I usually leave my home around 6 AM to drive the 27+ miles to the school where I teach. As a political junkie, my normal habit is to tune my satellite radio to Morning Joe and listen as I drive leisurely for around 40-45 minutes. This morning I found myself starting to grit my teeth as in the first 20 minutes I heard misstatements, distortions, and misunderstandings. I turned it off and started making notes in my mind. This post is the result.
First, and this is specifically to Mika: at the time of the alleged (and I use that term only to be legally correctO) event, there was NO statute of limitations for serious sexual offenses in Maryland. As far as I know, that is true today, meaning in theory if the charge could be true Kavanaugh could still be tried in a Maryland court. Further, at the time (but not now) there was in Maryland (but not now) no minimum age at which a juvenile could be tried as an adult, including in theory being subject to capital punishment (which of course would not have been applicable in this case.
Second, this is NOT just a case of two people. There was according to Dr. Ford a third person in the room, she told her husband in general terms about the assault around 2002, and she told her therapist in specific terms in 2012. That makes three possible witnesses who could be questioned under oath by the FBI as part of a background investigation, something that would be of particular value given the refusal of Senator Grassley to call any of them as witnesses.
There is now more that the FBI could examine, but I will return to it later.
But beyond what I heard, there are also several major issues with what is happening.
First, according to a letter sent to the Judiciary Committee by the lawyers for Ford, the original invitation to testify next Monday would have had Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh sitting at the same table. Might I suggest that if a woman had been involved in drafting that invitation the sheer idiocy of that might have prevented that from going out in that way. It is hard enough for a woman who has been sexually harassed or — as in this case — abused to even publicly acknowledge what happened. To ask her to be sitting with the person she accuses of having abused her is idiotic, and seems intentionally or otherwise to intimidate her, especially as this would be her first time before a Congressional Committee, something Kavanaugh has experienced before.
Next, an FBI inquiry might well be able to find other relevant witnesses. At least one journalist has reported the possible existence of two women that Ford told contemporaneously. Please note — in her statement to the Washington Post she said she had not previously told anyone in detail. If she were willing to provide the names of anyone to whom she even made reference to the event in real time, the FBI could question those people under oath, and that might provide SOME corroborating information.
The FBI could also question high school classmates and beyond about whether or not Kavanaugh did regularly drink heavily, whether there are incidents like throwing up “documented” by classmate Judge in his book. This btw leads to questions that would be appropriate to ask Kavanaugh in an open hearing about his drinking, which for the record was against the law anyplace until he was 21, unlike when I was young when the drinking age for NY, DC and I believe LA was 18 for anything, and in the Upper Midwest it was 18 for 3.2 beer. Heck, I enlisted in the Marines and we could on base drink beer or wine (but not hard booze) in the E-Club, and if you had made it to corporal before you were 21 you could get anything you wanted in the NCO club.
Third, while the therapist’s notes do not include Kavanaugh’s name, the FBI could question the therapist under oath as to whether Ford shared the name, and if so, why the therapist did not write the name down (there could be lots of valid reasons for that happening).
Fourth, and to me this is a real problem. Kavanaugh has spent the last two days at the White House — not functioning as a judge. During that time he has been calling Republican Senators and asserting his innocence. Once the invitation to testify before the Committee was made, any such call was clearly improper, both for Kavanaugh to make and for Senators to take. One can argue that once any Republican on Judiciary stated a desire to hear from Smith — to reopen the hearing — any such call was improper.
I am not even going to attempt to address the clear bias of Cornyn, Grassley, Graham, and Hatch, who have even before the hearing made statements effectively dismissing anything to which Ford might testify. I am going to note that giving less than a week’s notice with the invitation fits the pattern of this nomination, where much relevant information has been hidden, and much of what was released was with insufficient notice for it to be fully examined and vetted. The refusal to call contrary witnesses is also an abuse of power. In the Anita Hill / Clarence Thomas brouhaha, which also occurred after the original hearing had closed, the FBI apparently did further background investigation, and Republicans were allowed by Chairman Biden to call witnesses supportive of Thomas.
One more thing about Hill/Thomas — at one point Thomas was under withering questioning and appeared ready to blow his top / explode when Ken Duberstein, then at the White House, sitting behind Thomas, held up his hands in the classic call for a time-out and Biden granted it, which allowed Thomas to compose himself and not explode. I have not seen similar graciousness to Democrats being questioned by Republican chaired committees in either the House or Senate in recent years.
I realize that the supposed justification for pushing the nomination through is supposed to be to have a full Court of 9 on the first Monday in October when the Court next officially sits. But given the willingness of the Republicans to leave a vacancy for more than a year without even granting Merrick Garland a hearing (much less a vote) that argument rings hollow. The Court can function with less than 9. Many issues are not divisive. And if the court is divided, it can always choose to have the case reargued. That in fact happened with a case that Kavanaugh called one of the Court’s greatest decisions, Brown v Board.
I wish pundit would get their facts straight.
Let me add this. Ford gave the name of the third person in the room. Ask yourself, how would she have known that Kavanaugh and Judge were close enough in high school that in his recounting of his own high school days Judge had described Kavanaugh (under a slightly modified last name) as drinking almost as heavily as he did? There are only two ways. She could have read Judge’s book and been able to figure out the reference, although that is highly unlikely. Or she knew the names — both of them — because of what happened to her when she was 15 years old.
And finally — Kavanaugh may well have no memory of the incident, especially if he were stumbling drunk. Thus in theory he might “pass” a polygraph on that question. But what about if asked on the box if he ever drank enough where he did not remember incidents??? If he admits to that, what does that mean in this case?
At one point in my life, in my early 20s, I was a very heavy drinker, and a bit less so when I was a Marine starting at age 19. I can remember details about all of my drunken episodes except on 12 hour period — that I could not scared me enough to stop drinking so heavily.
I offer that only to say that I would not disqualify Kavanaugh because he drank way too much. Here I think of the late Harold Hughes, Senator from Iowa, who got sober and became a distinguished civil servant. Similarly, I can think of Hugo Black being in the KKK as a young man and then becoming a distinguished Justice who strongly supported Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. People can grow up and acknowledge their mistakes when younger, and we tend to forgive.
Where is Kavanaugh’s acknowledgement of his previous misdeeds? What about all the noxious and unbalanced and biased actions he took while working for Ken Starr? Why has he not insisted his records in the Bush White House be released so he can defend his actions?
I look at that pattern and I would have a hard time believing him in this instance. I see a pattern of less than completely honest and balanced behavior.
I have known women who did not talk for years about sexual assaults. A woman I know now in her 60s just told me about a (far milder than what Ford recounts) sexual assault she experienced in Europe. When she was in her 20s!!!! I believe this is the first time she has ever mentioned it to anyone.
I believe Dr. Ford suffered a trauma. I have no reason whatsoever to doubt her recalling the names of Kavanaugh and Judge. I believe it probable that Kavanaugh committed a felony as a 17 year old while drunk, a crime for which he could have been charged as an adult and for which he is still under Maryland law liable for prosecution.
Even before this story broke I did not think he should be elevated to SCOTUS.
With this story, I do not think he should be on any Court.
Just to get a few things straight.
And as Avenetti would say, BASTA!
----—
UPDATE: just after I posted this, I went to Twitter and encountered this tweet:
If what Cristina King Miranda is saying is true, that the incident in question was spoken about (even without names) in a contemporaneous fashion, that is more evidence for the FBI to examine. At a minimum, they should interview her. If in fact the White House will not direct the FBI to reopen the background check
1 — Dems in the Senate should send staffers to interview
2 — Washington Post, you now have a lead to follow.
UPDATE 2: as noted in a number of comments, the above tweet has now been deleted. That does not mean it was not real — author could have received responses that were hateful & threatening. But we cannot rule out possibility that it was not real. Should be pretty easy to verify that such a person attended Holton Arms at the time.
And as I noted in the main part of the post, at least one reporter has mentioned two other women telling him that Dr. Ford told them about the event (not necessarily Kavanaugh’s name) in real time.
UPDATE 3: The woman has explained why she deleted the tweet. Of greater importance, she knew all 3 in that room, and writes more in detail on Facebook, as Jay Bookman explains/offers in this tweet: