Seung Min Kim reports for the WaPo on the bizarre story of Senator Dianne Feinstein's very late forwarding of a letter that is said to accuse Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of some sort of "sexual misconduct," not described, in his teens.
Kavanaugh categorically denied the allegation. Women who knew Judge Kavanaugh in high school spontaneously offered their help, and 65 of them signed a letter saying:
"Through the more than 35 years we have known him, Brett has stood out for his friendship, character, and integrity," the women wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "In particular, he has always treated women with decency and respect. That was true when he was in high school, and it has remained true to this day."
Entirely aside from the question of whether the allegation is true in this case, we should also consider as a general matter whether we really want to embark on examining nominees' lives all the way back into their teens. Who could withstand such an examination? Public service already involves such a severe loss of privacy as to discourage a lot of good people.
Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii now routinely asks all nominees about any
sexual misconduct, but she expressly limits the question to the adult
years and properly so. None of us were perfect kids. Everyone committed
some kind of "misconduct." We need to distinguish between major crimes,
for which juveniles should sometimes be prosecuted in criminal court,
and lesser matters which are best forgotten once a person has matured into a law-abiding adult.
If someone had committed forcible rape as a teenager, that would be something to look into. For the vast majority of "misconduct," though, we should consider the pre-adult years off-limits.
Senator Feinstein is a curious person to raise this---if we walk down the memory trail, we'll find that she disclosed confidential information in the Night Stalker case in order to score cheap political points. I am sure that Mazie Hirono shakes Feinstein's hand. I wouldn't.
Looking forward to an update now that the victim has come forward and described what I think could reasonably be called attempted rape and provided evidence that she talked about it six years ago. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?utm_term=.370064295e55
We know that Republicans are fine with a President who has not only been accused of sexual assault, but bragged about it on tape so I don't expect this will be a problem for most, but for Susan Collins it will be interesting. Also give red state dems a get out of jail free card to vote against him.
Decencyevolves: Wouldn’t it be better just to pick another conservative candidate without these issues? Douglas Ginsburg got passed over for smoking pot and there are plenty of reliable candidates who have already been vetted by the Federalist Society.
I presume Kavanaugh was also fully "vetted by the Federalist Society," Decencyevolves, and in fact he was fully vetted by the Senate before the sexual assault allegation came to light.
Here is my (simplistic?) take: if it turns out Kavanaugh is conclusively proven to be a grown up Brock Turner, I presume even many in the GOP would want another candidate; if it turns out this allegation is clearly suspect, the GOP will want to confirm. So the real question is what evidence/level of proof will fracture the GOP votes.
Very interested in others' take.
As the situation is changing rapidly, I will pause for a bit before posting further.
If you do not see the political nature and inconsistencies of her story, you do not want to see the political nature and inconsistencies of her story.
1) Yes, she passed a polygraph but never had such a test where she was actually asked if Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.
2) The story she told to her the therapist 6 years ago mentioned no names ( her husband claims it did) and more importantly stated four boys were involved. Her current story says two.
3) She is a Democrat activist as is her attorney.
4) The timing of every aspect, including Feinstein’s part is, how should we say it, suspect.
No one other than the three allegedly involved knows what and what did not happen. Until something more credible comes out, this is nothing but a Borking and should not hold up confirmation another day. I endorse Susan Collins’s suggestion to have both attorneys cross examine. I suspect she would not show up. She is already trying to dictate what is asked of her and has threatened to not show up. a
Finally, I despise Trump. However, to call his locker room recording a confession of sexual assault is a dishonesty only a lawyer could put forth.
5)