Monday, September 16, 2019

Kavanaugh again

We should never lose sight of the fact that, even if no women had accused him of wrongdoing, Kavanaugh's corruption was provable and damnable. He committed perjury during his testimony by lying about stolen confidential documents. On September 6, 2018, Senator Patrick Leahy tweeted:
“It is simply not ‘normal’ to get real-time insider intelligence from a Democratic 'mole'” and marked 'spying.' Red flags abound. And with 102,000 documents withheld by the Trump WH, mostly about judicial noms, we can bet there’s more.”
Indeed there was. During his early appeals court confirmation, Kavanaugh had falsely testified that he “was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants.” In fact, the Trump administration to enormous lengths to hide what Kavanaugh did as Dubya's Staff Secretary. Such evidence as we do have indicates that he played a major role in all of the most controversial decisions.

Odd, is it not, how Trump bent over backwards to cover up the crimes of W? Trump didn't even like Kavanaugh -- and he sure as hell never liked W. Michael Wolff's Siege makes this clear, and so do many other sources.

The tweet embedded above proves that Trump's Department of Justice has become an institution devoted to hyperpartisan vindictiveness. Who paid off Kavanaugh's impressive credit card debt? That's no small matter. If any Dem nominee had that sort of "secret Santa," the right would be screaming like an army of banshees.

You may recall that, after the Blasey Ford testimony, a "gang of four" senators demanded an FBI investigation of the claims against Kavanaugh. Liberals were full of good ideas as to how this inquiry should be conducted. But -- in yet another example of Trump's corruption of the DOJ -- the fix was in.
As Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh prepares for his second year on the Supreme Court, new reporting has detailed how the limits ordered by the White House and Senate Republicans last year constrained the FBI investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct when he was a college freshman.

The FBI was informed of allegations that Kavanaugh, while drunk during his freshman year at Yale, exposed himself to two heavily intoxicated female classmates on separate occasions. The bureau did not interview more than a dozen people who said they could provide information about the incidents.

One of the accounts, reported by Deborah Ramirez, was made public at the time of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. The other, not publicly known until this weekend, was reported by a male classmate who said he witnessed the incident. He unsuccessfully sought to get the FBI to investigate with help from a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who asked FBI Director Christopher A. Wray to look into the allegation.
Perhaps the most notable Kavanaugh's defenders is Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who accuses Bill Clinton of rape. Here's her latest...
You know what’s sick about all of this.......Judge Kavanaugh and his family. We are sorry, Judge, you are being subjected to this crap, again. We stand with you.
This, despite the fact that Christine Blasey Ford offered sworn testimony. When Broaddrick was asked to tell her story under oath, she said that Clinton was innocent.

But that's not all: When she decided to change her story -- that is, after it became clear how much money Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones had made -- her story kept growing and growing. Eventually, she said that he bit her lip, which was bruised and bleeding afterward. But the man she was married to at the time, Gary Hickey, never saw such an injury.
One year later, Broaddrick filed divorce papers against Hickey, claiming he struck her on the mouth. Was that the only time?
It seems ludicrous to suggest that two separate men kept going after the same woman's lip. It's also ludicrous to suggest that Broaddrick was raped by Clinton even though, a short while later, whe quite happily attended a Clinton fundraiser.

Yes, I know -- there are scumball "feminists" out there who will now pounce on me. They will say that it makes perfect sense for a rape victim to smile and smile while attending a fundraiser for the guy who committed such a horrible crime against her. My response to feminists of that sort: FUCK YOU. Believe it or not, I've heard your rap -- heard it endlessly, for more than half a century -- and I have decided against you. Permanently. We are enemies forever. I used to consider myself pro-feminist and I remain committed to the principle of gender equality, but I parted ways with the current crop of feminists when they parted ways with common sense.

Any claimed "rape victim" who attends a fundraiser for her alleged abuser should never be believed. That's common sense. Any counter-arguments are casuistry, and any citations of bogus psychological studies (probably conducted by feminists of the most maniacal sort) are laughable.

In short: I do not believe Juanita Broaddrick. I would not believe her if she were my sister, mother, or daughter. Anyone who defends her hilariously illogical story on pseudofeminist grounds is a de facto Republican propagandist.

But I do find Christine Blasey Ford very credible.

You know who else felt (and probably still feels) the same way? Donald Trump. "Very credible" were his exact words. We know that he privately despised Kavanaugh, whom he considered a "Bush guy."

Christine Blasey Ford offered him an exit ramp. And I am certain that he was tempted, for a while, to take it. So why didn't he?

Now that is one of the most interesting questions of this whole wretched presidency. If you look carefully enough at the Kavanaugh matter, you will see indications that there are powers above and beyond Trump, manipulating him into doing things he'd rather not do.

(The recent drone attack in Saudi Arabia: Is that another example of those "powers" at work? Very possibly.)

One power above and beyond Trump would be the Federalist Society. I'll have much more to say about them, either in this blog or in a book. They are a real-world example of a powerful secret society funded by mysterious figures and run by a man whose true allegiance goes to the Knights of Malta. That secret society has a long and (at times) bloody history of undermining democracy.

The preceding paragraph may sound Alex Jonesian, but I can defend every word with citations of responsible sources, the sort of sources that academics take seriously.

A Federalist Society hack gave us this shit. I would love for author Mollie Hemingway to explain why Gary Hickey's direct statement deserves to be dismissed while Leland Keyser's much vaguer statement must be taken ultra-seriously. (I suspect that Keyser simply doesn't want to talk about a party he'd prefer not to recall.)
The Federalist Society hack has a trifecta of Federalist Society, Hillsdale College and Fox News.
Forget the sex, it's about the money. I've bought shared season tickets, my brother has bought shared season tickets, my good friend bought shared season tickets. Kavanaugh's story makes zero sense to anybody who knows anything about how these things work.
Wray is listed as a “Contributor” on the Fed Soc website.

The Federalist Society is a dangerous bunch of termites, eating away at our democracy.

I’ll look forward to reading more about them, but I think it all comes down to money and using the courts to kill what’s left of the New Deal and Progressive Era reforms, and return us to an updated version of, say, the 1850’s. Not slavery per se, too expensive to actually own and maintain. But a Constitutionally grounded class of second-class citizens.

As far as Juanita Broaderick is concerned, even Ken Starr couldn’t use her story. If that shit hound couldn’t find anything, there was nothing to be found.

By the way, skip impeachment, elect a Democrat and indict Kavanaugh for the perjury he committed.
As a relative young one who was not old enough to follow or understand the Clinton stuff in real time, with the perspective of reading about it all, and specifically Broaderick, in hindsight, there is zero doubt in my mind she is completely full of shit. Here is the IMO, the most concise summary of the evidence.

* Ken freaking Starr of all people found her story, in his words, "inconclusive". Even if the story couldn't be proven but could be used to smear Bill, Starr would've used it. The fact that he couldn't even do this says a lot.

* The Broaderick allegations only became public after Starr released his report and Republicans were nervous there wasn't enough in the report to justify impeachment. So they used Broaderick as a Hail Mary to convince Republicans who were on the fence. If they actually found her story even vaguely credible, like Starr, they would've been screaming from the rooftops about it way earlier.

* Broaderick also blames Hillary for what happened. To me, this is the simplest tell she's lying. I have never heard a victim of rape, in real life or fiction, blame the spouse of the assailant for what happened. It makes less than zero sense. What would we think of Blassey Ford if she went on a media tour and also blamed Kavanaugh's wife or then-girlfriend for what happened? It's absolutely, completely insane. But, whaddya know, Broaderick blaming Hillary just oh-so-happens to perfectly align with the GOP's political goals.

* The stories of the two other high profile women to accuse Bill of sexual misconduct, Paula Jones and Kathleen Wiley, were found to be false, and both women financially gained from their activities.

* Don't forget 95% of what we've heard is Broaderick's side of the story. These things change a lot when you hear both sides.

* This last one is more speculative and not part of the definitive case I use, but I personally find it very notable. Bill's interactions with Monica were documented in excruciating, and frankly disgusting, detail. In those interactions Bill had about a million opportunities to display abusive behavior. But, he never did. Despite having every opportunity to do so, he never, not once, did anything abusive toward Monica, and IMO, treated her with more respect than would be expected given the situation. If Bill were actually a serial abuser like his critics suggest, I found it hard to believe he would never show those behaviors toward Monica.

Bill is an adulterer. No one disputes this including him. But he's not an abuser.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?