Tag Archives: Brett Kavanaugh

When Tara Met Joe.

Posted on by

While, once again, we have a situation where only two people know for certain what if anything happened, we are all being forced to make a call. Assault or BS?

At this moment in the matter of “Is Joe Biden Just as Much of a Predator as Brett Kavanaugh and Donald Trump?” the ball is back in accuser Tara Reade’s court. Biden submitted to acceptably tough questioning from (long-time social friend) Mika Brezinski last week and flat out denied he did what Reade is now telling people he did. With that, the contemporary standards for public adjudication now requires Ms. Reade to present herself to some credible news outlet for similar interrogation.

Personally, I’d be happier with Biden if he chose someone like ABCs Martha Raddatz rather than an old friend on a liberal-leaning cable channel. If only because he’d be on higher ground if Reade opts for FoxNews, even if it’s with Chris Wallace and not one of their prime time chuckleheads. But whichever route Reade chooses … she has to step up to the mic.

To date, contrary to the predictable raging of the right-wing echo chamber, the “lamestream media” has now given Reade’s charges substantial and serious investigation. The problem for Reade though is that none have yet been able to come up with anything offering unequivocal proof she’s telling the truth. The best they’ve got to support her story of a 27 year-old incident is the call-in to Larry King’s CNN show in 1993 by a woman who sounds like, and may well have been Reade’s deceased mother. That, and an on-record statement from a Democrat-voting friend who recalls Reade telling her the assault happened. In other words … they heard Reade tell them a story.

But other than that, Reade’s own story has wobbled seriously, as has her brother’s. And that’s before we get to the part where not only doesn’t she have any paperwork from the complaint she says she filed, but has now shifted to saying she “chickened out”, and never actually followed through with an assault complaint.

Knowing how these things go campaign-wise, even if Reade never submits to a conditions-free interview, Republicans will howl and rant about a “liberal cover-up” and “hypocritical double-standard”, at least in relation to Kavanaugh. (With 24 women on-record accusing Trump of everything up to and including rape, he bears no comparison, and his devout, evangelical white base will continue to embrace him as God’s servant on Earth.)

The Kavanaugh “hypocrisy” of course falls apart if you were among those who actually paid attention to that drama. Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford, not only was/is a credible professional with a career to protect, she never made bizarre social media references about the “sensuous image” of Vladimir Putin. What she did do was suck it up, put her face, reputation and family safety on the line in front of an enormous TV audience and submit to cross-interrogation.

More importantly, where Biden is at least saying he will cooperate with a Senate investigation, the investigations into Ford’s accusations and charges of entitled frat-boy behavior on Kavanaugh’s part were strangled at birth. They were thwarted and neutered in the Republican-controlled Senate’s rush to confirm him — to a lifetime seat on the highest court of the land.

The righteous cry to “Believe the women!” has always been fatuous. No sane person goes around uncritically “believing” anything anyone says. The appropriate cry is, “Listen to the women!” That implies granting an accuser a respectful, non-threatening forum to tell the story they believe is important enough that all should hear.

With that in mind, the stage is all yours, Ms. Reade.

From Blackface in Virginia to Amy Klobuchar the Mean Boss

Posted on by

Along with, “What the hell is the deal with blackface and Virginia?” the question of, “What is forgivable behavior?” is getting a serious workout at the moment.

I’m generally in agreement with Mother Jones’ writer Kevin Drum’s “20-20 Rule”. That is to say, stupid things you said and did before you were 20, or that happened more than 20 years ago grant you some kind of leniency. (I’ll get to Brett Kavanaugh in a minute.) I mean, if the stupidity of callow youth was a capital crime, I’d be on Death Row.

The key is — how do you handle it as an adult?

In the matter of Ralph Northam, Virginia’s remarkably clueless governor, you couldn’t handle it much worse. Admitting, then denying, then admitting again over the course of 48 hours pretty much convinces everyone you have no talent for the public stage and should seek work in tele-marketing. Then, based on the fact that Northam is in the job because of a heavy majority of black voters who now see him as a hopeless doofus at best, he’s got to go.

Next we have Virginia’s attorney general who has also admitted he painted his face for a costume party — he went as rapper Curtis Blow — 35 years ago. That guy at least had the smarts to compose a thoughtful letter of shame and apology. One of his problems, in terms of keeping his job though, is that he’s already called for Northam to resign … for doing the same blackface thing.

(Better psychologists than me will have suss out the appeal of black face with privileged white southern boys. But my guess is it has something to do with poking at taboos in ways you can only do if you live in a bubble culture where no one will ever think to call you out.)

Next we have the “rising star” Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, a black guy FWIW, accused of forcing oral sex on a date 15 years before he was in office. As with Kavanaugh, the accuser is now a woman in high professional standing who makes a detailed case against him. Moreover, like Dr. Blasey-Ford, she had to be convinced to throw herself into the social media hellscape that comes with accusing powerful men.

The Democratic party’s “zero tolerance” policy on sexually aggressors, which is to say, “guilty if accused”, makes it impossible for Lieutenant Governor Rising Star to survive this thing.

Despite what we hear from the likes of Kirsten Gillibrand, I’m not a big fan of “zero tolerance.” Eventually it undermines women’s demands for equality and justice. But I’ve come to believe that “zero tolerance” is an overreach that we’ll all have to live with for a while, or at least until, maybe 15-20 years down the line, there’s actual gender equilibrium in politics and corporate America. In other words, Mr. Rising Star Lieutenant Governor, demanding a “full investigation” is futile. It did nothing for Al Franken and it won’t do anything for you.

Here then is where I remind everyone that the “investigation” into Brett Kavanaugh’s teenage stupidity was cut off by his Republican protectors simultaneous with him behaving — today, as an adult, interviewing for a lifetime job of incalculable influence on 330 million people — like a privileged white brat indignant that anyone would ever have the temerity to question his bubble-cossetted honor.

The short response to anyone defending Northam, Virginia’s attorney general and The Rising Star is the same as it should have been to Kavanaugh. Namely, “We can do better than you. You’re replaceable. Next!”

Now, into this churn we drop our own Amy Klobuchar’s burbling problem of mistreating her staff, for many years, and not being exactly who/what she purports to be.

Klobuchar will almost certainly announce she’s running for president. She has a very deep well of support from every group she needs here in her home state. But this picture of her as some kind of raging harridan should not be dismissed lightly as just a pre-announcement shot across her bow. Why not?  Because of how it may play nationally, among the millions who don’t yet know anything about her.

Yeah, it’s true women in authority carry a greater burden to be “likable” than men. That shouldn’t be the case, but it is. We haven’t evolved past that mattering.

That said, the issue with Klobuchar could — could, I say — become whether her smiling, measured, ever-temperate public demeanor is a kind of fraud. “Phoniness” is a hobbling accusation against any public figure.

And to repeat what I said a couple of days ago. I’m OK with voting for her for president if she gets the nomination, or again as Senator if she doesn’t. I don’t really give a [bleep] how miserable a boss someone is as long as they vote my interests. Sorry if that horrifies anyone.

All I’m saying here is that Klobuchar may soon find herself in somewhat the same position as the cast of goofballs in Virginia, in that she may have to both concede fault and ask forgiveness — for behavior happening today, well within The 20-20 Rule.

 

 

 

Let’s Move to The Avenatti Model

Posted on by

As promised and on schedule Michael Avenatti has dropped another bomb on Brett Kavanaugh’s crater-filled road to the Supreme Court. Regularly tut-tutted over and dismissed as an ambulance-chaser non pareil Avenatti’s latest client — who is not anonymous — is prepared to tell the most lurid story yet of the young and entitled Mr. Kavanaugh’s sexual misadventures, in this case gang rape.

Avenatti popped up on Rachel Maddow’s show a couple of nights ago hinting at what was to come and vowing he would deliver “within 48 hours”, which he did. Again.

Mainstream, Big “J” journalism’s aversion to Avenatti is understandable, in normal times. Who hasn’t rolled their eyes and endured the righteous (righteous, I tell you!) indignation and oozing self-promotion of well-paid lawyers … performing in front of a TV camera? But at some point the bona fides of even the worst self-aggrandizer build up to the point where guys like Avenatti have to be taken seriously.

When you’re right, you’re right.

I mean, come on. TV in particular is clogged with regular players who either A: Have nothing new or significant to say, or B: Parrot whatever the network in question wants to hear, (so they’ll be asked back), or C: Are so far past their expiration date they’re like a straight-to-video sequel to “Weekend at Bernie’s”, (eg: Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum).

So someone — Avenatti — who is demonstrably in on the action and accurately forecasting what’s coming next should have much higher standing, credibility-wise, than “the usual suspects.” And he does, if you just count CNN and MSNBC, where it seems he has a cot in the corner for easier access to the pundit desk.

But, Big “J” journalism? Not quite so much. Avenatti’s Monday night vow on Maddow’s didn’t create much more than a rustle in big city newspapers, caution toward self-aggrandizers being a primary default for “serious journalists” and anxious politicians, normally for good reason. But after a good year on the scene and a batting average Ted Williams could only dream of, it seems Avenatti is still on a “wait and see” with the self-proclaimed adults in the room.

I think of Avenatti every time I hear someone ask (in solemn theological tones) what Democrats should do if they regain power in DC?

Should they go full payback on Republicans, pulling every foul and miserable trick Mitch McConnell, Devin Nunes, Chuck Grassley and on and on and on have been pulling for the last 20 years? Or, should they hew to the proper course of, you know, “regular order” and follow time-honored (and now regularly violated) standards of civility toward the opposition while seeking to “reach across the aisle?” (Personally, I’ve reached the point that whenever I hear or read someone urging any liberal to “reach across the aisle” I stop listening or reading … right after I gag.)

Implicit in the question is that there is only a binary choice. Democrats can either adapt all the ham-fisted, nefarious, nakedly bullshit tactics McConnell, Nunes and crew have resorted to, or they can be the same earnest chumps they’ve been played for since  Republicans decided winning is “the only thing” and dialed nefarious to 11.

That’s dim thinking.

The Avenatti Model, if we dare call it that, is not nefarious, illegal or unconstitutional. But it is shamelessly aggressive. You isolate a key weakness (illegality) in the opposition and you zero in on it with full prosecutorial energy and zeal. You make the opposition pay a very high public price for nefarious activity. You use every tool at your disposal, which means exploiting Big “J” journalism, punditry and the entertainment industry. And you keep at it until the offense the opposition has committed becomes a permanent stain on their brand. In other words, you make them own their deviousness and bullshit.

(If the concern is you could over-play your hand — like McConnell et al — you’ll hear about it fast enough from the liberal base.)

No matter what happens during Thursday’s hearings, The Avenatti Model would move Christine Blasey Ford and every other woman prepared to speak out against Kavanaugh up to the next level of the court of public opinion. Namely, a coordinated series of TV interviews with — oh I don’t know, Oprah, “60 Minutes” or any of the gal hosts of the morning chat shows — and let the public get a full sense of who these women are and the credibility of their stories.

The effect would be to set the stain on Kavanaugh and his Republican handlers so deep it won’t how Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins eventually vote.

Oh! Not polite and collegial?

Screw polite.

 

 

 

 

Discuss: Why Would She Lie?

Posted on by

Since we’re all adults here, let’s have a common sense discussion. The topic? “Why do people lie?”

Books have been written on the subject, a topic with which every human has direct experience. But without going into deeper-than-necessary psychology, let’s agree that people generally lie to make things easier if not better for themselves. To protect themselves. We lie to avoid conflict, shame and punishment. Not getting spanked as a child or jailed as an adult is a better option than a whupping from dad or bunking in a 10 x 10 cell with Dirty Louie. People lie to get what they want. Money, sex, status. We’ve seen it thousands of times. It’s been a staple of popular fiction since the first storytellers gathered around a cave fire.

But who lies knowing things will only get worse for themselves?

Even people who lie as a strategic tactic — in society, business or politics —  usually do it in a way that protects them from exposure and possible consequences. Self-preservation is as basic an animal instinct as breathing. You avoid situations that might lead to injury or death.

Which obviously brings us to Brett Kavanaugh v. Christine Ford. One of them is lying.

If Kavanaugh is lying it it’s easy to understand why. Everything about his reputation and status and ambition for authority/power is on the line. So, accused of sexual assault as a drunken teenager, he categorically denies it (lies) … as an adult. His life will be immeasurably better if the lie holds up. He will get what he wants. He will ascend to a level of influence held by only a handful of other humans and remain there until he dies.

That’s not hard to understand.

But Christine Ford? How does lying — as she’s being accused by the worst of Kavanaugh’s defenders — make her life better? More to the point, how would she ever see it it being better by making the accusation in the first place?  An accusation, by the way, we know she made weeks before Kavanaugh was revealed as Trump’s choice for the Court?

If she was too naive to know, with near absolute certainty, how her accusation would affect her, the first lawyer she contacted and, guessing here, the first staffer in Diane Feinstein’s office would have walked her through the grueling horror of the absolutely inevitable out-of-control hyper-partisan reaction. She would be vilified and threatened. Her professional career would be imperiled, if not terminated. She would need expensive legal advice and protection for a long time to come. She might not even being able to return to her own home. (She is now in hiding.)

So why would she lie — or even say anything at all, even if “mistaken”, as Orrin Hatch says — if she understood any of that? Nothing about her life was going to get better. Everything was going to get worse, certainly in the short-to-intermediate term. (If her accusation derails Kavanaugh she’ll earn “atta girl” points in liberal history books.)

Common sense, the experience of any rational adult, tells us that Ford only wades into that level of horror, that level of epic, negative disruption of her life, if she is telling the truth. Or at least believes she’s telling the truth.

And as for Kavanaugh’s categorical denial: as many of have noted, you can’t walk back something that emphatic. Once you say, “This never happened.” You can’t then undo a lie by conceding that you were, A: a stupid kid, B: blind drunk, and then C: issue a (very) belated apology.

If Kavanaugh has lied about this attack, he hasn’t destroyed his reputation as a drunken teenager, he’s destroyed it as a sober adult.

If Ford has lied, she could be clinically diagnosed as “recklessly unstable”, which of course is already happening … by no one with a clinical degree.

 

 

Next Up for Must-See TV, Kavanaugh v. Ford

Posted on by

The so-called “Golden Age of Television” will get another turbo-charging next Monday if both Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser, Prof. Christine Ford show for their close-ups. Along with all the seismic shift changes since Clarence Thomas v. Anita Hill in 1991, the fact the media universe has quintupled, septupled … whatever … since then means this will be an instant, blockbuster TV classic.

The one unequivocally sane and rational suggestion for this latest battle of The Culture War is that there should be, you know, an actual investigation. Not another variation of the archaic farce these confirmation hearings always are. An actual investigation. With professional investigators. People not controlled by the Judiciary Committee’s fossilized Republican membership. Something other than — Orrin [bleeping] Hatch, or Chuck [for bleep sake] Grassley and Ted [are you bleeping kidding me?] Cruz — parceling out data for the aid and comfort of Mr. Kavanaugh.

Likewise, some independent entity like, uh, the FBI, would relieve the Committee’s Democrats/presidential aspirants of the need for splashy, empty theatrics. (Here’s looking at you Spartacus Booker.)

Personally though, I’m not inclined to expect anything rational to happen in D.C. ever again. But that’s just me.

Until Prof. Ford put her name on the accusation against Kavanaugh I was of the mind that CBS honcho Les Moonves was #MeToo’s biggest scalp to date. A vaguely recognized background character to most of the country, Moonves was a bona fide, no doubt about it titan of industry, as thoroughly protected by vast, thick layers of money and legal talent as any executive in the country. But #MeToo took him down.

Now though, if #MeToo, embodied by Prof. Ford, can chop block Brett Kavanaugh it will have a far, far more significant scalp. And we all will know for certain that this revolution not only has legs, but granite-like pillars. And if that happens — and the likelihood becomes more possible with each passing day — it will be a very good thing.

At this moment Kavanaugh v. Ford  is quintessential “he said, she said” with both camps of supporters deeply, emotionally invested in their player, pretty much regardless of any verifiable facts.

But here are the point(s) of separation for me.

Based on her reluctance to go on record until this past weekend, Prof. Ford seems to be fully aware of the shitstorm about to land on her … forever. Stepping up like she already has, much less after everything accelerates next Monday, her life has taken at least a 90 degree turn, never to return to its previous, peaceful, anonymous course.

Who does that if they’re lying?

A tatted-up, gum snapping, meth-head, maybe. But a 50-something career college professor? If she were as whacked and deluded as she would have to be to fake something like this I kinda think she’d have struggled (badly) in the notoriously pissy, petty world of academic politics.

But then there’s Kavanaugh. I very much agree with former Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold’s view in this morning’s Huffington Post. Sirens and flares went off in my head with the first words Kavanaugh said accepting the nomination at the White House — with Trump looming inches away.

Said Kavanaugh, “No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.”

And to be clear, that is Donald “Can’t read a bleeping book, much less a bleeping daily intelligence briefing and is uniformly regarded as a bleeping moron by everyone with a bleeping post-grad degree” Trump he’s talking about.

I mean, really. You’re expecting the country to take you seriously as an avatar of supreme (quality) judgment and that’s the first impression you decide to make? To publicly engage in a kind of verbal fellatio? WT[bleeping]F?

Feingold goes on to remind anyone who cares — not Grassley, Cruz, Hatch or John Cornyn — that Kavanaugh has pretty obviously already lied twice, (we call it perjury in this courty thingy job he’s up for) during this round of hearings,. Lying being something we’ve come to shrug off from politicians we can vote out of office, but plays juuuuust a bit different when a guy is getting a mega-powerful, lifetime gig.

As must-see TV, I’m loving the thought of Ted Cruz, formerly the most repugnant personality in D.C., interrogating Prof. Ford at this moment atop the still rising wave of #MeToo and while he’s facing a truly serious challenge from a progressive Democrat back in Texas. Likewise, I can’t wait for the line of questioning from Orrin Hatch, long one of the most walled-off from reality dinosaurs of Jurassic-style conservatism.

Talk about turbo-charging the “enthusiasm” of educated, suburban women.

Again, I don’t know if Prof. Ford’s story is true. But nothing about it is implausible given the nature of privileged, (i.e. entitled) teenaged boys partying hard at elite prep schools. (And that truly weird list he produced in a nano-second of 65 women he didn’t try to rape? Again, WTF?) In fact, after reading the stories of Les Moonves literally jumping his (bleeping) doctor as well as prominent actresses and producers in private meetings (because he couldn’t control himself, you see — but also because he felt entitled, and was insulated by layers of lawyers), my thought was, “Jesus, dude. I’ve seen drunken frat boys with smoother moves and more impulse control than that.”

And now one of those boys it seems is poised to join legendary deep-thinker, Clarence Thomas, on the Supreme Court.