DEPRESSED? IF NOT, SEE A DOCTOR AT ONCE
-->
Two related subjects today:
1. The total decline of truth
in our national conversation, and
2. The unlawful amendment,
indeed abandonment, of Constitutional norms.
1. What is the truth of the
factual basis for the confirmation of Mr. Justice Kavanaugh?
Only two witnesses testified
at the final confirmation hearing. First was Dr. Ford, who presented such a
powerful and believable recollection of Kavanaugh's sexual assault that even
Trump remarked that she was believable, and Kavanaugh's nomination was in
trouble.
The second witness was Judge
Kavanaugh.
(Permit this boastful digression: Of Kavanaugh's testimony, I wrote in my
blog dated October 1:
"Judge
Kavanaugh's lawyer is an intelligent, experienced litigator, but I have the sense
Kavanaugh was not prepped by her, or in any event ignored her advice. I believe
instead he was managed by White House counsel Don McGahn, who channeled Donald
Trump."
Today's NYTimes has a front-page
article headlined, "A Nomination Saved By Rage." The text: Kavanaugh
met privately with Don McGahn, who told him that the only way to save his
nomination was to project rage and anger.
Oh yeah, I also predicted:
"McConnell
will bull-rush ahead with confirmation of this obviously impaired candidate."
Save your applause until the
end, please.)
After his fulminating
opening, replete with absurd conspiracy theories about the Clintons and threats
to get even against the Democrats ("What
goes around, comes around!"), -- a screed that in itself disqualified
him for a position on the Supreme Court,-- Kavanaugh proceeded to tell so many
obvious lies that his integrity rapidly became indefensible. No reasonable
person could accept his obviously insincere definitions of words that signaled
his teenage obsession with drunkenness and sexual adventurism.
Whether those aggressions and misbehaviors ought to have barred his confirmation is irrelevant: every senator, Republican and Democrat, who made public statements on the subject, agreed that perjury, any perjury, would disqualify him. While no Senator who voted "Yes" remarked he or she believed Kavanaugh's obvious lies, they nevertheless said exactly that by their vote confirming him. It is simply not possible that any prescient senator could have believed that Kavanaugh was not guilty of felony perjury.
Whether those aggressions and misbehaviors ought to have barred his confirmation is irrelevant: every senator, Republican and Democrat, who made public statements on the subject, agreed that perjury, any perjury, would disqualify him. While no Senator who voted "Yes" remarked he or she believed Kavanaugh's obvious lies, they nevertheless said exactly that by their vote confirming him. It is simply not possible that any prescient senator could have believed that Kavanaugh was not guilty of felony perjury.
Instead, the R's focus was on
the details of Ford's testimony. The most prominent comment, from all the
"Yes" voters, including that of the nauseatingly insincere senator
from Maine, was that Dr. Ford's testimony was "uncorroborated."
That was the R's major talking point. We all read and heard it over and over again. It was the classic Trump approach: tell a big lie, say it over and over again, and the public will accept it as true. (I refer to it as the "Trump approach," but we all know enough history to remember an earlier national leader who boasted of the success of that technique.)
That was the R's major talking point. We all read and heard it over and over again. It was the classic Trump approach: tell a big lie, say it over and over again, and the public will accept it as true. (I refer to it as the "Trump approach," but we all know enough history to remember an earlier national leader who boasted of the success of that technique.)
In fact, it was Kavanaugh's testimony that was totally uncorroborated,
while Ford's testimony was corroborated again and again.
To be sure my understanding
of what "corroborated" means, I looked it up.
Black's Law Dictionary: "Corroborate": "To "strengthen, to add weight or
credibility to a filing [or statement] by
additional confirming facts or evidence."
and
"Corroborating
circumstances : "Facts that support the testimony that is given by a
witness."
Ford provided several
corroborating facts that strengthened her testimony: her prior consistent statements, as far back
as 2012, and her specific prior consistent statement before he was nominated, identifying
Kavanaugh as her attacker. Prior consistent testimony is considered, in court
and out, as powerful corroboration.
And her polygraph results
certainly added weight and credibility to the truthfulness of her testimony.
Indeed, Kavanaugh had written an opinion certifying the usefulness of that evidence.
Finally, the massive evidence of Kavanaugh's drunken behavior in high school years, and his and his buddies obsession with sexual conquest, add weight and credibility to Ford's description of a very inebriated Kavanaugh attacking her.
Kavanaugh, in turn, not only
failed to offer to take a polygraph, he offered no corroboration for his
obviously false testimony that when he "ralphed" after drinking it
was because he put ketchup on his spaghetti, that "Devil's Triangle" was a
drinking game, when all his contemporaries agree is means a menage a trois, that "boofed"
means farting when all his contemporaries agree it refers to anal sex, etc., etc.
Bottom line, it was the
statements of Kavanaugh and fifty United States Senators that were totally
uncorroborated. A farce, a show trial, a low point in our history.
And just in case all the foregoing does not make you want to spend the day in bed hiding under the covers, a Don McGahn constrained
faux FBI investigation ought to seal the deal.
2. Article VI of the
Constitution, reads as follows:
"The Senators and
Representatives ... shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support the
Majority Leader of their Party."
As a result, every national
legislator, must take following oath:
"I so solemnly swear
that will defend my Party's Leader ... that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same ... and will faithfully discharge the duties of the
office ... ."
What, you think there is a
misquote there? Nah.
Forty-nine Republican Senators complied with that oath yesterday.
Forty-nine Republican Senators complied with that oath yesterday.
Did they all believe
Kavanaugh belonged on the Supreme Court, and thus they faithfully discharged
their Constitutional duties? Of course
not. No such startling coincidence is possible. They ignored their real oath,
they ignored Article VI of the Constitution which requires them "to
support this Constitution,"
not Mitch McConnell. They voted their selfish interests of party loyalty and
likelihood of re-election, not the interests of fealty to the Constitution.
In their real oath, they promised
they would "defend the Constitution
... and bear true faith and allegiance to the same ... ."
Let's not fool ourselves.
That oath is now officially declared meaningless by the Kavanaugh confirmation.
If you want direct evidence, look at the Flake admission. He dared to disobey his party's leadership by
asking for an FBI investigation. Afterward,
when asked if he would have done so were running for reelection, he basically
said, "Are you kidding? Of course not!"
Bottom line, kids. If you
are depressed, you should be. And if you are looking for encouragement that
relief is just around the corner, find another source. You won't find it here.
A bientot.
<< Home