Kavanaugh’s calendar: I don’t believe Kavanaugh, and he lied to the president who boosted him

Some people seem to like being lied to. In fact, there are some people who’d rather be lied to by a man than told the truth by a woman. Let’s hope President Trump isn’t one of them. If Judge Brett Kavanaugh had any claim to credibility going in, at yesterday’s hearing, he has none coming out.

As I wrote day before yesterday,

The nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court should not be a partisan divide. At this point, there is more than enough reason to go back to the drawing board. The judge should thank his lucky stars for his current job. He and the White House should withdraw his name from consideration. President Trump should pick a nominee who does not have a track record of alcohol trouble.

It’s not only the series of misstatements from Judge Kavanaugh–claiming over and over again that people exonerated him when they didn’t, claiming that his drinking and drunkenness were less than they were in truth, claiming that he has always treated women with respect. Some of his own friends including Republican friends have spoken to the contrary. Lynne Brookes spoke on Cuomo Prime Time last night. She herself saw Kavanaugh and friend Chris Dudley decide to embarrass a young woman–by breaking into a room where she had gone with her date–and they did so.

Image result for kavanaugh calendar

A dead giveaway would be that calendar that Judge Kavanaugh himself offered.

MITCHELL: Dr. Ford described a small gathering of people at a suburban Maryland home in the summer of 1982. She said that Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth and Leland Ingham also were present, as well as an unknown male, and that the people were drinking to varying degrees. Were you ever at a gathering that fits that description?

KAVANAUGH: No, as I’ve said in my opening statements — opening statement.

To her credit, the questioner, Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, followed up with Kavanaugh as she had followed up with Ford:

MITCHELL: I want to talk about your calendars. You submitted to the committee copies of the handwritten calendars that you’ve talked about for the months of May, June, July and August of 1982. Do you have them in front of you?

KAVANAUGH: I do.

MITCHELL: Did you create these calendars, in the sense of all the handwriting that’s on them?

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

MITCHELL: OK. Is it exclusively your handwriting?

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

MITCHELL: When did you make these entries?

KAVANAUGH: In nine — in 1982.

MITCHELL: Has anything changed — been changed for those since 1982?

KAVANAUGH: No.

MITCHELL: Do these calendars represent your plans for each day, or do they document — in other words, prospectively, or do they document what actually occurred, more like a diary?

This is a series of good questions. Mitchell did no grandstanding. She stuck to evidence and stuck to detail.

KAVANAUGH: They’re both forward-looking and backward-looking, as you can tell by looking at them, because I cross out certain doctor’s appointments that didn’t happen, or one night where I was supposed to lift weights, I crossed that out, because it — I obviously didn’t make it that night. So you can see things that I didn’t do crossed out in retrospect, and also, when I list the specific people who I was with, that is likely backward-looking.

MITCHELL: You explain that you kept these calendars because your father started keeping them in 1978, I believe you said. That’s why you kept them. In other words, you wrote on them. But why did you keep them up until this time?

KAVANAUGH: Well — well, he’s kept them, too, since 1978, so he’s a good role model.

At this point, most unfortunately, Grassley stopped her–at Kavanaugh’s request:

GRASSLEY: Ms. Mitchell, you’ll have to stop.

MITCHELL: Oh, I’m sorry.

GRASSLEY: Judge Kavanaugh has asked for a break, so we’ll take a 15-minute break.

(RECESS)

Eventually, after Leahy’s turn questioning Kavanaugh, Rachel Mitchell was allowed to resume.

GRASSLEY: Ms. Mitchell?

MITCHELL: Judge, do you still have your calendar — calendars there?

KAVANAUGH: I do.

MITCHELL: I would like you to look at the July 1st entry.

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

MITCHELL: The entry says — and I quote — “Go to Timmy’s (ph) for skis (ph) with Judge (ph), Tom (ph), P.J. (ph), Bernie (ph) and Squee (ph)”?

KAVANAUGH: Squee. That’s a nick…

MITCHELL: What does…

KAVANAUGH: … that’s a nickname.

MITCHELL: OK. To what does this refer, and to whom?

KAVANAUGH: So first, says “Tobin’s (ph) house workout”. So that’s one of the football workouts that we would have — that Dr. (inaudible) would run for guys on the football team during the summer.

So we would be there — that’s usually 6:00 to 8:00 or so, kind of — until near dark. And then it looks like we went over to Timmy’s — you want to know their last names too? I’m happy to do it.

MITCHELL: If you could just identify, is — is “Judge,” Mark Judge?

KAVANAUGH: It is.

MITCHELL: And is “P.J.,” P.J. Smith?

KAVANAUGH: It is.

So — all right. It’s Tim Gaudette (ph), Mark Judge, Tom Caine (ph), P.J. Smith, Bernie McCarthy (ph), Chris Garrett (ph).

MITCHELL: Chris Garrett is Squee?

KAVANAUGH: He is.

MITCHELL: Did you in your calendar routinely document social gatherings like house parties or gatherings of friends in your calendar?

KAVANAUGH: Yes. It — it certainly appears that way, that’s what I was doing in the summer of 1982. And you can see that reflected on several of the — several of the entries.

There was more, in the testimony to Mitchell and in the calendar itself, more than enough to rebut Kavanaugh’s claims that he has “never” been to such a gathering as that testified to by Dr. Ford. Unfortunately, Mitchell’s time was up. The calendar had not run out, but the honest questioning had. Once Senator Lindsey Graham launched into his bogus diatribe, the day for fact-finding was over.

At least, it was over in the hearing room. Others have confirmed through Mark Judge’s own book that he did indeed work at the nearby Safeway that summer, the summer of 1982.

Kavanaugh, Ford: It’s not ’50-50′: We do have facts

What’s called a hearing will take place this morning, on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court and the statements of Professor Christine Blasey Ford–

Hoping we don’t hear the inevitable–‘he says, she says’, or ‘it’s 50-50’, the verbal equivalent of people on air throwing up their hands–‘How do we go back 35 years?’-

We don’t have to. We have facts, and facts in the common knowledge at that. Line up the pronouns; here are a few:

  1. She wants the FBI to investigate. He does not. (By the way, I cannot believe that Republicans in the Senate are trying to ward off an FBI investigation. Look at the nightmare on their hands if they were to confirm Kavanaugh, and some enterprising journalists dig up the relevant information after he gets on the high court, when the only remedy is impeachment.)
  2. She submitted to a polygraph exam. He did not.
  3. She passed the polygraph. He did not.
  4. She wants the process to take whatever time needed to arrive at the truth. His allies do not. They (the more top-down elements of the GOP) are trying to rush it through, hugger-mugger as Hamlet would say.
  5. She wants the other person allegedly in the room, Mark Judge, to appear and to answer questions. His allies do not.
  6. [ADD THIS ONE, 10:04 a.m. Thursday] Her classmates have spoken out in her defense, giving their names. Years’ worth of Holton Arms alumni have signed petitions in her defense. His “members of the class have agreed not to speak on the record to reporters.” (WaPo A10, “Swednick’s Job Experience [etc]”)

Image result for Christine Blasey Ford

‘We weren’t in the room’. No, but we’re in the room now.

Hopeless is not necessary.

Re the typical push-back in yesterday’s blog post, the one all-purpose riposte is that Dr. Ford’s credible allegations are part of Democratic delaying tactics. Not for a moment do I believe that the accuser is part of some Chuck Schumer plot, for the record. But the Dems’ own political lameness–calling for the nomination to be ‘blocked’ when it was constitutionally impossible to do so–set up this bogus rebuttal.

Also, the Democrats in the Senate might not be in this position in the first place if they had pushed for Mitch McConnell’s expulsion back when he openly flouted the U.S. constitution.

“It’s about the integrity of that institution.”

Why is President Donald Trump trying to appoint someone with a track record of drunkenness to the Supreme Court?

The nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court should not be a partisan divide. At this point, there is more than enough reason to go back to the drawing board. The judge should thank his lucky stars for his current job. He and the White House should withdraw his name from consideration. President Trump should pick a nominee who does not have a track record of alcohol trouble.

While public record in Maryland would show that I am a registered Democrat, and I make no secret of my political leanings as a citizen and voter, I am not taking my stand against this nominee based on partisanship. As a newspaper reader, I have no respect for the hysterically anti-Trump drivel I’ve been trying to sidestep for months now. One reason I have not weighed in against the hysteria more, aside from regrettable time constraints and constraints on other resources, is that I do not want to step on a future book project–a book on political philosophy that I plan, or hope, to write.

Related image

Right now, Judge Brett Kavanaugh has at least two serious and credible accusations against him. I for one believe the accusers named so far, Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez. None of the questions or accusations or implied threats so far leveled against the accusers give me pause. Nobody like me is going to be called to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, but if I were, I could address the main, predictable categories of push-back,

  1. the Why-didn’t-she-do-such-and-such question/s
  2. the Why-did-she-wait-until-now question/s
  3. the We-don’t-have-enough-evidence stance

I’m hoping nobody takes those tacks in tomorrow’s hearing–which I will be watching on  video, in between other work as usual.

Image result for Christine Blasey Ford

Aside from the sexual misconduct accusations, there is more than enough evidence in the public record already to show that the younger Brett Kavanaugh had a problem holding his liquor, as they used to say. The article in (my issue of) today’s WaPo is only one recent example. Multiple witnesses who know Kavanaugh and/or who knew him when have instanced his bouts of drinking. Like millions of other college kids, he drank a lot. Again like millions of other college kids, he drank too much. Comments from Kavanaugh himself indicate that he still drank heavily after getting into Yale Law.

Something more than just college drinking or college-age drinking went on, however. For one thing, Kavanaugh’s heavy drinking began in high school, and high-school excess drinking does at least as much harm as college excess drinking. Teens should not drink, because the teenage brain is still developing and cannot handle alcohol abuse. Kavanaugh’s high-school drinking at Georgetown Prep shows up in his own high school yearbook statements. It shows up in the writing of his longtime friend, Mark Judge, who has written frankly about his own alcohol addiction.

For another, he continued the heavy drinking for years, through high school, in college, and in law school. For another–unless you assume that every single person who saw him drinking is lying–then he is lying about the alcohol use or genuinely does not remember it. This is not a good sign. For real substance abusers, the lying becomes almost as compulsive as the drinking; and the lying can be abetted by genuine memory lapses brought on by the alcohol itself.

And for another thing, his personality changed when he drank. This is the real danger sign–even more of a danger sign than just drinking too much.

And on top of the drinking and the accusations of sexual misconduct, there are also the young Kavanaugh’s own words. That “Renate alumnius” ‘joke’, for example? This from the man who claimed on national television that he has always treated women with respect? (This is not the only such yearbook message from Kavanaugh, by the way; I’m choosing not to quote another.)

‘Trump’ is not the story here

If Judge Kavanaugh does end up getting confirmed to the highest court in the land, by the way–IF he does–it will be not only because of Republican intransigence but also because of some of the ham-handed unfairness in news media, not against Kavanaugh but against Trump. I have no interest whatsoever in the phalanx of hysterical commentators and even reporters who clearly just want to spend the next two or more years going TrumpTrumpTrump.

I am a freelance journalist myself, I have loved newspapers all my life–although I haven’t always loved the way they treated their printers–but it is only too obvious right now that some individuals in the news media think anything is okay, no holds barred, as long as it might damage President Trump. Some of these individuals are at the New York Times. There’s that ridiculous anonymous op-ed on September 5, purporting to come from some inner sanctum in the White House. –Heard anything about that lately, btw? There’s the equally ridiculous ‘news report’ August 24 purporting to show that Rod Rosenstein discussed removing Trump from office. Actually, NYTimes’ language itself suggests that this ‘story’ is not a leak, but a plant. If I worked at the Times, I’d be looking at McCabe. –Wonder how soon this furor will die–or has it died already?

When we as members of the informed electorate see an august newspaper getting away with this garbage, when we see over-secure and over-promoted journalists getting away with the abuses, and no one willing or able to call them on the abuses, the offenses give credence to sweeping attacks against the press. The sweeping attacks then become, of course, a way for the worst offenders to wrap themselves in the mantle of the First Amendment. Needless to say, I don’t see the U.S. press as “enemies of the people.” I’m part of the press myself, I’m a reader, and as said I love newspapers.

I’m also part of the people. So are the rest of the press. They’re not enemies of the people; they are people. That’s the clue. Line up the fundamentals as premises, make a syllogism out of them:

  • All human beings are fallible
  • All journalists are human beings
  • Therefore, all journalists are fallible

The fallibility is a universal. But a universal is not a constant. Again, fundamentals, premises, chain of argument:

  • A universal is not a constant
  • That human beings do wrong is a universal
  • That human beings do wrong is not a constant

We all do wrong things. That does not make us all equally wrong. (Et cetera.) If it did, there could be no justice system.

The fact that a few or several human beings at the New York Times did some very wrong things does not mean that all journalists do the same.

Back to alcohol abuse: people who abuse substances can go into recovery, genuine recovery. When they do, the signs are there–not just the sobriety itself, but the frank and accurate admission of the compulsion; the fulfillment of a program; and the willingness to take responsibility and to make amends.

I wouldn’t say that no recovering alcoholic should ever become a judge, or even a Supreme Court justice. But I would say that recovering is a prerequisite.

That anonymous New York Times Op-Ed: could this be an actual “senior official”?

ANONYMOUS NYTimes Op Ed  – a “senior official”? Are you SURE, New York Times?

You know you’re in trouble, as a reader, when you face apocalyptic rhetoric trying to pretend it’s measured, as in,

President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

This is that instantly famous anonymous op-ed in the New York Times, of course. I can’t help feeling curious about the author, and I’m going into such slight clues as I perceive, below. But there is no way I’m condoning the Times’ cheap trick–even as I get sucked in by it. This op-ed would never have been famous on the merits, regardless of positions espoused. Nobody would have paid attention to it without that anonymous insinuation that President Trump is being fervently betrayed by everyone around him.

(I am reading the prose style for clues, not as a literary critic. But someone could have recommended fewer -ly endings. The country here is not “divided,” but “bitterly divided.” One does not “grasp,” or fail to grasp, but “fully grasp.” People are not “working,” but “working diligently.” And so on. Did the NYTimes get rid of its editors along with its copy people?)

On to the slight clues, such as they are. Author’s sentences are in the quote boxes; my inferences are in editorial brackets:

It’s not just that . . . his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

[anti-Democrats]  [anti-‘left’]  [does not know how to hyphenate or thinks hyphenating is too female-like]

The language is peppered with those idioms, modifiers, and prepositional phrases that seem to be grandchildren of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Cold-War era. Could be a clue there as to who some of his college professors were.

The dilemma . . . not fully grasp . . .

[male, white, age between 40 and 60]

The Times identifies the author thus: “The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration.” Yet when referring to people in the administration, the author separates them from himself:

 . . . many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within . . .

He also separates himself from people politically to his left:

. . . ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We . . . think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

[GOP, finance wing of the party or working on it]

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for . . . free minds, free markets and free people.

[ Cf https://kirkcenter.org/symposia/free-minds-free-markets-and-free-people/]

 . . . President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

[pro- ‘free trade’] [anti-organized labor]

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military  . . .

[pro-redistributing wealth upward] [pro-militarism, or at least not against it]

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

[recently snubbed, ignored, or dismissed by Trump?]

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief  . . .

[not a senior official himself? isn’t he allegedly one of them?] [writes as an outsider]

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently . . .

[sorry, but this does not sound like the voice of “a top official” himself. This is true Evans-and-Novak stuff ]  [sounds like someone overhearing or querying a top official]

Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un . . .

[not a fan of international negotiation]

On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies . . . But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

[anti-Russia] [pro-‘national security team’]

 . . .  there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, . . .

[Probably started the minute after Trump up-ended every prediction about the 2016 election.]

As a reader, I look forward to learning more about the definition of “senior official.” And of “public editor.”

[Update September 5: The author does seem to feel stung by something. Maybe another clue: he could be one of the few people not interviewed by WaPo reporter Bob Woodward for his new book on the Trump White House. Of course, this does seem a bit like NYTimes’ stealing WaPo’s thunder.]

[Update September 7: Per my earlier tweet–does anyone else remember the furor over Joe Klein’s Primary Colors? Everyone was sure it was someone close to Bill Clinton.]