WTF Community

All things Kavanaugh - updates and background

This is one of the top stories at CNN, but thought I’d include it here just in case anyone missed it.

Yet another classmate, this one from college, says flat out that Kavanaugh lied under oath.

James Roche, one of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s freshman year roommates at Yale, said Wednesday that Kavanaugh lied under oath about his drinking and about the meaning of his yearbook entries.

In an op-ed for Slate, Roche writes, “Brett Kavanaugh stood up under oath and lied about his drinking and about the meaning of words in his yearbook. He did so baldly, without hesitation or reservation.” . . .

Roche told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on “Anderson Cooper 360” that he was shocked when he heard Kavanaugh say “boofing” meant flatulence and “Devil’s Triangle” was a drinking game, "because those words were commonly used and they were references to sexual activities. … I heard them talking about it regularly. I think that contributed to some of my feelings about the fact that these guys treated women in a way that I didn’t like."

We were in a room together – our beds were 10 feet apart for a couple of months,” Roche told Cooper. “And what struck me and made more interested in speaking out about it is not only did I know that he wasn’t telling, you know, the truth, I knew that he knew that he wasn’t telling the truth.” . . .

“This is not about drinking too much or even encouraging others to drink,” Roche writes. “It is not about using coarse language or even about the gray area between testing sexual boundaries with a date and sexual abuse. This is about denial. This is about not facing consequences. This is about lying.”

"I was not a choirboy, but—unlike Brett—I’m not going on national television and testifying under oath that I was," Roche continued.

2 Likes

I hope it’s OK that I’m posting several items in a row in this thread, but major developments are breaking very fast right now.

The Democratic minority on the Senate Judiciary Committee is accusing the Republican majority of lying to the American people about Kavanaugh’s previous FBI background checks. This is a serious allegation that I’m sure the Democrats who signed this letter did not take lightly. I hope there is some way to confirm whether or not the Republicans told the truth.

Here’s the official Judiciary Committee tweet that the Democrats are questioning:


Here are some excerpts from HuffPost’s reporting followed by a copy of the letter:

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee accused their Republican colleagues of mishandling confidential information contained in Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s past FBI background checks on Wednesday and alluded that the files may contain evidence of inappropriate sexual behavior or alcohol abuse.

In a letter addressed to committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), eight of the panel’s 10 Democratic members said the majority’s official Twitter account was incorrect when it sent out a message saying: “Nowhere in any of these six FBI reports … was there ever a whiff of ANY issue ― at all ― related in any way to inappropriate sexual behavior or alcohol abuse.”

The eight lawmakers indicated that statement was false and called on Grassley to issue an immediate correction.

“While we are limited in what we can say about this background investigation in a public setting, we are compelled to state for the record that there is information in the second post that is not accurate,” the Democrats wrote. “It is troubling that the Committee Majority has characterized the information from Judge Kavanaugh’s confidential background investigation on Twitter, as that information is confidential and not subject to public release.” . . .

The letter:

2 Likes

This is just breaking . . . Vote Scheduled for Friday!

If Kavanaugh is actually confirmed on Friday, I believe this will be one of the biggest travesties of justice in the history of our nation. How can the FBI do a proper investigation of the allegations against Kavanaugh in a mere matter of days? Scores of witnesses with crucial information have not yet been interviewed.

2 Likes

This is what I was fearing would happen with this so called “investigation”. The Republicans just want to brush the whole mess under the carpet get their boy onto the Supreme Court and hope the whole controversy will just blow away. The only hope is that the Democrats all hold firm, and that the 3 Republican Senators who called for the inquiry will also see that justice has not been done and vote against the appointment of Kavanaugh.
As an aside my impression is that this man has shown himself to be not only unsuitable to be a Supreme Court judge, but also unsuitable as a Federal judge. Partisanship is a major problem world wide - but in this case it screams.
If he is confirmed to the bench of the Supreme Court - just how difficult will it be to remove him? The fact that there is strong evidence that he has lied to the Senate would be one factor that will simmer away in the future - but how many votes would be required for him to be impeached?

3 Likes

It is a horrible situation - McConnell does probably thinks he has the votes. He just wants to play partisan politics, blame the Dems, blame them on any delay (JOKE) and get their Corporate/R crown jewel on the court. :trophy:

I really hope that the 5 potentially hedging Senators - 1-Collins, 2-Murkowski,3- Flake do have a crisis of conscious.

And maybe 4-Heitkamp and 5- Manchin will break with their red state trends. Unfortunately Heitkamp is down [The Hill Heitkamp down 10 points]. I know Manchin needs Health Insurance for W. VA and Kavanaugh is distinctly about dismantling it.

Heitkamp ND race - The Hill in her race.

Kavanaugh’s name is mud…he is profoundly dirtied by all this. (And I do believe he’s wronged Dr. Ford, and drinks to excess) He is scowled at by his fellow classmates, his legal peers and he will be forever tarnished.

Impeachment proceedings may follow.

This is a very dark chapter in our history. Fairness hardly seems like something that was considered. :-1:

2 Likes

Sad footnote to all this.

2 Likes

In the past couple days, Republicans have tried a smear attack against Dr. Ford, claiming she lied under oath when she said she’d never coached anyone who was preparing for a polygraph test. This claim was based on a statement from an ex-boyfriend of Ford’s who said she coached a friend in the 1990’s who was nervous about taking a polygraph test. The ex-boyfriend named the friend. That friend is now pushing back hard:

I have NEVER had Christine Blasey Ford, or anybody else, prepare me, or provide any other type of assistance whatsoever in connection with any polygraph exam I have taken at any time,” [Monica] McLean said in the statement relayed by attorneys Michael Bromwich and Debra Katz.

2 Likes

Ramirez’s account of the Yale dorm scene has been corroborated. Gee, FBI missed that.

Ramirez, a classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale, says that he exposed himself to her during a drunken dormitory party and thrust his penis in her face, which led to her touching it against her will. Kavanaugh has denied the allegation, along with that of Christine Blasey Ford, a professor from California who said that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a party when they were teen-agers. Several former Yale students who claim to have information regarding the alleged incident with Ramirez or about Kavanaugh’s behavior at Yale said that they had not been contacted by the F.B.I. Kenneth G. Appold was a suitemate of Kavanaugh’s at the time of the alleged incident. He had previously spoken to The New Yorker about Ramirez on condition of anonymity, but he said that he is now willing to be identified because he believes that the F.B.I. must thoroughly investigate her allegation. Appold, who is the James Hastings Nichols Professor of Reformation History at Princeton Theological Seminary, said that he first heard about the alleged incident involving Kavanaugh and Ramirez either the night it occurred or a day or two later. Appold said that he was “one-hundred-per-cent certain” that he was told that Kavanaugh was the male student who exposed himself to Ramirez. He said that he never discussed the allegation with Ramirez, whom he said he barely knew in college. But he recalled details—which, he said, an eyewitness described to him at the time—that match Ramirez’s memory of what happened. “I can corroborate Debbie’s account,” he said in an interview. “I believe her, because it matches the same story I heard thirty-five years ago, although the two of us have never talked.”

Appold, who won two Fulbright Fellowships, and earned his Ph.D. in religious studies from Yale in 1994, also recalled telling his graduate-school roommate about the incident in 1989 or 1990. That roommate, Michael Wetstone, who is now an architect, confirmed Appold’s account and said, “it stood out in our minds because it was a shocking story of transgression.” Appold said that he initially asked to remain anonymous because he hoped to make contact first with the classmate who, to the best of his recollection, told him about the party and was an eyewitness to the incident. He said that he had not been able to get any response from that person, despite multiple attempts to do so. The New Yorker reached the classmate, but he said that he had no memory of the incident.

Appold reached out to the Bureau last weekend but did not hear back. Frustrated, he submitted a statement through an F.B.I. Web portal. During his first year at Yale, Appold lived in the basement of Lawrance Hall, one of the university’s freshman dormitories. He was in the same suite of bedrooms as Kavanaugh, sharing a common room. Appold said of Kavanaugh, “We didn’t hang out together, but there was no animosity between us either.” He said he believes that “there were two sides to Brett.” Those who have described the judge as studious and somewhat reserved or shy are correct, he said. He added, “that was true part of the time, but so are the other things that have been said about him. He drank a lot, and when he was drinking he could be aggressive, and belligerent. He wasn’t beating people up, but there was an edge and an obnoxiousness that I could see at the hearings. When I saw clips” of Kavanaugh’s Senate testimony, Appold said, “I remembered it immediately.”

Appold said, “I had concerns that there was a good chance he wasn’t telling the truth.” He was certain, he said, that “what he said about drinking was not accurate.”

3 Likes

If you can stomach this…here’s Sen Lindsey Graham who really defends Kavanaugh…it turns into how belittling this was for Kavanaugh. He thinks Ford was treated respectfully, but she has not ‘facts’ and Kavanaugh is not “Bill Cosby.”

Sheer hard liner…

OMG.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kpKfABYXzw

3 Likes

All the hail mary’s are coming …it is going to be down to the wire.

2 Likes

Another hail mary…

A massive coalition of U.S. Christian churches attended by 40 million people wants Brett #Kavanaugh to withdraw his Supreme Court nomination.

2 Likes

The flood gates have opened as organizations across the country scramble to distance themselves from Kavanaugh. If only Republicans senators felt the same way.

2 Likes

The nail in the coffin…(just like they planned it…)
WSJ Report…

Paywalll but the first two paragraphs…

White House Finds No Corroboration of Sexual Misconduct Allegations Against Kavanaugh in FBI Report
It is unclear whether White House had finalized its review of FBI interview reports
By Rebecca Ballhaus,
Michael C. Bender,
Kristina Peterson and
Natalie Andrews
Updated Oct. 4, 2018 12:19 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON—The White House has found no corroboration of the allegations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh after examining interview reports from the FBI’s latest probe into the judge’s background, according to people familiar with the matter.

It was unclear whether the White House, which for weeks has raised doubts about the allegations, had finalized its review of the FBI interview reports. Officials were expected to be sending the FBI report to the Senate Judiciary Committee later Wednesday.

2 Likes

Hail Mary pass…#NoOnKavanaugh

The following letter will be presented to the United States Senate on Oct. 4. It will be updated as more signatures are received.

Judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service explains, a judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.” The concern for judicial temperament dates back to our founding; in Federalist 78, titled “Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” Alexander Hamilton expressed the need for “the integrity and moderation of the judiciary.”

We are law professors who teach, research and write about the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear in state and federal court, and our work means that we will continue to do so, including before the United States Supreme Court. We regret that we feel compelled to write to you, our Senators, to provide our views that at the Senate hearings on Sept. 27, Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land.


The question at issue was of course painful for anyone. But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy, Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners. Even in his prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan, referring to it as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” rather than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information, to try to understand what had transpired. Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators.

2 Likes

And then there’s the clock…a race against the clock.

#SeeRammingThroughJudicialProcess

2 Likes

Prediction - more like a bet. I will be curious to see if it comes true:

  • Kavanaugh will fail in confirmation. Very quickly Amy Coney Barrett will be nominated and then confirmed because at election time my fellow Democrats will be unable to say the thing that troubles them most, that she is too Catholic. So paradoxically this fall’s opera will result in an even more conservative and even younger right-wing justice on the court.

This is in @matt 's report today, but I thought I should post it here as well. What is there to say?

2 Likes

Results from the Cloture vote. 51-49 Kavanaugh advances to the final vote.

2 Likes

The Washington Post reports two Senators are still undecided.

Undecided or unclear
These senators are undecided about whether they will support the nomination, or have not made clear how they will vote.

Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Collins voted to proceed to the final confirmation vote but said she will announce her intention on the full vote later Friday. She said Thursday that the FBI investigation “appears to be a very thorough investigation, but I’m going back later to personally read the interviews.”

Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.)
Manchin voted to proceed to the final confirmation vote — the only Democrat to do so. He backed Trump’s first nominee for the Court and was the first Democratic senator to meet with Kavanaugh, but he has not publicly announced how he will vote.

2 Likes

Both Collins and Manchin will vote yes to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.

2 Likes