Sad

[chris_gerrib]

At this hour, it looks like the Senate will move to confirm Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court. They may get one Democratic vote but it will be otherwise party line. This despite the fact that Kavanaugh is a liar and clearly not of a judicial temperament. This is a shame.

When, eventually, the Democrats regain control of government and either impeach Kavanaugh or pack the court to nullify him, I expect the same group of Republicans to whine at high volume about the violation of norms. That will be a shame. When one engages in naked partisanship, one should expect to get called on it.

Comments

One question remains

[malobukov]

I’ve been following this story trying to get an answer to the following question. Suppose (for the sake of argument) that Kavanaugh is not guilty. How can he prove it?

In response I’m usually asked to choose who do I believe (which is irrelevant), or told that this is impossible and the question now is only what exactly Kavanaugh is guilty of (which goes against Cromwell’s rule).

I have no idea what happened at those parties thirty years ago, but I find it surprising that so many people seem to know for sure who’s right and who’s wrong here.

Re: One question remains

[chris_gerrib]

well, that's the thing. Kavanaugh has made no effort to refute the charges. He hasn't offered witnesses to talk about his drinking habits nor has he offered evidence that he wasn't at the party in question. What he HAS done is attack anybody who has the temerity to ask him about these events. This is not the actions of somebody who knows they are innocent. These are the actions of somebody who either doesn't remember what happened or is concerned that he is in fact guilty.

Let me clarify

[malobukov]

I’m not talking about drinking or being at the party. I’m talking about attempted rape and attempted murder. How can Kavanaugh prove he’s not guilty of that (again, we’ll assume for the moment that he’s not guilty).

Re: Let me clarify

[chris_gerrib]

Provide witnesses. People who saw him at the party. People who will show he was someplace else. People who will show he wasn’t a mean drunk. So far, all the witnesses have been on Fords side.

That's my point

[malobukov]

If that event did not happen, then there can be no witnesses. He can't possibly have an alibi, if only because the time or place is not known. And absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Re: That's my point

[chris_gerrib]

Except Ford, in her testimony, did provide a specific date and place. She also gave the Senate and the FBI a list of corroborating witnesses. Had the FBI or the Senate actually investigated as opposed to making a token effort we would know the truth.

Re: That's my point

[malobukov]

Reuters reports that "Ford, who testified last week at an extraordinary Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, said she could not remember the precise date or location of the alleged assault".

But let's say the FBI does a good job, questions all the witnesses identified so far, and the witnesses say they know nothing. Remember this is a purely hypothetical situation, in which Kavanaugh is not guilty, so the witnesses cannot possibly know anything. That still does not prove Kavanaugh is innocent, does it? With new allegations appearing almost daily, how can we be sure that nobody will step up to the plate tomorrow and credibly accuse Kavanaugh?

Re: That's my point

[chris_gerrib]

You have answered your own question. If Kavanaugh wasn’t a mean drunk in high school and college, a generic allegation wouldn’t be credible. But since it appears he was a mean drunk and subject to alcoholic blackouts, any new allegations will automatically have some credibility. Simply put, he is an unreliable witness to his past.

Now if he were to admit that he had a drinking problem when he was younger, I and most people would cut him some slack. But his refusal to admit that means he gets no slack from me.