Kavanaugh Hearing part 2

I managed to watch the rest of the hearing today. K did not hold back in his condemnation of the Dems in his opening address!

I was somewhat surprised about the weepy parts. You don’t expect it from a judge. Perhaps he was coached to fight fire with fire, but I am not sure that it was to his credit. Mind you, being Americans, it would not surprise me if the same people who dabbed their eyes when Ford was emoting did not also dab their eyes when Kavanaugh was emoting.

Again, the whole thing was a farce. But I am not sure that I could have done any better than K did. How do you answer a question like: “Would you like the FBI to investigate? Yes or no”. I might have been tempted to reply: “Investigate what? How Ms Ford’s confidential letter was leaked to the press? How she spoke anonymously to the Washington Post and was then interviewed by a reporter? Who set this thing up to try to discredit me as late in the process of confirmation as possible?”

There was also the strange demand from the Dems to interview ‘witnesses’. But the other people who might have been there had already made statements, under threat of committing a felony by lying, that they had witnessed nothing since the ‘party’ had never taken place, even her friend. One Dem (at least one) said that it would be nice to have the ‘witnesses’ appear before the committee so that the committee could judge their ‘credibility’. Erm, but they had nothing to say to the committee since they swore that the event never took place. What sort of kangaroo court would have ensued?

“Did you know Ms Ford?”

“Who?”

“Her name was Christine Baisley at the time”

“Do you have a photo of her from that time because we rarely knew the surnames of the people from the girls school?”

Photo passed round (not the one with her legs wide open).

“Can’t say that I remember her at all”

And so on. So then the Dems say that they did not find that ‘witness’ credible.

Since appearances before such committees are totally voluntary, who in their right mind would submit themselves to such an inquisition? But that is the clever trick, is it not? If you refuse to submit, then you must have something to hide, therefore you are not credible.

But, as was pointed out numerous times, the FDA would not make a judgement. All it would do was submit the answers to questions. It cannot exactly torture people who have not been accused of anything.

Personally, I think that K’s calendar was a killer piece of evidence. He wrote down events that he intended to attend or had attended and who was there. There was no mention of the event in question. Why not? The absence of any mention of that event is as near as you can get to evidence that the event never took place.

There have been so many other things which were never questioned, such as why Ford did not get her friend to leave the party with her and tell her what happened. Why did she leave her friend behind to be raped by four guys? How old was her friend? And when she left the house, how did she get home? What time was that? Who picked her up and took her home?

But reading some comments elsewhere, it seems that the facts are no longer relevant. The question now is about the characters of the Senators on the committee. It appears that one female republican Senator is a feminist. She might vote against K. Another male republican Senator is a ‘never Trump’ supporter. He might vote against K. If I read it right, there is at least one Dem Senator who might just vote for K.

For some reason that I cannot enunciate, I feel it in my water that failure of the Reps to rally round will seriously damage their mid-term election prospects. It is not that Ford is ‘to be believed’ that matters. she might have experienced a minor and unwelcome forced groping session. It is also that K is ‘to be believed’. Ford has zero corroboration of her accusations. Zero. K has at least some evidence, from his calendar, that he was likely to have been elsewhere when the event was supposed to have happened, and no mention of the event on his calendar. And denial of the people mentioned by Ford that such an event ever happened.

One more thing. I would have to listen to the first four hours to be sure, and I will not do that, but I feel sure that Ford said that she was ‘in therapy’ at some point in her life. I assume that that meant that she had ‘mental problems’ of whatever sort. They might have related to simple anxiety, but they might have been more serious. No questions were asked about that, but it might well be that no one knew about the ‘therapy’ until she mentioned it in the hearing. It would have been difficult for the ‘Prosecutor’, hired by the Reps, to pick up on that admission. And, asking questions about that might have been filled with dangers.

But my greatest disappointment was the palpable stink of corruption. I could imagine that show trials in the Soviet Union followed similar patterns. The hearing was not intended to discover the truth – it never could. It was designed to give the Dems the opportunity to delay confirmation. Ford was the ‘useful idiot’, even though she was a ‘Doctor’ of something or other (or perhaps because she was). I don’t suppose that the Chairman had any alternative but to allow the hearing to happen and to allow the Dems to say what they wanted to for their allotted five minutes each.

I am not sure if Parliamentary Committees follow the same pattern in the UK. I hope not. It would be scandalous if it were so. “When did you stop beating your wife?” springs to mind.

Let us hope that K is confirmed and the FBI investigate the manipulations underlying the accusations and the character assassination of Kavanaugh.

But don’t hold your breath.

 

 

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Kavanaugh Hearing part 2”

  1. elenamitchell Says:

    Very useful. I haven’t watched the whole thing. I have just picked up a few suspicions things in passing. But as far as I can see, the whole thing stinks.

  2. Rose Says:

    There was a lot of talk about undergoing therapy from Ford, my therapist said this, my therapist did that, to the degree that it triggered a memory about the Repressed Memory therapy that became fashionable amongst social workers in the 80’s and 90’s and that ended up with innocent people in prison for crimes they didn’t commit and culminated here in the horrific Orkney Satanic Abuse Case.
    Not remembering that anything dreadful had ever happened to you was taken as a sure sign that it had, with terrible consequences.

    1991: Orkney ‘abuse’ children go home
    “The children at the centre of satanic abuse allegations in the Orkney Islands off Scotland have been reunited with their families after the case was thrown out of court.

    The judge, Sheriff David Kelbie, criticised the social workers who took the children away from their homes on the island of South Ronaldsay more than five weeks ago.

    Sheriff Kelbie said their handling of the case had been “fundamentally flawed” and the children had been subjected to cross-examinations designed to make them admit to being abused.”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/4/newsid_2521000/2521067.stm

    Having remembered this, I went looking for cases from that time.

    1996
    “The woman told counsellors that the memories of the assaults were partly sparked by the sexual abuse storyline in Channel 4’s Brookside and a rape scene in an episode of ITV’s Cracker.

    But the fact that she had no recollection of her own attack before she began therapy was never spelt out in her police statement.

    The “memories” of the indecent assault by the accused man, a 44-year- old engineer, only emerged many years after the alleged event when she began counselling for problems she was having at university.

    The man said: “It’s been dreadful. My family have been on hold for 14 months.”

    His barrister, Stephen Meadowcroft, said that in addition to receiving counselling, the woman had been reading Courage to Heal, which argues that people may have been abused even if they have no memory of it”
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/false-memory-ends-sex-assault-case-1354848.html

    Like miasma theory, Repressed Memory therapy has long been discredited, but not before it caused considerable damage.

  3. Rose Says:

    “Christine Margaret Blasey Ford is an American professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine.”

    And I believe that she believes every word she says.

  4. J Brown Says:

    My response, as an American: Just about every piece of ‘evidence’ that Christine Ford has put forward has been demolished, either by lack of witness corroboration, people coming forward with conflicting information, FBI investigation or citizen journalism. The entire show was a political ploy by the Democrats to delay the appointment of a Supreme Court justice until after the midterm elections in November, where they hoped to regain control of the Senate and House, and thus deter any further recommendations by Trump. They did not care that they were using Dr. Ford, nor did they care that their accusations were ruining the life and reputation of Judge Kavanaugh. Many of the American forums that I read are absolutely appalled by the Dems behavior. Word is that Kavanaugh will be approved at the end of the week by a vote of 53-47, but this charade, I feel, has turned many people against the Democrats – I think that they will resoundingly lose many of the elections in November. By the way, yes, Blasey Ford is a professor of psychology – it would be interesting to see if she lectures at university with the timid, crackling voice of a fragile 15 year old. I doubt it. The entire procedure was nothing short of theatre….and thoroughly disgusting. I say this as someone who has been a registered Democrat for 40+ years. I vote via absentee ballot, and for the first time in my life, I voted Republican across the board. I imagine that many others are about to do the same.

    • Rose Says:

      The entire show was a political ploy by the Democrats to delay the appointment of a Supreme Court justice until after the midterm elections in November, where they hoped to regain control of the Senate and House

      And even to an English person, that could not have been more obvious. Trying repeatedly to get K to refer himself to the FBI was so blatantly a stalling tactic rather than a search for the truth, I was disgusted.
      Even worse, keeping Dr. Ford’s accusation under wraps for 49 days and then releasing it out of the blue at the last minute ensured that the Republicans had no time to mount any kind of defence.
      Thank heavens K kept a diary.

  5. junican Says:

    Thanks for the comments. The more that I think about that hearing, the more astonished I am that the ‘process’ was considered to a be a legitimate way to question a candidate. Making demands for an FBI investigation is not questioning the candidate.
    The whole thing was a charade.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: