Don McGhan: Patriot or Trump Enabler?

In the pantheon of American patriots who sacrificed position to preserve the republic and avoid a constitutional crisis, how would you rank former White House counsel Don McGahn?  

Is he worthy of adulation for thwarting the worst impulses of a petty president? Should we laud him for ignoring the rants of Donald Trump, the commands of a megalomaniac, the wanton dictates of a wannabe autocrat? For surely on more than one occasion, according to his own testimony to special counsel Robert Mueller, McGhan saved Trump’s presidency by not executing his orders. 

So where do you stand on McGhan? Patriot or enabler of tyranny for keeping Trump in the White House?

Before you respond, here’s a thought to muddle your thinking: Along with Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, McGhan is responsible for a decades’ long turn to the right in our federal judiciary. He managed the selections and confirmations of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court and dozens of lower court judges appointed for life. 

Now what do you say? Is McGhan to be praised or reviled? Trump has him tops on his most current “s— list” because he has revealed the nakedness of Trump’s intellect and disdain for the Constitution. He spilled the beans—on the record—on the dysfunction in the Oval Office. He corroborated previously reported stories, based on sources, that Trump’s aides ignored his directives and assiduously worked to keep him from violating the law or corroding the government. 

Naturally, the denier-in-chief rejected the idea that anyone stifled his impulses, but testimony under oath to the contrary is difficult to rebut, especially since it came from several officials.

Yet, there are those judges McGhan put on the bench. Would America be better off if McGhan had resigned rather than helped Trump stay in office? 

Probably not. Because Mike Pence as a replacement president would have nominated those same judges, if not more conservative jurists. Liberal values were screwed no matter who served as president or counsel to the president as long as Republicans held a majority in the Senate. 

Ideology aside, it may be argued McGhan acted in the best interests of the nation. He forestalled a constitutional crisis. It will be interesting to observe how he reacts and responds to the subpoena Congress just extended to him. 

Attorney General William Barr, on the other hand, has openly displayed his bias. Rather than be the people’s attorney, Barr has shown himself to be Trump’s best defense lawyer. His repeated use of Trump’s catch-phrase “no collusion” was an open acknowledgment that he was conspiring with Trump to undermine the findings of the Mueller report. 

Collusion is not a legal term to be used in the context of the Mueller probe. Mueller found insufficient evidence to say there was a conspiracy with Russia to sway the election. He did not make a judgment on the question of obstruction of justice. Barr did, saying no obstruction occurred. But Mueller’s report provided numerous instances where Trump interfered with the investigation or its legitimacy. 

An unbiased attorney general would have let Congress decide the matter. He would not have pre-judged the question. Unlike McGhan, Barr added fuel to the fire of possible impeachment and constitutional crisis. 

Biden Drawing Lots of Advice on Running

Joe Biden is getting a lot of free advice lately*. Run; Don’t run. Apologize; Just say you’re sorry, I won’t do it again (hopefully, that is, given that being touchy-feely is hardwired into his DNA). 

Perhaps the best thing to come out of Biden’s #MeToo moment has been the mocking he has endured from Donald Trump and his depraved supporters. Of all people, the misogynist- and philanderer-in-chief should be silent on matters related to violating a woman’s space. On this issue alone, any woman who would opt for The Donald over Uncle Joe, even Creepy Uncle Joe, is beyond redemption, is lost to any Democrat hoping to kick the miscreant out of the White House. 

The Biden contretemps over his pressing-the-flesh form of retail politics has spotlighted the evolution of electoral choices for the whole country, most especially for Democrats. 

Republicans seem content to look beyond most any candidate’s past and even current indiscretions. Hard right policies are more important to them than a strong moral character. Examples abound, including Roy Moore of Alabama and Steve King of Iowa. Let’s also not forget Brett Kavanaugh.

No one has implied Biden had dark thoughts when he invaded the privacy of women and men during his long public career. But by turning his actions of decades ago, or even of yesterday, into an immutable character flaw, those advocating his withdrawal from any consideration of the presidency have transformed the selection of a nominee into a beauty contest rather than a competition of ideas and principles. Young voters, in particular, should care more about the values a leader encompasses and the future he or she projects for them, our country and the world than on a series of unintentionally inappropriate touches. 

Biden has a lot of political baggage he must defend, from how he handled Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings to his advocacy of tough criminal laws that disproportionately affected people of color. He should not expect the nomination to be handed to him on a silver platter.

But he should not be disqualified because his service record spans generational changes. Good leaders evolve their thinking, their actions. 

Everyone wanting to be president, including Trump, claims they will work for “all” Americans, that they want to work across party lines. Biden is one of the few, if only, who has that experience. 

He should be given the chance to be compared against those who believe they have a more meaningful vision to unite the country. More importantly, whomever is chosen as the Democratic standard bearer needs to convince voters he or she can defeat Trump.

*For those who may have missed some of the free advice Biden is receiving, here are several links:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/joe-biden-and-the-perils-of-good-intentions?utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_040719&utm_medium=email&bxid=5be9fba73f92a4046938dd67&user_id=18019120&esrc=&utm_term=TNY_Daily

https://nyti.ms/2uLZGuo

https://nyti.ms/2WJbcCR

https://nyti.ms/2VsVhII

https://mol.im/a/6890849

Let's Go to the Yearbook, then the Videotape

It has become a common practice for anyone involved in a hiring process to first check an applicant’s social media pages before extending an employment offer. Conversely, it is not unusual for smart candidates to scrub their postings of any offensive or questionable entries. 

With the Brett Kavanaugh and Ralph Northam debacles as guidance, it seems we have descended into a new level of background exposure—high school and college/graduate school yearbooks. How better to know the person sitting anxiously across the desk from you than to gaze onto his or her adolescent picture and wonder what “real” image might be found within the pages of a yearbook? As if actions of a decade, two decades, or more, ago have relevant bearing on the values and character of the adult in the room.

Does anyone doubt that in most Southern states blackface pictures similar to those in Northam’s medical school yearbook could be found in high school and college yearbooks from the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and 90’s? 

Yet, I return to my stated belief that the high jinks of youthful indiscretion should not be a disqualifier. How a candidate, or an elected official, comported him- or herself in adulthood should be paramount. 

In other words, short of a criminal act, such as that alleged against Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax, there should be a statute of limitations for dredging up old behavior deemed inappropriate by today’s standards.  

Politicians, especially those seeking the ultimate higher office, must practice patience. Yes, the 24-hour non-stop news cycle demands comment. How about a simple, let’s wait for all the facts to come out before rendering judgment? The rush to judgment practiced by too many today might make for a good soundbite but demonstrates little capacity for contemplative decision making.

No doubt part of the equation considered by politicians is how specific voter segments will respond to allegations. It has been presumed that blacks, so crucial to any effort to unseat Trump from the Oval Office, would be clamoring for Northam’s removal, by his own choice or through impeachment. 

Leading Virginian pols, black and white, have called for his departure. But do we know what a majority of black voters feel about him?

According to a poll by The Washington Post/Schar School, more Afro-American voters in Virginia (58%) say Northam should stay on as governor compared to those who want him to resign (37%). (https://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-claims-african-americans-very-angry-about-northam-blackface-but-60-dont-want-gov-to-resign/)

Not surprisingly, the poll demonstrates that the black community is not monolithic. Consider the controversy over Adam Levine and his group Maroon 5’s halftime show during last Sunday’s Super Bowl. Several black performers rejected the idea of headlining the show as a way of expressing solidarity with Colin Kaepernick, the former San Francisco 49er quarterback who sought racial justice against police actions by beginning the take-a-knee protest during the national anthem before games. Kaepernick has been unsigned for two years, what his supporters claim is coordinated and racist retribution by team owners and the league. 

Consciously or not, the National Football League went out of its way to spotlight black entertainers at the game. Chloe x Halle sang “America, the Beautiful.” Gladys Knight sang the national anthem. Travis Scott and Big Boi performed with Maroon 5. Most of the players in the NFL’s own TV ad were black. 

It’s time to step back and reflect on what’s good for Virginians. The end result might not complement what we want to see, but one yearbook picture—even if it represents a thousand words— does not speak for the progressive deeds of a lifetime.

Let’s Go to the Videotape: Sportscaster Warner Wolf made an impressionable career from his signature exhortation, “Let’s go to the videotape.” Now in retirement in Florida, videotape has captured his rebellion against a vestige of racial oppression.

According to a one paragraph story in The Journal News, “Sportscaster Warner Wolf is facing a felony charge after police said he damaged a sign outside his (Naples) Florida community because it included the word “Plantation,” which he considers racist. Collier County records show Wolf, 81, surrendered Thursday on a felony criminal mischief charge and was released. The sheriff ’s office said Wolf long complained about his community’s name, Classics Plantation Estates. Deputies say surveillance video shows Wolf removing the letters Nov. 30. They say he gave the letters to a security guard, telling him to pass them to the property manager. Damage is estimated at $1,100. Wolf declined comment Saturday and his attorney didn’t immediately return a call.”

Bravo, Warner!

Trump Admits Kavanaugh Made a "Little Mistake"

It is hard keeping up with all the noise coming out of the Trump administration especially when the biggest noisemaker is an uncensored egotist whose morals have depressed America’s traditional values. 

While addressing supporters at a campaign rally Friday night in Lebanon, Ohio, the misogynist-in-chief railed against Democrats for questioning the character and temperament of Brett Kavanaugh to sit on the Supreme Court. As reported by DailyMail.com, “He specifically blamed Democrats for the circus surrounding Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, accusing the party of trying to end the judge’s career over a ‘little mistake’” https://dailym.ai/2yje2EO.

“Little mistake?” Did Trump just acknowledge that Kavanaugh really was unfit for a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court? 

To what “little mistake” was he alluding? Could it have been his illegal underage drinking and failure to acknowledge the illegality, even going so far as to state his drinking at age 18 was legal in Maryland when the state had already raised the legal drinking age to 21? Could it have been to his perpetual lying and obfuscating during his Senate confirmation hearing on subjects ranging from limits on presidential power to his involvement in vetting court nominees while a member of the Bush II administration? Could it have been his attendance at parties where his high school friends gang raped girls, as alleged by Julie Swetnick? Could it have been when he exposed himself to Deborah Ramirez while a student at Yale, as she claims? Could it have been when he was drunk in high school and sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford in a second floor bedroom, just as she testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee?

Each and every one of those “little mistakes” would have been grounds in past times to reject Kavanaugh’s nomination. But Trump has so eroded Republican values that he won confirmation.  

Now that was a BIG mistake!

If Sears and Kmart Closed, Would You Care?

Perhaps if you’ve been paying attention to news unrelated to Hurricane Michael or new Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh or the baseball playoffs or the 1,300 point plummet of the Dow Jones Industrial Average Wednesday/Thursday, perhaps you read or heard a story about the possibility venerable, no longer venerated, Sears and stepsister retailer Kmart may file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection as early as next Monday.  

Chapter 11 is not a death sentence. It is a reorganization tool meant to provide management with the time and financial freedom to resurrect a dilapidated business. Macy’s passed through Chapter 11. So did Best Buy. Plenty of other retailers, on the other hand, went from Chapter 11 into Chapter 7—liquidation. 

For more than 40 years I have been tracking the misfortunes, and occasional fortunes, of Sears and Kmart as they strived for relevance as societal and competitive realities evolved around them. (Once antagonists, Sears and Kmart became stepsisters as part of financier Eddie Lampert’s design to turn them around, or at least turn a profit for himself, by selling off their assets, including real estate and brands such as Craftsman.)

For 30 of those 40 years as editor and publisher of Chain Store Age, I met with the consecutive line of chairmen and chief executive officers of Sears and Kmart. Each sincerely believed his formula (it was always a he, never a she) contained the magic potion to resurrect a flailing business (that’s not a typo, I meant flailing). Perhaps, if Walmart and Home Depot and Amazon had not been imagined Sears and Kmart might have had a chance. But retailing is an industry that rewards innovation, particularly as it applies to efficient distribution. From better locations to quicker dissemination of products from manufacturer to store shelf to, especially in Amazon’s case, a consumer’s home, competitors outdistanced Sears and Kmart in their ability to meet consumer expectations.  

Sears was built with the mythology of the “Father Knows Best” family in mind. Even its one time diversification strategies—Allstate Insurance and the Discover card—reinforced the fulfillment of household needs. 

Kmart sought to capitalize on a growing middle class seeking cheap consumer goods in convenient self-service stores. 

But if the lady or teenage girl of the house needed something stylish to wear, Sears and Kmart were the last places they would shop. A department store or specialty store or Kohl’s fit the bill. Maybe even Target.  

If the man of the house was going to work on a home improvement project he turned to a local home center retailer, that is, before Home Depot or Lowe’s swallowed up their customers, as well. Electronics sales went to Best Buy. Toys to Toys “R” Us—the Sears Christmas Wish Book succumbed long before Toys “R” Us did. 

Kids could be dressed in Sears or Kmart clothing. Until, that is, they were old enough to voice their own apparel preferences. 

Will Sears and Kmart be salvaged or scuttled? Ask yourself these questions: When was the last time you shopped Sears or Kmart? If one or both stores disappeared, would you notice? Would you miss them?

For most of my professional life Sears and Kmart represented major portions of the copy that flowed through my editor’s desk. I walked their stores across the country. I shopped their stores. As recently as two weeks ago I bought some supplies in Kmart. 

Apart from the yawning gap closing the White Plains Sears and Kmart would have on their respective shopping centers, I cannot say I would miss them. I’d experience some personal nostalgia, but, no, I could not say I would miss them.

News Updates: Kavanaugh, Living in a Bubble, Trump's Week, Building a Name and Wiring Rod

Brewski Anyone? As Brett Kavanaugh takes a seat on the Supreme Court consider how awkward it will be at day’s end, any day’s end, when someone, perhaps Kavanaugh himself, suggests unwinding with a beer or two…

The continental political and social divide the country finds itself in is difficult to fully fathom until one encounters real-life proof that the respective sides live in distinctive bubbles with little chance they will meld together.  

Case in point: Recently Gilda met a Harvard law school graduate. A resident of the Washington, DC, metro, he related that he grew up in Kentucky. Yet, upon earning his law degree and returning to his home town he found the region preferred lawyers with social ties rather than legal scholarship. Fitting in was more important than knowledge. 

Gilda and I encountered the same primitive mindset more than four decades ago when we moved to Connecticut. Connecticut had an aura of being a state populated by sophisticated, educated residents. Home to headquarters of Fortune 500 companies. 

But there were plenty of factory workers, as well. Trouble was, in the Lower Naugatuck Valley where I was assigned as a reporter for The New Haven Register, hard times had befallen the workers who toiled in the brass mills of Seymour, Derby, Ansonia, Shelton and surrounding towns. Factories cut back production, laid off workers or closed down completely. Still, the dream of most fathers was to have their sons join them straight out of high school on the assembly line. Few aspired for an education-based escape from the Valley. 

Gilda’s acquaintance went on to detail his Kentucky education. The Civil War, he explained, was called the War Between the States as the teacher said it had everything to do with states’ rights and nothing, nothing to do with slavery. Indeed, slavery was not discussed. The war was hardly studied. Students learned about a few battles won by the South. Imagine his consternation upon being exposed in college and law school to the full historical record.  

Unable to find a job in Kentucky, he took his Harvard law degree to Washington.

Alternative facts. Fake News. Outright lies. When the assault on truth comes directly from the White House it reinforces provincial attitudes that are in conflict with principles of equality and tolerance.

The Week That Was: Whatever it was—a napkin or toilet paper—stuck to Donald Trump’s shoe and clearly visible as he ascended the stairs to Air Force One last Thursday, the embarrassment was palpable, the humor undeniable. He surely can blame an inattentive staff, or maybe Deep State conspirators, for the humiliation seen around the world (could the Deep State really have infiltrated his bathroom, or his dining area?). The trail of paper was as bad as when a wind gust last February swirled through his combover exposing his scalp as he climbed stairs into Air Force One.  

Then there were the optics of Melania’s trip to Africa. Ordinarily, dispensing much needed books to schoolchildren would result in laudable coverage. But the very educational programs Melania was endorsing in Malawi have come under attack by her isolationist husband who has disparaged African countries and who wants to cut aid to them. In one of its few acts of spine and resistance Congress rejected Trump’s budget cuts (https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/08/politics/melania-trump-africa-trip-wrap/index.html).  

Perhaps the unkindest but appropriate cut of all, Trump was denied the Nobel peace prize he so desperately covets. Rather than award his still vague peace and denuclearization overture with North Korea, the Nobel was given to Denis Mukwege of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Nadia Murad of Iraq for their efforts to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war and armed conflict. 

How ironic that sexual violence was the dominant theme in the United States last week. Regardless of your opinion on the veracity of Christine Blasey Ford’s claim of sexual assault by Kavanaugh (Trump has moved from saying her testimony was “credible” to her being part of a Democratic “hoax” to discredit Kavanaugh), it is clear that gender relations will be a more hot button election issue in November than the economy, taxes, foreign relations and health care.   

Trump’s campaign for a peace prize, this year or in the future, probably took a hit with his addresses at the United Nations. It took a high degree of chutzpah to stand at the podium of a world organization dedicated to peaceful coexistence and shared values and spout selfish bromides. 

Trump likes to project toughness and a singular focus on America First. He did that to the approval, no doubt, of his base and even to many who liked his no-nonsense non diplomatic rhetoric. How refreshing for them to hear candor at the UN where obfuscation and deceit are practiced arts. 

The UN is the ultimate global entity. Trump all but tore up its charter before the world’s eyes. Patriotism, not globalism, was his mantra. Inside your borders do what you wish as long as you don’t impinge on America’s self interests. 

You could visualize tyrants the world over smiling. The world’s policeman, the country that had corralled their basest instincts, was hanging up its night stick. Abandoning its beat. Throwing away its handcuffs in favor of a free-for-all posture as long as you said nice things about its orange-faced, golden-locked leader. Play to his ego, not his humanitarian sensibilities. 

Okay. Through our archaic political process we elected Trump to a four year term. He can legally reverse the course of U.S. history and with it the future of the world. 

But only so far as we the people enable him. November will be the first referendum on America’s choice for tomorrow. 

Building a Name: If Democrats gain control of the Senate, this year or in some future election, they should move to rename the Russell office building for the recently deceased Senator John McCain. 

Never mind that McCain was a Republican. He was a strong symbol of integrity and patriotism. Though a Democrat, Richard Russell embodied the white suprematist, racist attitudes current among Republicans. Russell served before Southern Democrats converted en masse to Republicans. 

By initiating the renaming of the building, as minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has proposed, Democrats would be sending a message of unity, though to be honest, those who support Trump and his distaste for McCain, would not welcome such an action. To them Russell is an icon. 

The Wire: Lost among all the excitement surrounding Kavanaugh was the postponed meeting between Trump and deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein. 

Rosenstein, who oversees special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election and more, has at various times been accused of wearing a recording device while with Trump. The New York Times also reported several weeks ago he entertained the idea of organizing cabinet secretaries to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from the presidency. Rosenstein has denied both allegations.

If ever there was a time for Rosenstein to wear a wire, that postponed meeting with Trump would be the day.

Even though Trump has recently said he is not ready to fire Rosenstein, the dissembler-in-chief is not a credible communicator (see above about his thoughts on Blasey Ford). 

So Rosenstein’s tenure toehold seems to be more precarious with each passing day. An announcement of his departure, never officially distributed, was even prepared for dissemination by the Justice Department on the presumption the meeting with Trump was going to occur, according to the Daily Mail (https://dailym.ai/2OU2iiF). 

Rosenstein is in a seemingly can’t-win situation. Trump has long wanted him out so someone more to his liking can be installed to control Mueller. So what has he got to lose by wearing a wire so he can capture Trump in his firing element?

Now, we’ve all watched Homeland, Mission Impossible and other thrillers that rely on high-tech listening and speaking devices embedded on a body so as to be non detectable. Surely Rosenstein knows intelligence officials, current or former, who would be willing and able to outfit him for sound. Heck, maybe even Mueller’s team would be a possible link-up option. 

Kavanaugh's Calendar Key to FBI Probe

So the Dumb-ocrats got what they asked for, a new FBI investigation into allegations the teenage Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted 15-year-old Christine Blasey (Ford) back in the summer of 1982. The Feds also will look into two other allegations of sexual misconduct alleged to have occurred during his high school and Yale undergraduate days.

Unlike the professional background checks the FBI performed six times on Kavanaugh for his successive federal jobs, the new investigation will focus on his behavior before he earned his education degrees. Here’s how The New York Times described the scope of the inquiry: https://nyti.ms/2OXnzrE

Of particular interest might well be the calendars Kavanaugh innocently enough submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee as evidence he could not have sexually assaulted Blasey Ford. While Democratic senators tried to decipher some of his obscure (to them) notations, they missed an opportunity to reveal to the nation the extent to which Kavanaugh was a party boy and not the wholesome football and basketball varsity jock and top student he projected during Thursday’s hearing. 

Kavanaugh acknowledged his love of beer, an infatuation with the brew he said he maintains to this day. But several times he either misled or provided incomplete responses to inquiries about his calendar entries.

He claimed he legally drank beer during his senior high school year, when he was 18. But Maryland had raised the legal drinking age to 21. None of the Dumb-ocrats seemed aware of this discrepancy. 

For a more detailed explanation of his calendar’s cryptic meanings, including keys to “Renate Alumnius,” “Devil’s Triangle,” “boofing,” and “Beach Week,” read Vox from September 26, the day before the committee hearing (apparently the Dumb-ocrats and their staffs did not): https://www.vox.com/2018/9/26/17901368/kavanaugh-yearbook-boof-devil-triangle-renate-beach-week.

No doubt, the anguish on the faces of Kavanaugh’s family reflected the pain and trauma they have gone through over the past two weeks. But I also wonder if some of the horror evidenced on their faces came from the revelation that their all-American boy and husband was not the straight shooter he portended to be in his youth. Did his parents know he routinely got drunk? As both his parents were lawyers, they should have been aware the legal drinking age had been raised to 21. Aware now of how frequently he abused alcohol, could a seed of doubt be festering within their devotion to their son?  

So we await an FBI report likely to corroborate Kavanaugh swallowed prodigious amounts of beer back then, but likely to fail to pinpoint any fact to corroborate Blasey Ford’s testimony. 

It will be her word versus his. Her memory seared into the hippocampus part of the brain versus his beer-saturated recall aided by calendar entries he is reluctant, probably embarrassed, to fully explain. 

And on this division, the fate of Kavanaugh’s seat on the Supreme Court and with it the future of our country, hang in the balance. 

Dumb-ocrats Miss Revealing Kavanaugh's Inner Man

From police procedurals in film and TV, to real life criminal cases, we have seen how law enforcement can secure convictions by planting evidence. What we saw Thursday during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh committed a sexual assault as a teenager was an official decision to withhold testimony that could corroborate or refute the charge against a member of the white male establishment. By refusing to subpoena Mark Judge, an alleged eyewitness to the assault, and other witnesses, such as the administrator of the polygraph test taken by Christine Blasey Ford, the all male Republican majority on the committee ensured that justice would be blind as well as deaf and dumb. 

On Friday a semblance of fair play returned to the committee. Though a party line vote sent Kavanaugh’s nomination to the full Senate for consideration, Arizona senator Jeff Flake said his aye vote would be contingent on the FBI doing an investigation of the charge, a request Democrats continually made Thursday. 

Mark Judge’s cooperation is not assured. Late Friday afternoon the president ordered a supplemental FBI probe to be completed within a week.

Meanwhile, what the divided nation is left to debate are the performances of Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford. Righteous indignation, even contempt, by the accused; anguish and trauma reluctantly displayed by the accuser. 

They were the star performers. But the senators also provided fascinating but not uplifting displays of statesmanship. Both sides grandstanded, though none as over the top as Republican Lindsey Graham. 

I’m most disappointed with the Democrats, or as I think we should henceforth call them, the Dumb-ocrats. With the whole world watching they allowed Kavanaugh to bulldoze them, to fire up his base while they failed to dig deeply into his psyche. 

The Dumb-ocrats kept asking him to call for an FBI investigation. The Dumb-ocrats kept asking if he was an excessive drinker, prone to blackouts. They kept asking if he sexulally assaulted women. Did they really think he’d surrender an “aha” moment and admit to being imperfect? 

Dumb-ocrats, rather, should have gently probed his character, his judicial reasoning, his family values. By exposing them they would have made it clear to any who had not already committed to his confirmation that Brett Kavanaugh was not the all-American judge, father and coach he tries to put across.

If the questions the Dumb-ocrats posed were insufficient, what should they have asked? I provided some in my last blog (http://nosocksneededanymore.blogspot.com/2018/09/nine-hours-of-she-said-he-said-leave.html), but a wider range of questions were submitted by New York Times readers from across the country (https://nyti.ms/2NNvgE7).

I liked the one from Lynda of Gulfport, FL: “Which actions in your life do you now regret taking but have learned from and have made you a better husband, father, teacher and judge? Have any of the mentors in your career been men you admired professionally, but that you had private concerns about with regard to their attitudes toward women in your workplace? As a father to two daughters, did you ever feel any responsibility to express a concern about the language used to describe women in any of your workplaces?”

I read somewhere the following question: Would you permit your daughters, when they are 15, to go to the type of parties you attended in high school? 

Answers to these questions were insight opportunities lost because of Dumb-ocratic obsession with trying to reveal a smoking gun. As the Trumpster would say, Sad.

Nine Hours of She Said, He Said: Few Changed Minds Over Blasey Ford-Kavanaugh Affair

The contrast between the demeanor of the two star witnesses testifying Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee could not have been starker. The accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, was demure and almost naive in her demeanor to be helpful. She was not seeking revenge. She was merely performing her civic duty. 

The accused, Brett Kavanaugh, was forceful, angry, argumentative, tearful and combative in maintaining his innocence and anguish at the destruction of his character and his family’s peaceful all-American existence. 

Whom to believe? My guess is few minds were changed by anyone who watched or listened to the full hearing, as I did over nearly nine hours. 

But there’s information I didn’t find out, based on questions not answered because they were not asked. Here are questions I would have liked to have heard posed and answered by Kavanaugh so the public could more adequately gauge his sensitivity to the issue of sexual assault and harassment: 

*Define the #MeToo movement

*Do you believe it has legitimacy?

*Do you believe the women and men who have come forward in #MeToo cases are sincere?

*Do you see any similarity between #MeToo victims and the boys, now men, who for many years did not speak up about abuse by Catholic priests?

*Can victims suppress the memory of their assault?

*Why do you believe so many women and men did not report a sexual assault when it occurred?

*Can someone do violent actions after excessive drinking?

*Do you believe excessive drinking can result in not remembering events?

*As a jurist do you believe an independent investigation provides a benefit when statements are disputed? (Democratic senators tried to ask this last question by asking Kavanaugh if he would ask for an FBI investigation, but he declined, hiding behind a comment that he would submit to whatever the committee desired, knowing full well that the Republican majority would not vote for such an inquiry.)

There is little reason to believe Blasey Ford had any ulterior motive in bringing forth her allegations of sexual assault and possible rape, allegations she confided to her husband and therapist years before Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. 

His fervent defense was what could be expected. It was compelling. Regrettably for him, his denials brought to mind similar denials by the president who nominated him who repeatedly disparaged Stormy Daniels and denied knowing of payments to her, denials that turned out to be facts. 

Indeed, rarely if ever has any political figure—and Kavanaugh is a political figure—readily admitted to any sexual indiscretion. 

Kavanaugh may well be telling the truth. 

Or Blasey Ford is.

We just may never know which one is.

Battle for Supreme Court Seat Pits Presumption of Innocence v. #MeToo Moments

The presumption of innocence is a foundation of our judicial system. How ironic then that a nominee for the highest court in the land is presumed guilty by many of sexual misconduct as a teenager on the disputed word of his accuser, the victim, a charge denied by the nominee. 

Of course, not everyone believes the victim. Absent a corroborating eyewitness, it is her word versus his to an incident from their youth some 35 years ago. 

The burden of proof beyond a shadow of doubt, it would seem, does not favor the victim. But we are not dealing with a court of law here. Rather, we are in the court of public opinion. In this era of #MeToo, a woman’s word of alleged sexual transgression deserves not just to be heard but to be accorded the respect she was denied during the alleged assault. 

Thirty-five years ago it was common for women to keep quiet, to not go to police after being abused, particularly if the attack was not consummated with sex. Donald Trump again exhibits his ignorance and disdain for women with his tweet questioning why Christine Blasey Ford did not go to the FBI back then to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of attempted rape. Regrettably, we have come to expect such behavior from the misogynist-in-chief. 

The real tragedy here is the failure of Republican senators to show even a modicum of fealty to the advise and consent aspect of their constitutional authority. Without even listening to Blasey Ford on Thursday they have made up their minds she is mistaken. The Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill imbroglio 27 years ago provides precedent that the FBI investigates sexual misconduct allegations made against Supreme Court nominees. Yet Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley and his Republican brethren reject FBI involvement. 

Blasey Ford alleges Mark Judge witnessed the attack and by his actions precipitated her ability to free herself from Kavanaugh’s grasp. Judge says he will not testify. But why does the Judiciary Committee not force his testimony? Why is he not subpoenaed? We are, after all, trying to find an untainted justice to pass judgment on the rest of us 325 million Americans.

Both Kavanaugh and Judge, through speeches and writings, have admitted to excessive drinking while in high school. They admit to a code of silence to any indiscretion they might have perpetrated. Is their clouded alcoholic memories and adherence to a code of silence to be believed more than a young woman’s traumatized recall of an horrific incident she subsequently related to friends and mental health professionals?    

Brett Kavanaugh presents as a wholesome suburban dad, coaching his children’s basketball teams. The facade has been shattered by Judge and Kavanaugh’s own actions and words. His Georgetown Prep high school conduct mirrors that of others who have attended privileged private schools. Not the conduct of fictionalized Dead Poets Society New England students. But more like that of real life St. Paul’s School of Concord, NH, students who made rape a right of passage (https://nyti.ms/1WD4MRc). Kavanaugh has already spoken in public about his excessive drinking in high school and beyond. 

There is, of course, an understandable reason Republicans want to expeditiously approve Kavanaugh’s nomination. The sooner he gets confirmed the sooner a more pronounced rightward tilt emerges on the Supreme Court which begins its next term October 1. 

Moreover, as we have seen over the last day, the longer the Kavanaugh saga plays out the more likely other women will come forward with tales of alleged youthful indiscretions that cannot simply be explained as the typical behavior of teenage boys (https://nyti.ms/2zr9eOX). Someone should ask the 11 male Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, as well as GOP Senate leaders Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn, if their adolescent behavior included illegal underage drinking, including drinking to excess.

There are some who believe Republicans want a quick vote because they fear a blue wave of voting in November might cost them majority status in the Senate and the ability to confirm Trump nominations. But that’s a red herring argument. Even if a blue wave happened the GOP would retain control until new senators are sworn in next January, leaving sufficient lame duck time for Republicans to approve Kavanaugh or any other candidate Trump sends their way. 

One could argue that rushing Kavanaugh through the confirmation process under a #MeToo cloud is a riskier strategy as it could inflame and energize women and men to elect Democrats who would not blindly rubber-stamp Trump’s predilections. 

The battle over the timing of Blasey Ford’s appearance before the panel is another manifestation of male dominance over women. There likely would be no tangible difference in the end result given Republican intransigence to listen with an open mind. At stake, however, is the integrity of a third branch of our government. But Republicans already have shown their lust for power exceeds moral standards. They embraced for president a known philanderer and misogynist. To retain a Senate seat in Alabama they supported an accused sexual predator. 

In case it has not been raised to your level of consciousness, the vote on Kavanaugh has once again placed two GOP women senators in the spotlight. Like their “no” votes on the repeal of Obamacare, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska are said to represent the moral backbone of their party. Will they place country first or party first? 

Even before Blasey Ford stepped forward Collins and Murkowski pinned their support of Kavanaugh to their belief he would not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion. Kavanaugh evaded providing a direct binding commitment to that position. The Blasey Ford allegation raises further questions about his probity to issues affecting women’s rights and equality. How will they vote, especially in light of the extreme pressure they face when next they seek re-election? Regardless of how they vote they will face pressure from the left or from the right.  

But is there no Obamacare-vote-male-equivalent to John McCain among male GOP senators? Will Jeff Flake finally cast a vote that parallels his outspoken anti-Trump rhetoric? Or Ben Sasse? or Bob Corker? Words alone are not sufficient. Action is needed to salvage the soul of the Republican party. 

The solidarity of Democrats in opposition to Kavanaugh also cannot be assured. Barring a smoking gun result from Blasey Ford’s testimony, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and nine others in vulnerable states might reason it would be wiser to vote for Kavanaugh than risk alienating conservatives in their states. After all, some Trump nominee will be seated. Why risk an election over a fait accompli?

The answer goes beyond state borders. As the party that professes its belief in women’s rights, Democrats cannot afford to have any candidate, anywhere, waver in support of this foundational tenet. Women’s rights are as central to Democrats as support for the Affordable Care Act, defense of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and voting rights. 

Barring Kavanaugh’s convincing exoneration of the allegations against him, any less than complete rejection of his confirmation would be an inexcusable capitulation by Democrats. 

A Poster Boy for the Supreme Court, But Will He Follow Kennedy's Lead To Protect Rights

If you could judge a judge nominated to be a justice of the Supreme Court merely from his public acceptance speech Brett Kavanaugh would be confirmed in a heartbeat. Unanimously. 

Sure, he spoke in hyperbole when he proclaimed Donald Trump’s “appreciation for the vital role of the American judiciary. No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.” 

Donald Trump sought out the most diverse input before making a selection? Really!?! 

Just how many progressive voices did the divider-in-chief invite to the White House or to one of his golf or resort properties to discuss the qualities he should look for in a justice for life? No doubt he talked to gun lobbyists, and big business lobbyists, and anti-abortion lobbyists, and anti-immigration lobbyists, and anti-environment lobbyists. By lobbyists I am including elected Republican officials for they have, in effect, become part of the partisan network, rather than staying independent in their evaluation of issues and candidates. 

Let’s call it the Trump Effect. It is difficult to cite any action his administration has taken that has not rolled back advances in the quality of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans and peoples of the world. Even as he espoused his dedication to life Trump pursued a measure at the World Health Organization that would undercut the health of newborns by advocating feeding them infant formula rather than breast milk which is universally considered the best food they could consume. 

Judge Kavanaugh outwardly seems like a nice, all-American guy. A little shy and awestruck at the podium, gushing over his parents, daughters and wife. Young enough to coach his daughter’s basketball team. Not ramrod straight like Neil Gorsuch but someone fluid enough to tease his younger daughter about her incessant talking and have her be okay with it in front of a national audience. 

Just irresistible. Who wouldn’t want this dad to parse legal conflict for us all? (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-announcing-judge-brett-m-kavanaugh-nominee-associate-jus)

Kavanaugh clerked for his predecessor Justice Anthony Kennedy, as did Gorsuch. It has been said that Kennedy opted for retirement at this moment so a Republican president and GOP-majority Senate could pick and confirm a successor in his image.  

One wonders if Kavanaugh absorbed Kennedy’s compassion for the privacy rights of women and gay communities. Gorsuch apparently didn’t. He seems to be more in line with the originalist doctrines of Antonin Scalia whose seat he now occupies because Republicans blocked the centrist jurist Merrick Garland nominated by Barack Obama.

It will be up to Kavanaugh to sustain rights Kennedy protected. As Gorsuch has shown, clerks do not always agree with their bosses. 

If you didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton, or if you wasted your vote on a symbolic alternative candidate like Jill Stein, you relinquished the right to complain about Trump’s selection of his second Supreme Court justice and the near hundred lower court federal judges who will shape the direction of the country for decades. 

Forget about protesting or expecting Democrats to thwart his nominations. They don’t have the votes, not in the Senate now and, thanks to you and likeminded fools, not in November 2016.