday that he could have a total meltdown within a week.

    And if the FBI investigation is NOT sabotaged, Kavanaugh is going to have to answer questions about his drinking.  He ended up yelling at a Senator on live television yesterday when those questions were asked, and then he filibustered away the remaining time.  You can’t filibuster the FBI.  The report that comes back on him will not be favorable if it’s done right.  Then the GOP is REALLY going to be in a bind.

    • Geoff says:

      Thanks Frank. I’m feeling dejected after yesterday and appreciate thoughts from more clear heads than mine that can cheer me up.

      I would agree that the drinking angle is the best way to get at him at this point, as there will definitely be many witnesses to this over the years, and from the sound of it, plenty of recent ones.

      • Frank Probst says:

        There are also the “little lies” that he constantly told.  There’s an article up at WaPo right now that parses them all.  They don’t even bother with the “big lies”, like the difference between someone saying something didn’t happen versus someone saying that they simply don’t recall one way or another.  He’s a judge.  He knows the difference.

    • Desider says:

      This 1 week pushes it into October, 1 month before elections. The Gop usually doesn’t like to do its dirty work so close to the goalposts, and it means a lot more women will be paying attention, I.e. half the electorate and still a large chunk of the Republican base. As the look from Kav’s wife makes pretty clear, this isn’t a winning issue for them – and the “abortion uber alles” that justifies this conservative Maginot line may have just been breached.

  45. koolmoe says:

    Thrilled to hear Flake took a stand, even if shaky.
    If the investigation happens, and is not corrupted, this gives time to dig into the other witnesses who were not given time yesterday.
    Why were they not given time…? Perhaps they have deeper stories to tell.
    Avenatti must be thrilled – more screentime!

  46. Frank Probst says:

    I’d like to see the written order from Trump to the FBI if this goes through.  The devil is in the details.  And there have been enough weaselly phrases thrown around today that I want to see it all in writing.

  47. JD12 says:

    A couple of times yesterday Kavanaugh’s statements sounded suspicious if taken literally.

    He said in his opening statement, “We sit here today, some 36 years after the alleged event occurred.”

    Another time he said “The people who were there said it didn’t happen.”

    If you were a prosecutor, would that grab your attention? Wouldn’t an innocent person say “We sit here today, some 36 years after the [event allegedly] occurred?”

    There were a few others. Is that something you would look to cross-examine, or am I just over-analyzing?

  48. tryggth says:

    OK, different thought.

    Isn’t July 1 1982 the first day Brett “I love beer” could legally buy beer? Were all the people in that house legal age?

      • tryggth says:

        What is this “this” you are referencing? Giving alcohol to underage people? No, I don’t think the FBI would give a flying fuck about that. I just think its a little interesting that July 1 was the first day he could buy beer.

  49. Mulder says:

    Apologies if this has been said already but after seeing this Wash Post article  it dawned on me why in particular on July 1 “skis” with Judge, PJ and others merited a calendar entry. It was the day the drinking age in MD changed to 21.

    Duh! (I’m slow and old) I remember being a partying teen fool and this kind of event would have been the perfect reason to really hit it hard. Like starting in the afternoon and then well on into the night.

    See any article on alcohol use and expectancy. A day like July 1 combined with a kid who is already a problem drinker and who when under the influence gets aggressive and or belligerent is a very bad combination.

    • Geoff says:

      I still havent done the math on how old exactly Brett was on that day, so I can’t say how the law would have affected him. I believe that people of a certain age as of a certain date were grandfathered in (someone here mentioned it previously) – I would assume that would cover anyone who was at least 18 for 6 months prior to the date it went from 18 to 21. So far, it seems to me that most of the drinking he was doing was of the underage and non-grandfathered variety, but I could be incorrect.

      Then again, as bmaz has pointed out, this is probably wishful thinking as for topics relevant to a one week FBI extension. But it might be relevant after November if there is ever a move to impeach this schlub.

      update : he wouldnt have even been 17 and a half on July 2, 1982, so perhaps he was going on a bender because he was pissed that instead of having to wait about 6 months to be legal, he was going to have to wait 3 years and 6 months.

      • Mulder says:

        Yes, BK would have been “legal” halfway through his senior year if the law hadn’t changed.

        Trust me on this. I was a drinkin’ fool at that age. I remember when the age change happened and I was several years older. It’s why the “skis” with the boys made the calendar. They were probably all in the same boat. Pissed that they would have to wait another 3 plus years to be legal.

        They likely tried to drink the 100 kegs that night. Among other heinous acts.

        • Geoff says:

          Mostly agree, but you are incorrect on one important point.

          Not to beat a dead horse, but BK would never have been legal his senior year. In fact it’s pretty likely the only people in his entire senior class that would have ever been legal his senior year would be people that were held back a year, of which I doubt many if any existed given the school he went to. Here is the math :

          BK : born Feb 12, 1965, becomes 18 on Feb 12 1983.

          As of end of senior year, presumably June 1982, he is not even 17.5.

          As of July 1, 1982, when the drinking age went from 18 to 21, and grandfathered in anyone 18 as of that date, BK was still not of legal drinking age, be it 18 or 21.

          In order for a person to have been 18 on July 1, 1982, they’d have had to have been born before July 1, 1964, which would have put them squarely in the class that graduated PRIOR to BK’s graduation.

          So again, probably no senior in his class was legal for any part of his senior year, and he most certainly never was of legal drinking age in Maryland until he was 21 in 1986.

          The reason I beat this dead horse to bits is that during the hearing, when he was blathering on about how much he liked beer, and how everyone else liked beer and drank, trying to make himself look normal, he specifically stated how the drinking age was 18 senior year…which, while true, is irrelevant, because he was under age. It was a not so clever way to make it look like he was drinking legally, which he most  definitely was not.

          • Mulder says:

            Mostly agree, Geoff. Note that I said he would have been legal halfway through his senior year (Sept. ’82-June ’83) if the law hadn’t changed.

            He turned 18 in Feb. of ’83

            Meaning that the July 1 date was monumental for him and his drinking buddies. The kind of event perfect for getting extra hammered.

            And yes, I know he was illegally consuming alcohol his entire high school years and much of his undergrad years. Cheers.

          • Rayne says:

            I have been wondering if somebody had a grandfathered older sibling who bought for them. Also wonder if Maryland sold beer in grocery stores — like Safeway. Some states only sell in liquor stores.

            • Mulder says:

              I’m sure he had many willing accomplices  to choose from. I’ve done some policy work on alcohol sales particularly related to underage drinking. I recall Montgomery County MD has a very convoluted set of laws governing their alcohol sales different from the rest of the state. But no shortage of ways to get kegs and other kinds of liquor there or within easy reach in DC and NoVA. Wikipedia has the skinny. Grain of salt implied.

  50. Rusharuse says:

    “Its just the little things that drive me wild”. Alice Cooper.

    Lindsay Graham calls Avenatti “the lawyer for porn stars” but never describes Trump as the “fucker of porn stars”.

  51. zed333 says:

    There are some other things to look into but is speculation:

    1. He was treasurer of the 100 Keg or bust club (yearbook). The circled numbers in his calendar might be the accounting for the club. Mark Judge mentions in his book that in March of senior year they were at 80 kegs. I am willing to bet there is an 80 circled on his calender in the month of March. (not that it matters much, but I find it interesting)

    2. He picked up pictures on August 17th, from the days when pictures had to be developed. I wonder if those pics were from the events of the summer, parties, ect. I know in HS we used to have pictures from our parties, and I am sure some of my friends still have them in some box somewhere.

    3. They documented the quest for the 100 kegs in a fake school paper called the Heritic. Wonder if someone saved some of those in a keepsake box somewhere.

    4. I am assuming given that the drinking age being raised in Maryland when they were at that age was a big deal. I think that occured on July 1, 1983, according to some posts, and could be a good reason to have a get together that night. I am curious if Mark Judge mentions that changing law in his book, since it must have been important for him at that age, though he would have been exempt unlink BK.

    4. Tim is pretty key to this thing since the party was at his house, and he might be willing to talk since his endorsement of BK was fairly mild and he wanted a more moderate justice. It appears people know where he lived in HS now and such.

    • Geoff says:

      zed – see here, the change was in 1982, and as by my calculation, none of BKs drinking at the parties in those calendar months of 1982 was done when he was of legal age, as he was only 17 while in high school, (not even 17 and a half when he graduated) assuming that year book quote is his senior year quote, which it likely was, as only seniors typically got to put in full quotes. Plus he is talking about senior year sports.

      So all of that crap he spewed in the hearing about being legal his senior year was a diversionary tactic; he knew damn well it was illegal and he is just flat out full of shit. He never drank a legal drink in MD until he was 21. Full stop.

  52. Geoff says:

    Follow up to bmaz – according to WP, regarding scope of one week investigation :

    “A background check is not like a criminal investigation; investigators would not use tools such as grand juries, subpoenas and search warrants, meaning potential witnesses could simply decline to be interviewed.”

    So, yeah, this could be pretty circumscribed and end up fairly useless.

    • bmaz says:

      Precisely. And then add on that the reach and timeframe are going to be narrowed from the scope of a full background investigation and….you have a recipe for a fig leaf being handed to the Republican Senators on the edge. The ONLY positive is it gives new organizations a week to dig, if they will do so. Other than that, this is an own goal that was demanded by Dems.

  53. harpie says:

    The last line of this LA Times Story: Former FBI agents say there are clues to follow from dramatic Kavanaugh hearing

    “assault and attempted rape were misdemeanors in 1982 and subject to a one-year statute of limitations” 

    As Alex Burns of the NYT tweets:

    Not the main point of @DelWilber story but this last line really highlights the depth of the hole we are digging out of as a society

  54. X says:

    I’d like to ask the older stalwarts here their opinions of Avenatti’s threat? proposition? to have his client appear on TV and what possible impact it may have?  To me, the potential damage that it may do to public opinion is one thing and the legal, Senate selection impact is another. This may push the public to vote against the Repubs, but it does nothing for the BK selection to the SC. My overall feelings are that BK has already destroyed himself as a SC justice just by his deranged and obviously non-partial statements, but I’m not in charge yet.

    • pseudonymous in nc says:

      I think that if the FBI reach out to Swetnik he should stay away from a camera for once and keep her away too, at least until Mark Judge is tracked down to his safe house.

      • orionATL says:

        in my view, no attorney with a client with negative info on kavanaugh should agree to an fbi interview with that client without a written statement from the fbi that mark judge had been interviewed.

        i know. some will say you don’t make demands on the fbi. i say making a big noise in this charade is very important for your client. easy compliance spells danger!

        • bmaz says:

          Well, you can refuse to talk to them. They don’t have subpoena or grand jury power for a background investigation. So you have that.

          • earlofhuntingdon says:

            The odd person that refuses to bear witness would not be an issue.  A pattern of refusals – or a pattern of “Raymond Shaw is is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever met,” – and I think you’d have a problem.

  55. Anon says:

    Part of the reason the Republicans spent such effort to get things done today was to avoid having to address the other two outstanding accusations, that of the drunken flashing and the gang rape. If Dr. Ford testifying would be bad optics there is no way testimony about actual gang rape would be better.

    The FBI has now been directed to investigate all “reasonable” outstanding claims which means they either decide that those are reasonable and address them, something the Republicans on the committee worked very hard to avoid, or they dismiss them out of hand and have to explain why they care about one attempted assault but not actual rape.

    Thus while this one week pause gives McConnell time to hector Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, it also gives time to air other accusations that will look far far worse.

    • Eureka says:

      I think he lied about involvement in gang rape.  He swallowed that “No” when Lindsey Graham yell-asked.  Whether he may be a witness or climate creator or more direct participant, who knows.  I hope Julie Swetnick’s claims are included in the investigation.

  56. Rusharuse says:

    FBI following another trail of breadcrumbs . .

    “The FBI is Now Investigating the Shady Vice Squad That Cuffed Stormy Daniels
    The Ohio vice squad that arrested Stormy Daniels at a Columbus strip club this summer is now under federal investigation.
    On Thursday, Columbus police chief Kim Jacobs announced the FBI’s Public Corruption Task Force is probing her agency’s vice section for criminal activity in light of “high-profile incidents,” including Daniels’ motorboating bust and the fatal shooting of a 23-year-old woman during a prostitution sting operation.”

  57. greengiant says:

    Kavanough has been a life time GOP rat fucker, including the 2000 Florida recount ground zero of GOP rat fucking elections. His nomination is ramming GOP evil into the body politic. Rachel Mitchell July 1 question is not necessarily an own goal. They are raising the energy level of their base. Her departure was a victim head tap, counting coup, theft for the pleasure of the GOP saying they own America, GOP knows Kavanough is scum and wants everyone to know it.

  58. oldoilfieldhand says:

    Drinking teens I knew back in the late sixties and early seventies consumed whatever they could get on weekends but were straight arrows doing the week while still in school. When I was in junior high school, rumor was that some of the kids would sneak beers from their parents’ refrigerators. One or two beers was the maximum they could get away with so no heavy drinking occurred. It was always boys.

    I didn’t drink in high school or college because my mother asked me to promise not to drink, smoke or get a tattoo until I was 21 and the reward would be my matured life insurance policy. I had four brothers and a sister who were offered the same deal and I was the only one who collected.

    At 17 I was self critical because the other seniors, and some of the juniors on my high school football team would often vomit during Saturday practices, due to what I thought at the time was extreme exertion. I never did vomit, so I thought of myself as a semi-slacker since I was able to endure the extended workouts without losing my breakfast. Not dedicated, not giving my all, like the guys stepping out of the huddle to barf and then getting back up to run another play. I honestly had no idea that they were drinking, some smoking too, after the Friday night games because we had all taken a pledge to abstain from drinking alcohol or smoking while on the team. I graduated from a high school with more than 4,000 students and it had an outdoor smoking section under the porte-cochere where smokers gathered rain or shine as school buses delivered their early morning loads and filled with students going home in the afternoons. It never entered my mind that those guys were sick from consuming alcohol in after game celebrations.

    Later, I learned that friends, big brothers and sisters who were of legal age and even strangers could be enlisted to purchase alcohol legally and then illegally supply it to underage drinkers, but I still didn’t drink until I was 25, not having acquired a taste for beer or liquor in my teens.

    Full disclosure, (my Mother doesn’t use the internet so I don’t expect to be confronted about this at Thanksgiving.) I bought a bottle of vodka for my little sister (17) and her high school senior girlfriends in 1979 when I was visiting during homecoming weekend 10 years after my graduation. My guess is that this type of behavior isn’t particularly uncommon. The girls begged me and promised they would not drive.  That was enough for the newly aware 27 year old former goody two shoes who had been a light social drinker for 2 years by then.

    I have known a lot of heavy hitters since then. Many beeraholics, wine imbibers and a lot of  brandy, cognac, straight gin and vodka consumers, specialists who function at a high level when isolated from alcohol on deepwater oil exploration vessels, but who become hopeless and frequently mean drunks as soon as alcohol was available. Brett Kavanaugh reminds me of them. Two weeks into a 28 day rotation on an isolated drilling vessel, they were as responsible, amiable, competent and hardworking as anyone onboard. But the first few days into their forced alcohol deprivation, they were irrational, short tempered and forgetful; bullying subordinates with loud voices and searing comments, frequently becoming overly emotional, sharp tongued, and occassionally vindictive. People have been hurt working with them. No idea how many disasters and deaths can be attributed to alcohol deprivation at sea, but I have seen with my own eyes the wrecks that some of them became as soon as alcohol was available at the first shoreside bar.

    Prior to September 11, 2001, sober during long distance travel, I dragged them from their hotel room beds to the shower to wash off the vomit before loading them into busses and carrying them onto airplanes (if they hadn’t shat themselves), drunk and disorderly; because I was responsible and refused to leave my crew members behind in Africa, Indonesia, Europe, Australia, Asia, South America, Greenland or Alaska. I wouldn’t try to carry a drunk onboard an international flight today, but in the eighties it was a common occurrence. Few of them could get on airplanes or helicopters now since drug and alcohol screening has become routine.

    Brett Kavanaugh reminded me of my daily dealings with those “heavy hitters” in their first week of alcohol withdrawal. Did he decide to, or was he forced to stop drinking for the purpose of  being clinically sober to coast through his coronation hearing? Hard to say, but I clearly recognized the personality change yesterday. I have seen it hundreds of times.

    I watched his wife while America and the world listened to his self-pitying ranting and raving, blaming his caustic indignation on the treatment his family has been subjected to since Dr Ford’s allegations became cable news headlines. I felt immense sympathy for Mrs Kavanaugh and for their children. They are going to be miserable until he seeks and responds to professional help. I pity them when he is rejected. A week is a long time, especially for a nasty drunk. I predict that more women and men will be coming forward…

  59. holdingsteady says:

    maybe ryan –
    my reply button isn’t working so I know this will be in an odd spot on the thread, but thanks much… squii isn’t central, just trying to live his life as a middle school teacher,
    edited to say, wish I couldve put this in the right spot,
    why does reply button not work

    • maybe ryan says:

      Curious why you say so?  Do you know him or know someone who does?

      He may not be central in the sense of having a huge amount of information.  But he is certainly quite literally central – he is the person who brought Ford into the orbit of Kavanaugh.

      • holdingsteady says:

        Thanks for your ideas and analysis.  The truth is, I am not keeping up.  I have no personal connection, just feeling a bit bad for the guy.  I’ll go back to reading and waiting for more news.

  60. Bri2k says:

    The beer thing was a huge tell for me. I’ve known a few alcoholics who switched from the hard stuff to beer rationalizing it as being ok since they weren’t knocking back liquor.

  61. earlofhuntingdon says:

    When debating Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, bear in mind that he’s submitted a job application.  In America, that opens the candidate to all manner of incivilities, which Brett Kavanaugh would be the first to defend.

    If he were applying for a job as a retail clerk, he could be turned down for not fitting a crude psych profile, for contesting an illegal question, or for not looking like a model.

    Legal or not, he could be turned down for having a low credit score or for having “too much experience” (being too old), for being too short or too fat, or for looking like he might use his healthcare benefits.  He could be turned down because an unseen algorithm refused to look at his resume.

    Legal or not, he could be fired for demanding to be paid overtime or for wanting to join a union.  He could be fired for lying on his resume or for a loose comment or age-old inappropriate behavior recorded on social media.  He could be fired for missing a day’s work, for smoking or drinking, for being pregnant or likely to become pregnant.  Or for no reason at all.

    Welcome to America, Brett.

  62. Avattoir says:

    There’s several points in the comment(s?) by jayedcoins @ 11 a.m. yesterday that intrigue. I favor most of the comments there (tho notably not the comment about Lindsay Graham: I don’t see that as fundamentally lying, but rather fundamentally performing for the approval of other boys, the males in his posse on the R side plus Trump, & to THAT end, he was sacrificing all except pretense at accuracy, fairness & the search for truth to the extent he considered necessary to take from Kavanaugh the burden of wanking for himself & doing an understandably more liberated performance of wanking for him & the other male Rs).

    On the matter of Squi, my perspective is colored by my own experience & knowledge of how my own brain works. Skip this part if you think it too self-indulgent, but I’m driving at a bottom line of DOMINANCE, not just males over females but males over other males.

    My own behavior pattern in this goes back as far as I can recall, tho particularly when I happened on a scene when I was still not a teen of two older bigger boys doing something I didn’t have a full understanding of until a bit later, being anally raping a male classmate, with them laughing as he wailed in fear & pain. I don’t know if my presence of standing there or that plus my yelling (“I’m gonna tell!!”) caused it to end, but the older boys zipped up & left as I went to my classmate & said I’d walk him home. He was sobbing & mortified, but he declined, repeatedly (“Go AWAY!! Don’t tell ANYONE!!”).

    All thru my childhood & well into college, I never saw or experienced anything like this sort of behavior from girls on boys, but lots of it (tho of course not so awful) by boys on boys, parallel to boys bonding in dismissiveness of girls. I suspect this was built into my family’s dynamics, with 2 very strong well-educated reflexively courageous liberal parents, but whenever I acted up or out thru my youth, it was always against boys, including arrays of boys. There was something about the boy pack that made my blood boil up & my reaction to such arrays was defiance: I’d always challenge (It helped being known as something of an athlete, with a willingness to fight for whoever was being attacked or abused; I suspect this is really more of a general trait that’s fairly common among a certain type of court lawyers.).

    But not with girls, or females of any age. Almost all those who left the largest impressions on me were women: mother, grandmothers, aunts, sisters, teachers, classmates, friends. And tho I didn’t need to be told, I learned early on about their vulnerability to physical dominance & being taken advantage of – and with that, because I was sympathetic, ‘safe’ and trusted, how MANY of them – almost all – had her own story or stories about sexual abuse & manipulation by dominant boys.

    One incident in particular strikes me as bearing similarity to the dynamics of what was happening with the assault on Ms Ford. During the summer between senior year high school & freshman college, I was among dozens of high school friends of both genders at a lake event that went on several days. There wasn’t drinking or drugs involved – the gathering largely involved kids whose lives intersected at a church-based youth club.

    My senior prom date and sometime-girlfriend was among them; we were drifting apart for reasons that would be obvious to any neutral observer, so the gathering held no interest for me as an opportunity for sex. But also in the group was this boy from another school who for whatever inane reason was my self-appointed ‘rival’; I wasn’t his – it’s not how I thought anyway, but there was nothing I admired in him, tho objectively he was a strong student & handsome. He was always taking verbal shots at me, trying to provoke me to attack him – something I wouldn’t do: I only defended others & just myself to physical attacks. Words were just words, mostly stupid & full of personal agenda & narcissism.

    So after failing at that over the course of any evening, his last ploy was to grab my girl friend onto his lap & giggle at me. This was just too stupid & tiresome: I left & went off to bed. Sometime after I started sleeping, he came into my cabin, accompanied by my girl friend, & started saying really repulsive young lion things. I got up & asked her how she was & if she was okay with this, and she said nothing but left, and he after her. Unfortunately that idiot & I were in the same college for the next several years & he’s remind me of this at every chance, started with ‘So how’s x doing?’ – particularly idiotic given she was fine & we were still friends like we’d been in high school, both of us going out with lots of different people. But idiot boy had some moronic archetype in his head & wouldn’t let it go, despite many of our mutual friends telling him he was being an ass.

    Anyway, the whole stupid business only ended when I went far away to law school. I spoke with the girl from time to time on coming him as she was friend with my sisters & mother. Nothing changed between US. She got married with children, I got married with children, which I could say the same of dozens of other girls & young women. But I did come back to the same city to practice law, which got me a lot of notoriety in the local press. And when there was a 1o class year reunion, he actually showed up at THAT (not even his old school, but his old friends). But at that, each of my girl friend & I were there with our respective spouses (We all sat at the same table: she’d married this HUGE former football lineman.), & he was solo, & awkward & pretty much shunned by all, reduced to a running joke by most at the reunion, & that was the last that most of us saw of him as he moved away & never returned.

    That was all about attempts at MALE DOMINANCE. I knew it, my former girl friend knew it, all our mutual friends knew it. That’s what I strongly suspect was going on with Ms. Ford & her boy friend ‘Squi’ & those two horrible drunken boys who tried to take advantage of her: ‘nailing’ her, & ‘nailing’ Squi as well, because the wimp was dating the obviously available young piece of prey and wasn’t even gettin’ any.

    • Trip says:

      Thanks for that comment. It holds a lot of wisdom and I think it’s likely accurate about the dynamics of Squi and Ford et al.

    • Horses says:

      Bleeding Christ. Male sexual dominance is a thing. But it shouldn’t be that. It can be aggressive but it’s supposed to be honest and ideally should be unreservedly feminist and respectful.
      My God. We have so much work to do.

  63. Avattoir says:

    Crap: I posted the above before reading fearless leader’s twitter feed this morning. The two – my comment above & Marcy’s points about what looks pretty much like a conspiracy between Kav & Whelan (at least) to, AOTs, make a false accusation of a third party & to interfere with the national interest in a fair & honest confirmation process (such as it was) – don’t actually conflict, but as usual the resident sleuth was way out ahead of me.

    I did post a comment SOMEWHERE over the last week where I specifically raised how much “darker” I figured the truth to be than even what we were all able to see about this nominee, so at least I’ve got that going for me.
    Well done, Marcy: exceeding everyone’s expectations, even those of us who’ve known for years this. is. what. you. do.

  64. oldoilfieldhand says:

    One thing I forgot to add to my memory of functioning alcoholics is their propensity to initially blame mistakes on subordinates but then resist disciplinary actions because “all people make mistakes, and __________________ is a good and very capable person whose permanent record should not be tarnished with a little mistake”.
    Heard it multiple times. The problem then, as now, is that deliberate and careful analysis of the incident including a timeline of events (standard incident investigation criteria) doesn’t support the conclusions made by a high functioning alcoholic to divert the responsibility for personal decisions resulting in mistakes. In a remote location, accessible only by helicopter or boat, miles offshore a foreign country, one tends to work with the people one has to eliminate the short-handed wait for a replacement who may or may not have the requisite level of expertise or familiarity with equipment or procedures in use. Weeks after the incident, after a few drinks in a bar, the incident seemingly forgotten, has been replaced with other, more pressing issues and hopefully overlooked in the big picture, provided there was no major equipment damage or injuries.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      The monster of self-knowledge and accompanying guilt linger on the edge of consciousness.  They have to be kept at bay through any means necessary.  Family, friends, and work pay the price.

  65. Willis Warren says:

    This comment section is just amazing. Thank you all. Two years ago, Nate Silver led me here and it’s been the most intellectually stimulating (and infuriating) two years since grad school. `

  66. Tom says:

    Just wondering how Kavanaugh gets his beer; i.e., is he a well-known figure at the beer stores in his neighbourhood? Does he go to several beer stores to spread out his business and disguise how much he actually buys? Do some of his buddies buy beer for him? Does he have his beer delivered? If so, how much, how often, and who delivers it? Could this information be gathered by checking with Kavanaugh’s local beer stores, or would employees be prohibited from releasing information about their customers? Or is detailed information about Kavanaugh’s beer purchases/consumption worth the trouble of finding out?

    • Peacerme says:

      Having been married to an alcoholic for years (who is now sober), my answer won’t help:

      His wife picks it up at the grocery store along with all his other supplies and I’d be willing to bet he drinks more than beer!

      • Doctor My Eyes says:

        One of the purposes of the beer gambits has to do with “optics”, which is a thing that shouldn’t even exist. Americans like their beer.  A fine upstanding American man will have a beer after a hard day driving his enormous fucking pickup truck. (I know, I know, many fine people drive pickup trucks.) If it weren’t for beer (and cars) we wouldn’t even have football.  If anyone on his team is worth a cent, he was coached to stress the beer. And others on his team, according to appearances, have been busy supporting the right to drink beer on social media. The version they seemed to have landed on as most effective, gaslighting-wise, is “Is it illegal to drink beer now?” The “now” connects this remark to all the other crushing demands put on America by the teensy minority of politically-correct sissies who don’t drink enough beer and who want America to be a place of kindness and respect. These socialists are repressing good men like Kavanaugh.  And when these angry put-upon men go too far because they don’t give a shit about political correctness, they want you to know that it wasn’t really them–it was the beer. Here’s a simple test.  See how hard it is to conger in your mind’s eye a bar full of men chanting, “I like beer! I like beer!” See, that’s why they want Kavanaugh.  That’s why they wanted W.  They wanted a man they could sit down and have a beer with, not some policy wonk who runs the country well enough but doesn’t think about beer enough.

        On a personal note, it’s hard to stay away, This kabuki is too enticing,  They always make me think there is a chance that good will triumph. Thank you for the kind words. I still plan to be scarce. It’s just that no one had mentioned the “beer” propaganda, and it’s a part of the show.

        Thanks for this site.  I’ve been sending Marcy’s clarity to friends with the subject line, “It’s not he said/she said”.

    • Frank Probst says:

      Fake IDs were more common back then than they are now, and they were a lot less sophisticated.  I got my driver’s license in Virginia in 1987, and I remember it being three paper cards with dot matrix printing on it.  I’m not even certain that it had my photo on it.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Those who stay close can end up enabling, helping to maintain a declining status quo.  The alternatives seem more threatening.  Without information, help, and social acceptance, they often are.  It lowers the monthly bills, but balloons the total payout.  No good answers.

  67. Raymond Payne says:

    So, there was a statute of limitations on sex crimes when Kavanaugh was in high school, isn’t there evidence that he was an officer (treasurer) of an organization (the 100 keg club) the successfully conspired to supply alcohol to minors. was there a statute of limitations on that?
    Does Maryland have a state RICO law?

  68. Bobster33 says:

    Given the silence by all participants, I am reminded that for most people, early sexual or embarrassing sexual experiences are never talked about. Plus add in the fact that illegal drug use and theft of parents’ prescriptions, etc. I think that Squee and Renate are keys. Both need to be offered immunity. However, I suspect that shame, guilt embarrassment would be very strong locks on the truth coming out.

  69. David Ihde says:

    What a bunch of nonsense here. Kavanaugh had every right to be pissed. Conflating Judge’s drinking with Kavanaugh is poor writing and analysis. The problem with July 1st is that every one named by Ford has no idea what she’s talking about including her best friend. Ford’s account of how many were there and the mix has changed a number of times. Her best friend also says she has never met Kavanaugh with or without Ford. I think if he and Judge were as drunk as Ford claims, I think she would have remembered that. Especially since only six were there. Funny how Ford says that her friend probably doesn’t remember because it was an unremarkable party. Two very drunk people at a six person get together is not unremarkable. Nice try Ford.

    And I don’t think Mitchell’s line of questioning started with the July 1st entry either.

  70. Rayne says:

    I’m going to note here I’ve seen a lot of similarities in comments by pro-Kavanaugh folks who are intent on bashing Dr. Ford. The arguments sync with items in Rachel Mitchell’s memo addressed to the Senate Judiciary Committee but provided to its GOP members. The memo is flawed as is Mitchell’s assessment — how can she come to a legitimate conclusion when Mitchell says certain information is lacking, Dr. Ford was willing to help with producing it but she’s lacked access to the information, and a limited FBI investigation won’t provide what’s missing?

    An assault survivor doesn’t deserve the bashing arising from this half-assed confirmation process and subsequent half-assed investigation. Kavanaugh could provide a lot more details to fill in the blanks but he, the GOP SJC, and the White House are studiously deterring any fact finding.

    It would behoove persons who work with children and teens to think about their own response were one of those minors to come to them and tell them they’ve been assaulted as 15-year-old Christine Blasey had been. What would such a victim say about them in 5, 15, 30 years? Would they say they’d been blamed or bashed, disbelieved? Would they say any investigation had been incomplete?

  71. on the nickel says:

    maybe the best hope for truth is the press…  if they investigate the other witnesses who have come out publicly it will be difficult to ignore,  witness Rameriz today with the text from Kavanaugh dated earlier than the New Yorker publishing.

    • Rayne says:

      I don’t know who that jackass is in that video — I’m a little twitchy about guys with a Slavic given name and a French last name speaking in a faintly Aussie/Kiwi accent going off about American politics. His analogy right out of the gate is flawed; the Democratic Party booted Senator Franken out the door on the say-so of a right-wing female accuser at a time when Dems could ill afford the loss, especially one of our better senators.

      That dude can bite me.

Comments are closed.