Well…the saving grace here is all he can do is say “I don’t recall that” or “That didn’t happen”. Which is not exactly very powerful testimony or convincing.
Additionally, I feel the ace in the hole is Rachel Mitchell here. I am wondering "why would the GOP here choose someone who has a long track record of fighting for sexual assault victims and their rights and for justice for them? And it seems to me if she comes through and says “Yes, in my professional opinion she is being truthful…I believe her” the Republicans have their out. They can vote against Kavanaugh and tell 45 “Hey, it’s not our fault…you heard Rachel Mitchell!”
Oh I wouldn’t go so far as to say they’d bail on that goal. They still have a strong chance of getting a conservative judge there. Regardless of the mid terms, Donnie is here for two more years to appoint nominees. All of which will be conservative.
Same thought struck me. Mitchell has been rather restrained in her non-adversarial approach. Let’s see if it holds up, or if she has a hammer to drop. Thus far Ford’s credibility is through the roof, as far as I’m concerned, watching the testimony. Clearly Mark Judge needs to be called as a witness, and the failure to do so puts the GOP on their heels, as Durbin evoked a response from Grassley about it … that’s still within the realm of possibility.
Should the accused in this and other cases, be required to present their defense prior to hearing the formal accusations against them?
This is Magna Carta level basic justice. Whatever any of us feel about BK, we should still believe that everyone is entitled to be able to present arguments in their defense. Otherwise, we might as well go back to trials through ordeal.
Really - I think if they loose the senate I would expect there to be no more nomination hearings for the balance of Trump’s term. I think they will give them the McConnell treatment, and would be justified in doing so.
Durbin was trying to address as many of the dirty tricks the Republican senators might try and framing them in a way so that she could respond instead of getting steamrolled by Grassley and company. But yeah, if they think they can get away with it, the Republicans will stop at nothing to try to discredit her. Grassley’s mid-west manners are cracking as he gets angrier because he knows he’s facing a remarkable woman and formidable survivor.
This is not a trial. Nobody is facing jail time or even the possibility of a fine. The worst possible outcome for Brett Kavanagh is that he doesn’t get a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court and has to keep his job as a circuit court judge.
I do not disagree they SHOULD do that…problem is this. One side seems to play be the fair rules and order of how things are supposed to go (let’s call it the gentleman’s rules). The other side seems to just make shit up as they go, change the rules, change the game, kick and scream and whine when they don’t get their way and outright cheat to win.
Guess which side is which? ,y snarkiness aside…While I would be happy if the Dems did that very thing…they won’t. They never seem to play that way. They try to be all higher ground and do the right thing. And if 45 put up a conservative/moderate judge (a la Merrick Garland)…they’d approve him.
Backlash from the Anita Hill hearings is credited with contributing to the record number of women elected to the Senate in 1992. The GOP may not have learned anything about protecting women from sexual harassment but they learned a thing or two about optics.