Fingers crossed … personally, I think that Flake wants to vote “yes”, but I wonder what would happen if both Murkowski and Collins are persuaded to vote “no”. If he feels that the wind is blowing against Kavanaugh and the nomination is going down, will Flake then abandon the losing side? That could well be …
2 Likes
Remember what Clinton wa impeached for? Lying about sex, under oath
Well, of course. The difference is that it was consensual sex between two adult Democrats.
That’s why it was a big deal…
3 Likes
The is the narrow/limited scope he spoke of. I don’t agree with it, but this is how Flake is going to define lying - specifically about Blasey Ford’s account. This is setting up as a “he said/she said” and then “there isn’t enough info to know one way or the other, oh, well, that’s a shame, guess we have to confirm.”
Flake said before he called for reopening the FBI background check that he had doubts and would probably always have doubts because it is so difficult to figure out the truth in the Blasey-Ford/Kavanaugh situation.
2 Likes
I think a mistake might have been in made in letting the more prominent Republicans wiggle out of being accused of believing that Ford invented this whole thing solely as a political attack on BK’s nomination. They managed both to avoid looking like monsters on one hand, but have also dodged, to a great extent, the simple question of whose story is more believable, and turned it into the question of can Ford prove her specific allegation actually happened, in a court of law? It’s subtle, but the feeling that we’ve taken a time machine back to the 1980s and are trying to solve this one isolated case completely out of context is unshakeable. If she told someone about this, and she did, before the nomination, and if BK had a pattern of conduct entirely consistent with behaving the way she claims, and he did, and they both had plenty of reason/opportunity to be in the same place at the same time for the event in question to actually occur… and they did… that’s an open and shut case. Maybe not for prison, but for denying confirmation.
I fear we’ve gone too far into “FBI has to prove this specific attack absolutely happened 100%” as the only marker of consequence.
Edit: It’s probably too late, but if I were the dems my focus would be on hammering the Republicans on why they think Ford isn’t telling the truth, vs whether they think BK did it. I’d personally much rather be having the “Why the fuck would she have lied about this over all these years just on the off chance that this one poor schmuck she chose as her target got a nomination to the supreme court?” argument than the “who really knows what happened in a bedroom 26 years ago?” argument. Thing is even if you try to have the first argument you’re gonna run up against the second argument, because Republicans have successfully framed this as having to prove a specific criminal act, not merely BK’s ineligibility for an appointment to the SC.
10 Likes
McConnell is micro-managing this with Whelan and their crisis PR firm, step-by-step, to create this very narrow he said/she said scenario, sow confusion and then throw up their hands and say, like with many things in life, no one can really know the truth and we have to make decisions with the information we have, not the information we want - so, oh well, gotta confirm.
3 Likes
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) doubled down on what it would take for Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to sink, telling reporters at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics in Manchester that any “lies” or “evidence” that corroborates Christine Blasey Ford’s story would disqualify him.
Senator, that is hardly the sole qualifying condition you should consider.
1 Like
Flake thinks he has a future with Republican voters in 2020. That’s all he is saying.
Otherwise, he would just come out as a no.
2 Likes
I do wonder, though, about the effect of this evidence now coming to light that Kavanaugh may well have known about Deborah Ramirez’s allegations before the New Yorker article describing them was published. He testified, under oath, that he had no knowledge of those allegations before the New Yorker article was published, but those texts from Kerry Berchem (and maybe some related emails?) seem to indicate that he knew about Ramirez’s allegation before that - maybe months before - and that he may have tried to interfere with witnesses, to boot. If that gets the attention it deserves, it may become very difficult for certain Republicans to vote “yes” … though that’s probably wishful thinking.
4 Likes
Absolutely. We need to point out that the dialogue with Klobuchar is disqualifying all by itself, without any rapes at all.
6 Likes
This is a classic political BS set-up.
There is only one other witness to the actual attempted rape, and that’s Judge. Not only is Judge an old friend of Kavenaugh’s, he was a participant in the attempted rape. To corroborate Blasey-Ford’s account would mean to betray his friend and implicate himself in an attempted rape.
Any other corroboration is going to be less direct. Other witnesses could, perhaps, confirm her presence at the gathering. He has a calendar entry consistent with an event that could be the one she describes. But those are not direct, eyewitness accounts of an attempted rape.
Flake is looking for a way to vote “yes” on Kavenaugh, and acting all sincere about “corroboration” is the cover.
This battle could very well be lost, but Flake needs to bear the cost.
“Jeff Flake says that without a rape kit, you should always believe the belligerent, creepy drunk who has lied repeatedly to his committee over the woman who has over the years consistently described an attack by kavanaugh under time/place circumstances which almost certainly did occur.”
Here’s a campaign poster for Jeffy:
“Jeff Flake: If I wasn’t there, then you’re not a rapist. Flake 2020”
Edit: Seriously, “We’re not sure if you actually did it, but we’re also not going to call your accuser a liar” -> we’re going to give you the job instead of literally anyone else on the off chance that you’re actually innocent. Apparently having enough doubt on your side to barely keep you out of prison is the exact same thing as guaranteeing you a job on the Supreme Court.
This really is doublethink at it’s finest… You can say you don’t know if the attack happened, but you can’t say that you believe both BK and Ford. That they’ve been allowed to ride the edge on that choice for so long is chilling.
5 Likes
Just to add: The fact that he lumps himself together in the same boat with the rest of his GOP colleagues is a big tell. He’s aligned himself with the pack, and he’s giving the entire pack the same cover.
Corroboration is actually a pretty low bar which I believe has already been passed by the evidence of the calendar and related bits of information.
1 Like
Kavanaugh has probably been working with McGann and McConnell and Ed Whelan to discredit Blasey Ford - Whelan came out with a truly crazy theory using house floor plans and accusing other people. If Kavanaugh, like he was with the Ramirez accusation, can be shown to have been involved in concocting that story, I would think that would be disqualifying - ie, he’s covering up his involvement in Blasey Ford’s accusation. The calendar’s he produced, Whelan’s crazy story, two people coming forward and saying they were the ones who attacked Blasey Ford - this all looks like a coordinated effort by McGann/McConnell/Whelan (with Kavanaugh’s assistence?) to create an alternate reality that does not include Kavanaugh.
3 Likes
That’s a solid attack, however, he’s retiring from the Senate, so the political cost to him is low. Yeah, I know he may be running in 2020, but that’s a long way off, and he probably won’t get the nod from his Party anyway. But, throw whatever we can at him.
1 Like
Corroboration is actually a pretty low bar which I believe has already been passed by the evidence of the calendar and related bits of information.
Which is why what they mean by “corroboration” matters. The fact that they were all in somewhat overlapping social circles? Corroboration. The fact that there was a party noted on the calendar which the same cast of characters as the one in Ford’s account? Corroboration. The fact that BK is known to have gotten really, really drunk on many other occasions? Corroboration. The fact that there are witnesses to BK acting sexually inappropriate while drinking/with drunk girls in other situations? Corroboration.
Meanwhile, what they actually mean is someone who was in the room at the time. Which is basically license from the US Senate to all the party rapists out there to just get someone in a room without any witnesses and you’re A-OK.
7 Likes
Well, that’s the problem isn’t it? Corroboration is subjective. Flake and the rest of the rapist sympathizers can make it mean whatever they want it to mean. The fox guards the henhouse.
‘Zactly.
2 Likes
It should follow him wherever he goes. He won’t be out of politics completely. Any rally he attends, any public event… should be tons of people outside with “Flake believes rapists” signs. Until the day he dies or is driven out of the country. We’re constantly letting our villains off the hook in the long term—even fucking Kissinger is schmoozing and boozing without a care in the world. We should pick one asshole trying to have it both ways and just ride his ass for the rest of time.
2 Likes
Lawyers, is there a legal definition of corroboration?
1 Like
Flake did not “break from his party” on Kav. Questioning the existence of Kav’s lies when surrounded by them is not breaking away from the GOP’s insistence the creep be put on the Court. Flake isn’t being rationale or objective. He’s going to vote yes.