- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

A Dress Rehearsal for Impeachment

Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court was approved on an 11-to-10 party line vote on Friday in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Yet his confirmation is not assured.

Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, has demanded and gotten as the price of his vote on the floor a weeklong delay. And the GOP Senate has agreed to Democratic demands for a new FBI investigation of all credible charges of sexual abuse against the judge.

Astonishing. With a quarter century in public service, Kavanaugh has undergone six FBI field investigations. They turned up nothing like the charges of sexual misconduct leveled against him these last two weeks.

In his 30 hours of public testimony before the Judiciary Committee prior to Thursday, no senator raised an issue of a sexual misconduct.

But if Brett Kavanaugh is elevated to the Supreme Court, it will be because, in his final appearance, he tore up the script assigned to him. He set aside his judicial demeanor to fight for his good name with the passion and righteous rage of the innocent and good man he believes himself to be.

He turned an inquisition into his character and conduct as a teenager into a blazing indictment of the Democratic minority for what they were doing to his reputation and his family.

Rather than play the role of penitent, Kavanaugh did what Clarence Thomas did 30 years before. He attacked the character, conduct, and motives of his Democratic accusers.

And did the judge not speak the truth? With few exceptions, all four dozen Senate Democrats are determined to defeat him, even if that means destroying him.

They rejected Brett Kavanaugh the day he was nominated.

Why? Because the judge is a conservative and a Catholic, and hence an unreliable vote to sustain Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that discovered hidden in the Constitution a woman’s right to abort her unborn child.

The verdict on the judge came down in the hearts and minds of his enemies the moment that he was named. They had him convicted before they’d met him. And once his fate was decided, the only remaining issues were where to find the dirt to bury him with and how to make it look like they’d given him a fair hearing.

Contrast how Kavanaugh, who has served his country with distinction for decades, was treated on Thursday with how Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was treated.

Ford was greeted with courtly courtesy by Chairman Senator Chuck Grassley. No Republican senator asked her a question. Rachel Mitchell, a prosecutor of sex crimes brought in from Arizona, quizzed her as though she were a 15-year-old girl who had just been attacked, not a 51-year-old woman whose uncorroborated accusations were set to not only to defeat a Supreme Court nomination but to destroy the career, family, and future of a federal judge.

After each five-minute session of polite questioning by Mitchell, Democratic senators took turns lauding Ford’s courage, bravery, and heroism in agreeing to appear.

Ford’s testimony as to what she says happened in 1982 did seem credible and compelling. Yet allowing her accusation of attempted rape to stand without tough and thorough cross-examination, given the stakes involved, was a dereliction of Senate duty.

Consider. Ford does not recall how she got to the party where the alleged assault took place. She does not know where the party was held. She does now recall how she got home.

None of the other four she said were at the party recall being there. Her best friend, whom she apparently left behind as the lone woman in a house with a pair of drunken rapists, does not recall any such party. Nor does she recall ever having met Kavanaugh.

Consider the other charges leveled against Kavanaugh over the last two weeks: exposing himself in the face of a freshman girl while at Yale. Participating in a series of at least 10 parties in high school where planned gang rapes of drunken and drugged women were a regular feature, with the boys lining up outside bedrooms.

In six FBI background investigations of Kavanaugh that interviewed countless friends and contemporaries from his high school days, none of this wild and criminal misconduct of the early ’80s was mentioned.

“This is the most unethical sham since I’ve been in politics,” said Senator Lindsey Graham. “I hope that the American people will see through this charade.”

They had best do so. For what is being done to Kavanaugh is, if Democrats take control of Congress in November, a harbinger of what is to come. The assault on Kavanaugh, turning a man known for his integrity into a youthful Jack the Ripper in 10 days, is the playbook for what is planned for Trump.

The Kavanaugh lynching is a dress rehearsal for the impeachment of Donald Trump. And the best way to fight impeachment is the way the judge fought on Thursday.

In defending yourself, go after your malevolent accusers as well.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.

43 Comments (Open | Close)

43 Comments To "A Dress Rehearsal for Impeachment"

#1 Comment By Whine Merchant On September 30, 2018 @ 9:46 pm

Oy! Sadly, Pat, your once insightful observations, and even your pessimistic predictions were once important contributions to the public dialogue, [even though I am am usually on the opposite end of the political spectrum from you on almost every issue], but these frequent “sky is falling” screeds are really beneath your intellect and capacity.

Thank you –

#2 Comment By Stephen J. On September 30, 2018 @ 10:24 pm

I believe these “uncorroborated accusations” are being used as a slanderous sledgehammer by the disgraceful opposition and their allies in the hateful and frenzied media. A vicious vendetta is also being waged by so-called TV news and TV comedians, which is a dirty demeaning display in what used to be a civilized society. Ugh.

#3 Comment By Stephen J. On September 30, 2018 @ 10:45 pm

Article of interest at link below.
Democratic Strategist: My Party Is Doing A ‘Disservice’ With All These Kavanaugh Delay Antics

Matt Vespa

Posted: Sep 30, 2018 6:25 PM

They want to block Kavanaugh, destroy his character, and keep this seat open. They will do just about anything to accomplish this and Flake just went along with it….

[read more at link below]

#4 Comment By Mr. Morningstar On September 30, 2018 @ 10:47 pm

When the GOP did this, where were you, Pat? Where was your self-righteous fury then? You were so blinded by partisanship, you didn’t see this day coming, when Democrats tore a page from the Republican playbook. They must let you contribute out of misplaced respect for the man you once were rather than the doddering old fool you’ve become. Sad.

#5 Comment By JeffK On October 1, 2018 @ 7:17 am

My understanding is that when multiple FBI background checks are executed, the next investigation starts where the last one ended, unless there is reason to go back further in time and check something specific. If so, BK was technically subject to 6 investigations. However, that fact is misleading.

Can somebody with knowledge on this topic describe the process followed when multiple background checks are performed?

Early in my career I passed a background check and was given a top secret clearance for my employer. I was shocked I passed. Later, I found out the FBI talked to a neighbor who really like me. He was retired and when I was in high school I would help him do heavy work around his house. Plus I would bring him a couple of pitchers of beer when I had keg parties when my parents were on vacation.

#6 Comment By mrscracker On October 1, 2018 @ 9:52 am

“They rejected Brett Kavanaugh the day he was nominated.

Why? Because the judge is a conservative and a Catholic, and hence an unreliable vote to sustain Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that discovered hidden in the Constitution a woman’s right to abort her unborn child.”

Whatever else comes out in the hearings, I agree that’s the bottom line & it will be also for any future nominee selected by Mr. Trump.

#7 Comment By PAX On October 1, 2018 @ 10:20 am

Pat makes good points. Insulting Pat will not get much traction. He has “been there, done that.” I get my news from the web; mainly CNN and the BBC. CNN has become a subjective tool of the neocon undercurrent that pervades our society. It does not take the genius of Bletchley Park to decipher their messages and thus render it an insult to the concept of a viable 4th Estate. The BBC is a tad better. Most US media outlets are close behind CNN.

Judge Kavanaugh’s religion (Irish Catholic) is definitely an issue; albeit now subliminal. It is rising quickly. He knows that Catholics are anything but united on eliminating Roe. The first Mayor in the US to allow same-sex marriage was a Catholic and a Democrat- Gavin Newsom. Edmund Brown, governor of California, was once a Jesuit student. The song goes on. At some point, the anti-catholicism will become obvious and even with the Catholic laity disdain for the miscreants in the clergy, there will be a backlash. There nearly was one over the Iraq war. In the Vietnam conflict, the only religious group to exceed their percentage of the population in war-deaths was the Catholics.

Stay tough Pat. Sticks and stones will break your bones but (neocon) words will not hurt you.

#8 Comment By Buddhajerk On October 1, 2018 @ 11:29 am

The incident is not the point (for me) any more. The blatant lying under oath is. I remember when republicans cared about such things. But I guess when a serial liar is your moral touchstone…

#9 Comment By Joe the Plutocrat On October 1, 2018 @ 12:29 pm

nope, pretty sure it is Spring Training for Kavanaugh’s impeachment. I personally cling to the hope the POTUS will not be impeached. it is my wish he learns to ‘deal’ with Democrats/the Left (his estranged ‘family’ as it were). but Kavanaugh? a good fit for a position he had in the “W” White House, but not the SCOTUS.

#10 Comment By EarlyBird On October 1, 2018 @ 12:54 pm

There are two big problems I have with this: why didn’t Kavanaugh himself demand this FBI investigation in order to clear his name? And why talk about himself like he was a boy scout, when he clearly was a heavy drinker and partier in high school, and yes, being 17 was very interested in sex.

I really hope this investigation is definitive in its findings, whatever they may be.

#11 Comment By kimp On October 1, 2018 @ 12:55 pm

He has lied. Repeatedly. Under oath. I can remember when this would be disqualifying.

#12 Comment By swb On October 1, 2018 @ 1:20 pm

I doubt any conservative in power today would mind in the slightest if Trump was impeached. They have a massive corporate tax cut coupled with a big one for the rich. That is pretty much all they really care about and it is done. Time to retire to a life of lobbying and corporate board meetings with some golf thrown in.

#13 Comment By William Foster On October 1, 2018 @ 1:31 pm

Well, of course Ford was “greeted courteously” by Senator Grassley. And of course the GOP Senators weaseled out of the responsibility of questioning the witness. After a series of own goals by the likes of Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, they could ill afford the optics of a bunch of powerful men badgering a woman who dared to make an allegation of sexual assault.

And no, Kavanaugh did not “tear up the script assigned him.” He followed precisely the script used by Donald Trump when faced with accusations of sexual misconduct: Deny, Deflect, Attack.

And I really don’t want to hear any more about how those mean Democrats ‘lynching’ Kavanaugh. At least he got a hearing, which is more than the GOP was willing to do for Merrick Garland, a moderate conservative whose only crime was being nominated by Obama.

#14 Comment By Jack Harllee On October 1, 2018 @ 1:55 pm

Buchanan is too caught up in the passions of the moment. What’s happening to Kavenaugh is not a dress rehearsal for the impeachment of Trump. Why not? Because lots of things can and will happen between now and when a Democratic House takes office. In particular, Mueller is almost certainly going to wind up his investigation before January and (one way or another) submit it to Congress. If his report exonerates Trump (maybe a dirty exoneration a lá Comey on Clinton’s emails), it will be political folly for the Democrats to go after Trump on flimsy charges, such as the Emoulements Clause. If Mueller’s report provides good evidence that Trump really has committed crimes relevant to his Presidency, the Democrats will focus on that.

#15 Comment By Russ Beal On October 1, 2018 @ 2:17 pm

Were it only that simple Pat. The Democrats are certainly making as much out of this as they can. Some of their actions and words are certainly appalling. But none of that has any bearing on the truth or falsity of Dr. Ford. Nor the truth or falsity on Judge Kavanaugh’s statements.

Sen. Grassley should have requested an FBI investigation immediately upon the public release of Dr. Fords name. Instead he tried to rush a confirmation vote in before the accusation gained any traction. Finding the truth of the accusation was clearly never of interest to Sen. Grassley, his only goal being the confirmation of Kavanaugh.

Now that we’ve all heard both testimony’s three things are clear:
1) Dr. Ford appeared believable, confident and sincere.
2) Kavanaugh was evasive, combative and (if you are to believe any of the 3 named former Yale classmates) deceptive in his characterization of his drinking back then.
3) The GOP opposition (and Kavanaughs ducking of the question) to requesting an FBI investigation makes no sense. All their excuses (e.g. only the WH can request that) were intentional obfuscations.

#16 Comment By One Guy On October 1, 2018 @ 2:18 pm

How dare the Dems use tactics to prevent a SCOTUS confirmation?!! Only the GOP can use tactics to prevent Merrick Garland.

Considering Trump’s (and Kavanaugh’s) approval ratings, I’m not sure that warning Trump could be impeached is going to be effective. It’s like warning that we are all going to get free ice cream.

#17 Comment By Zgler On October 1, 2018 @ 2:45 pm

We have an emoluments clause for a reason. Looking into Trump’s finances is a much richer source of criminal behavior than the Russia business (which seems like clear stupidity rather than actual crime) or his sexual malfeasance.

#18 Comment By Cynthia McLean On October 1, 2018 @ 3:25 pm

Mr. Buchanan you must have watched a different set of hearings than I did. Brent Kavanaugh’s behaviour was a disgrace — hyper-partisan, belligerent and rude, in addition to revising his testimony as time went on. The antics of Lindsay Graham then went over the top with histrionic accusations and ugly insinuations, and you blame the Democrats?

#19 Comment By Steve Naidamast On October 1, 2018 @ 3:46 pm

Oh come on Pat…

I listened or watched nearly the entire set of hearings on this nominee.

Just his evasiveness during his questioning on the law would be enough to demonstrate that this man is completely unqualified to sit on any court as a judge…

#20 Comment By dbrize On October 1, 2018 @ 4:56 pm

Oh what the hell, Pat.

We pretty well know there has been no agreement to disengage from the “politics of personal destruction” as given us by Brother Atwater those many years ago. And since, with refinements from the Brock’s, Clinton’s and other accomplished assassins both right and left.

And remember for all his intemperance, indeed serio-comic qualities, the Golden Haired One has his own skill-set to play here. He seems to enjoy these things like a bar fighter hearing a ruckus across the way.

Amy Comey Barrett, subs in for the accused, the FBI examines Kav thoroughly and finds nothing, even worse for the Dems, outright lies by a gasp, female or two (see A Dershowitz for the drift) and later, when Sister Ginsburg meets her maker, guess who the Golden one could nominate?

Not promoting either one mind you, just impish play at recess with the devil…

#21 Comment By The Other Sands On October 1, 2018 @ 5:14 pm

“The assault on Brett Kavanaugh is a preview of what Democrats have planned for the president.”

Well, that should be easy, because Trump has been accused by 19 women.

#22 Comment By Dino J. DeConcini On October 1, 2018 @ 5:25 pm

I doubt the Democrats would impeach Trump if they got control of the House but nowhere near the 2/3 of the Senate required for conviction. This would further divide the country for no purpose and make both sides even more partisan. In Arizona in the 1880’s we had a kind of crazy Republican Governor Evan Mechum, who was a lot like Trump though not a entertaining. He was indicted for something like misuse of campaign funds, I think but before he could be tried, the Republican controlled legislature, probably out of embarrassment, successfully impeached and convicted him. In the next primary election most if not all the legislators who voted against Mecham, all conservatives, were defeated by ultra-conservatives. Partisan rancor escalated andruled for decades to the detriment of the state, and some remnants still persist.

#23 Comment By Herbert Zigler On October 1, 2018 @ 6:28 pm


#24 Comment By Mike Ludwig On October 1, 2018 @ 6:36 pm

Pat’s right again. For the abortion Nazis in the Culture of Death party perpetrating the Silent Holocaust, it’s all about ensuring Planned Parenthood’s baby killing machines–aka American Auschwitz– are not interrupted.

#25 Comment By Stephen J. On October 1, 2018 @ 7:14 pm

I posted the comment below earlier in the comments section of Daniel Larson’s article: “Kavanaugh and the Rule of Law” October 1st 2018.
It did not get printed. ??? What was wrong with it?

You write about Kavanaugh: “he stands credibly accused of sexual assault when he was 17,…”
So far there is no evidence or proof on this. And “the Rule of Law” is supposed to be based on truth not accusations.

#26 Comment By Thaomas On October 1, 2018 @ 7:18 pm

I doubt that the House will impeach, but would it not be a good idea for President Trump to comfort his accusers after an FBI investigation of their allegations?

#27 Comment By Stephen J. On October 1, 2018 @ 7:32 pm

This slanderous sick spectacle of an innocent man is getting filthier and disgusting by some in the media. Accusations are being described as “credible.” More info at link below.

#28 Comment By john On October 1, 2018 @ 8:35 pm

A seriously disturbed woman reports an alleged rape that took happened in a place, and at a time, she cannot remember. She also does not know how she got there or how she got home. Sounds like an alien abduction to me. Perhaps the FBI should reopen the X Files. They are no less fantastic than Ford’s allegations. Perhaps it was a hypnagogic sleep episode. However, it is more likely a deliberate character assassination.

#29 Comment By TAC really does not need liberals On October 1, 2018 @ 9:10 pm

Sigh, the usual recycled “Liberals NEVER do anything wrong! Therefore Pat, you’re wrong. Look at these points MSNBC and CNN told us we’re all supposed to believe! They prove you’re wrong. ” from the TAC liberal sheep.

#30 Comment By Enough of this On October 1, 2018 @ 9:19 pm

I wonder what liberals who comment on Pat’s Columns think they’re doing. Pat doesn’t read and respond to the comments like Rod does.

They never come up with interesting or original comments, just tired and recycled liberal talking points which rarely have anything other than a tangential relationship to the article and are often not rooted in reality. (I mean how many times are women NOT going to leave the GOP en masse after the latest so called Republican assault on women before they figure out that every Republican woman is not a closet Democrat?)

Anyway Republicans are going to need to defeat the Democrats in both houses in the fall, and start looking to unseat every Democrat they can, everywhere they can.

That’s what it’s going to take for Democrats to come to terms with the reality that they aren’t on the winning side of history, that Trump is not an aberration, and they are going to have to come up with a better argument than “Vote Democrat or else!”

#31 Comment By JR On October 1, 2018 @ 9:47 pm

I don’t know what Pat is smoking. If Democrats get the majority, watch Trump become left of center very quickly. His trade policies are already left of center. He just has to adjust his immigration policies…or forget about them for a while. I bet that is what he will do.

#32 Comment By Kurt Gayle On October 1, 2018 @ 11:12 pm

A commenter, Herbert Zigler, links to the Oct. 1st Daniel Larison column in which Larison claims that Kavanaugh “has lied repeatedly under oath…He lied to the Judiciary Committee many times…He knowingly gave false statements under oath…The multiple lies he told during his testimony.”

Oddly, Larison doesn’t give any examples of the “lies” that he claims that Kavanaugh told. Instead Larison bases his charges against Kavanaugh on an article by two young women at “The Intercept” named Briahna Gray and Camille Baker.

However, Gray and Baker also struggle to find an example of a Kavanaugh “lie.” Rather they write things such as:

* “Kavanaugh strained credulity when he argued…[about] a phrase that appeared on his high school yearbook page…

* “[He] claimed to not really know Ford at all, despite her testimony that she ‘went out with’ one of his close friends…

* “He testified that drinking was ‘legal for seniors,’ even though it was decidedly illegal for him — a rising senior who wouldn’t turn 18 until the following year…

* “Kavanaugh dissembled about whether he ever drank to excess…although he admitted in his opening statement that ’sometimes I had too many beers’…

* “His assertion that all of the witnesses who could corroborate Ford’s testimony denied it ever happened…Having ‘no recollection’ of the night in question, or no ‘knowledge’ of the alleged events, is not the same as saying it didn’t happen…”

Gray and Baker say that Kavanaugh “repeatedly misrepresented facts.” They say that he “dissembled when pressed for detail.” But they themselves seem confused and of two minds and they ask the question “Should we understand these moments as lies, or as misinterpretations rooted in substandard analytical rigor?”

With one exception—Gray and Baker claim that Kavanaugh “lied about having no connections to Yale…[because] his grandfather…went to Yale”—they cite no examples of so-called Kavanaugh “lies.”

Thus, it is strange, indeed, that Daniel Larison cites Gray and Baker for his unsubstantiated claims that Kavanaugh “has lied repeatedly under oath…He lied to the Judiciary Committee many times…He knowingly gave false statements under oath…The multiple lies he told during his testimony.”

#33 Comment By Rick On October 2, 2018 @ 12:24 am

Mr. Kavanaugh gave worse testimony than a first year law student.

He essentially represented himself and as a result had a fool for a client.

That alone disqualifies him from the Supreme Court. I mean seriously what was he thinking?

He perjured himself over idiocy. Alcohol? Of course he’s been blind drunk. You’d be hard to find any high school or college student who wasn’t blind drunk in the 1980’s at least a dozen times a year.

So why lie? Of course if he admits that then it’s possible this assault did happen.

But just own up to it. It’s was 80’s and we got piss drunk. So did everyone else. I don’t remember seeing or being at a party with Mrs. Ford.

My grandfather didn’t go to Yale Law School. He went on the GI Bill first to Farleigh Dickinson College and then The University of Miami Law School.

He paid his bills by working and playing poker on the side. He also worked for a bookie from time to time.

51 years ago he argued a case before the US Supreme Court defending his clients rights under the then young Miranda decision

He won. Miranda became stronger.

Watching Kavanaugh I heard the two words he used to say when watching someone’s testimony or an attorneys performance in an appellate court:

They’re dead!

Had he been alive that would have been exactly what he would have said after watching the amateur hour performance by Kavanaugh.

I honestly couldn’t believe what I was seeing.

A chimpanzee could have done a better job.

That’s the other statement my grandfather would have said.

#34 Comment By BCZ On October 2, 2018 @ 4:24 am

All the Democrats are doing is what the GOP did in the mid and late 1990’s, and it is doing to Democratic voters the same thing it did to GOP voters… during them into hateful, extremist, fever minded, closet authoritarians.

#35 Comment By mrscracker On October 2, 2018 @ 10:27 am

Mike Ludwig ,
I do think the energy behind these hearings is about Mr. Trump in general & feticide on demand in particular. Little else seems to stir up so much division.

#36 Comment By Joe the Plutocrat On October 2, 2018 @ 11:34 am

as @ Rick notes, this circus is, and probably never was about what happened in the 1980s. but just for the sake of argument, why would a person contact mutual acquaintances from say, the Yale Law School, to ask their help in refuting or corroborating (his account), of events that never occurred some 30 years ago? Trump’s best “deal” would be to “re-assign” Kavanaugh to some important WH position, where his strengths (rabid anti-Clinton, shameless dishonesty, entitlement, volatility, etc.) will be of greater value. as others have noted, there any number of qualified (conservative) jurists who are no prone to perjure themselves.

#37 Comment By Kurt Gayle On October 2, 2018 @ 1:17 pm

Stephen J. says (Oct 1, 7:14 pm): “I posted the comment below earlier in the comments section of Daniel Larson’s article: ‘Kavanaugh and the Rule of Law’ October 1st 2018. It did not get printed. ??? What was wrong with it? StephenJ.”

The Stephen J. comment that did not get posted under Daniel Larson’s article ‘Kavanaugh and the Rule of Law’ is as follows:

“You write about Kavanaugh: ‘he stands credibly accused of sexual assault when he was 17,…’ So far there is no evidence or proof on this. And ‘the Rule of Law’ is supposed to be based on truth not accusations.”

I sympathize with Stephen J, because (when I still bothered to try to post at Mr. Larison’s blog) I had similar bad experiences. Time and again when I criticized Mr. Larison’s writing in a comment, he would not post my comment. Thus, I stopped trying to post at Larison. For example, I would never have tried to post under Larison’s article the criticism of it that I posted on this page (Oct 1, 11:12 pm).

On the positive side—re TAC as a whole–over the years I have posted critical comments under various other TAC blogs and under various TAC articles, and I have never been refused. My critical comments have always been posted. Only Mr. Larison seems to make a habit of refusing to post critical comments.

Perhaps Mr. Larison would have more readers and more commenters if he were more open to posting reader criticisms of what he writes. I understand that no one enjoys criticism of their writing—and I also understand that Mr. Larison needs to exercise complete control of his blogsite—but I think that his current attitude and policy is in the long run very counterproductive.

#38 Comment By Kurt Gayle On October 2, 2018 @ 1:57 pm

Further to Stephen J’s and my complaints about Daniel Larison’s failures to post criticisms of his writings: As of 1:50 pm today (Oct 2) there have been 62 eesponses to Mr. Larison’s Oct 1st “Kavanaugh and the Rule of Law” article. Only 4 of the 62 commenters criticized the Larison piece and only one (“red6020”) objected to Mr. Larison’s accusation that Judge Kavanaugh has lied repeatedly under oath. Even “red6020”—after raising some initial objections re Larison’s Kavanaugh “lied” claim—says: “I’m not saying Larison’s wrong for believing in Blasey Ford or that Kavanaugh lied under oath. (Two different questions of course). But it’s not exactly a slam dunk case. And there’s no reason to go around acting like it is.”

No reasonable person (regardless of their opinions in these matters) can reasonably assume tha of 62 commenter only one—one!–would raise (even mild) objections (as in the case of “red6020”) to Mr. Larison’s unsubstantiated claims that Kavanaugh “has lied repeatedly under oath…He lied to the Judiciary Committee many times…He knowingly gave false statements under oath…The multiple lies he told during his testimony.”

#39 Comment By ShawnF On October 2, 2018 @ 3:14 pm

Just change a few words around and tell me this still looks like a legitimate article, not just a partisan hatchet job:

“They rejected Merrick Garland the day he was nominated.

Why? Because the judge is regarded as a moderate, and hence an unreliable vote to repeal Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that made clear that a man’s religious preconceptions do not override a woman’s right to receive her own medical care.
The verdict on the judge came down in the hearts and minds of his enemies the moment that he was named. They had him convicted before they’d met him. And once his fate was decided, the only remaining issue was where to find the political excuse to bury him without having to give him a fair hearing.”

Would you respond by arguing that I couldn’t possibly have any knowledge AT ALL about what was in Mitch McConnell’s mind at the time, let alone the minds of the other Republicans? That it is an ignorant mischaracterization to ascribe such malicious intentions to them? That it is inaccurate and offensive so suggest that an elected Senator would shirk his or her constitutional responsibility so much as to make major “advise and consent” decisions without regard to any evidence or data whatsoever?

You would be right. And the same criticism can be applied to Buchanan here.

#40 Comment By mrscracker On October 2, 2018 @ 4:30 pm

ShawnF says:
” Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that made clear that a man’s religious preconceptions do not override a woman’s right to receive her own medical care.”

It’s a free country but that’s seems like a great deal of verbal engineering to describe our current laws enabling feticide on demand.

There are 2 individual patients present in that scenario. The smaller patient is much more than a woman’s “medical care.” It’s a developing human being.

It’s become an overused comparison, but men’s zealous religious preconceptions were behind laws that would override a man (or woman’s) right to own slaves.

Religious preconceptions aren’t always a bad thing & our culture’s been built on that Judeo Christian foundation. Eroding that foundation can take you to some scary places.

#41 Comment By Jonathan Shultz On October 2, 2018 @ 5:00 pm

“The Kavanaugh lynching is a dress rehearsal for the impeachment of Donald Trump.”

God I hope so! I’m afraid you’re too optimistic here Pat…

#42 Comment By Dale On October 2, 2018 @ 7:02 pm

Enough of this:
“I wonder what liberals who comment on Pat’s Columns think they’re doing. Pat doesn’t read and respond to the comments like Rod does.”

They’re probably talking to the same people you’re talking to.

#43 Comment By genetuttle On October 3, 2018 @ 5:18 am

Well Pat, you had really stirred up the wimp’s nest with this piece.

I focused my comments yesterday on Daniel Larison’s hatchet job of Kavanaugh. As another reader here noted, a reader whose own comments also didn’t get through Larison, (he) “seems to make a habit of refusing to post critical comments.”

Among my more minor objections to Larison’s “Rule of Law” piece was his false claim that Kavanaugh “sought to present himself as someone beyond reproach…in the past.” Regarding his youthful years, Kavanaugh did no such thing.

More serious was Larison’s claim (backed by many of his and your — Pat’s — detractors) that Kavanaugh’s statements about his teenage drinking amounted to perjury. Since challenging that yesterday, I came across contradictory video-recorded claims by one of Kavanaugh’s principle accusers, Chad Ludington.


Kavanaugh Transcript:
“I drank beer with my friends (in high school)… sometimes I had too many beers …but I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out…
(Can anyone interpret “too many beers” as anything but inebriation? It has to be more than just “tipsy” because tipsy is usually not regarded as “too many” unless one is behind the wheel of a car. That’s not being alleged.)

Ludington Transcript
“I have seen Brett drunk to the point he could easily be passed out. … I never saw him passed out, but I saw him quite drunk,”

Ludington then contradicts himself, however, in this other statement to CNN:
“…in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking …Brett (Kavaaugh) has not told the truth…”

So, Larison labels it is perjury if Kavanaugh disagrees about how much is too much and (according to Ludington) “denying the possibility” of a condition Ludington himself admits he has no direct knowledge of.