Category: Labor and Working

More Yale classmates come forward claiming Brett Kavanaugh has been lying

The Independent

More Yale classmates come forward claiming Brett Kavanaugh has been lying

 Clark Mindock, The Independent      October 2, 2018

As the FBI marches forward with its investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct made against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a growing cohort of the judge’s former classmates are coming forward with contradictory memories of how the man behaved in his youth.

Mr Kavanaugh has denied any allegations of sexual misconduct, and suggested during Senate testimony last week that he was generally well-behaved in college – someone who liked beer, but did not let his drinking go too far.

The New York Timeshas reported that the FBI has at least four witnesses who are of interest to the intelligence agency as it takes a look at Mr Kavanaugh’s past.

However, several people who are not on the list have contradicted the nominee’s testimony about the nature of his partying and behaviour over three decades ago.

Chad Ludington, a Yale classmate of Mr Kavanaugh’s who said he frequently drank with the nominee in college, told The New York Times: “When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive.

“On one of the last occasions I purposely socialised with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man’s face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail.”

Mr Ludington is joined by the likes of Kit Winter, who shared a dorm at Yale with Mr Kavanaugh; Liz Swisher, a college friend; and James Roche, a Yale roommate, in suggesting that Mr Kavanaugh was less than truthful when he told the Senate that he was never a belligerent drunk in college.

Others who claim to have known Mr Kavanaugh in college have said that he was often very drunk, in spite of his claims last week.

“I watched the whole hearing, and a number of my Yale colleagues and I were extremely disappointed in Brett Kavanaugh’s characterisation of himself and the way that he evaded his excessive drinking questions,” Lynne Brookes, a former roommate of Deborah Ramirez, who has accused Mr Kavanaugh of forcing her to touch his penis against her will, said during a CNN interview.

“There is no doubt in my mind that while at Yale, he was a big partier, often drank to excess, and there had to be a number of nights where he does not remember. In fact, I was witness to the night that he got tapped into that fraternity, and he was stumbling drunk in a ridiculous costume saying really dumb things”.

“I can almost guarantee that there’s no way that he remembers that night,” Ms Brookes continued. “There were a lot of emails and a lot of texts flying around about how he was lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee today”.

Mr Kavanaugh has denied Ms Ramirez’s accusations, and told the Senate Judiciary Committee that The New Yorker article detailing her allegations was the first time that he had heard the claim.

But, former classmates say that Mr Kavanaugh or his legal team began reaching out to them before the article was published on 23 September. Those classmates, a NBC News report says, were contacted as early as July about the allegations, and the classmates say they are in possession of text messages from that time. Kerry Berchem, one of those former classmates, says that she attempted to get those texts to the FBI several times.

“I am in receipt of text messages from a mutual friend of both Debbie and mine that raise questions related to the allegations,” Ms Berchem said in a statement provided to NBC. “I have not drawn any conclusions as to what the texts may mean or may not mean but I do believe they merit investigation by the FBI and the Senate.”

Mr Roche, Mr Kavanaugh’s college roommate, has also spoken up in support of Ms Ramirez, saying that Mr Kavanaugh was usually reserved but “a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time, and … he became belligerent and aggressive when he was very drunk”.

“Based on my time with Debbie, I believe her to be unusually honest and straightforward and I cannot imagine her making this up,” Mr Roche continued in a statement. “Based on my time with Brett, I believe that he and his social circle were capable of the actions that Debbie described”.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Friday to send Mr Kavanaugh’s nomination to the full Senate for consideration. That measure was approved along party lines, but one Republican senator, Jeff Flake, suggested that he would not vote to approve Mr Kavanaugh before the full Senate without an FBI investigation.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, has meanwhile attacked what he has called Democrats’ delay tactics to undermine the confirmation, and has promised to bring Mr Kavanaugh’s nomination to a vote this week.

Brett Kavanaugh’s Lies Are Catching Up With Him

Brett Kavanaugh testifying Thursday. Photo: Matt McClain/AFP/Getty Images

When the second sexual-assault allegation came out against Brett Kavanaugh, I predicted Republicans would pull his nomination. I was wrong. Kavanaugh managed to rally the Republican base like a seasoned politician, changing the question from the specifics of the allegations into a broader cultural war, in which Kavanaugh is a stand-in for every conservative who feels unfairly maligned by smug progressive elites (i.e, every conservative).

Sticking with Kavanaugh made no sense, and still makes no sense. Sometimes people do things that make no sense, though. And Republicans may well decide Kavanaugh’s confirmation is a symbolic battle in the kulturkampf that overrides any cost-benefit analysis. That is certainly what the public posturing by the Republican Party, as epitomized by Lindsey Graham, seems to indicate. But there are real signs of weakness beneath the public bravado.

A pair of weekend reports from Axios’s Jonathan Swan conveys the White House’s outward-facing stance. According to administration officials, Kavanaugh is “too big to fail,” because “[t]here’s no time before the [midterm] election to put up a new person.” And if Democrats win a Senate majority, Trump would allegedly prefer to keep the seat vacant rather than compromise with Democrats.

This may be what Trump officials are telling people, and it might even be what they are actually thinking, but the position makes absolutely no sense. If Kavanaugh fails, there might not be enough time to confirm a new justice before the elections, but there will certainly be enough time to confirm one before a new Senate takes over. There are almost two months between the elections and the new Senate. Yes, it would look ugly for Republicans to rush through a new justice after an election that gives Democrats a majority. (Democrats have a two-in-seven chance at the moment.) But this would never stop them from going ahead. The entire Republican caucus, including Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, blatantly violated historic norms by holding a Supreme Court spot vacant through all of 2016 just to give their party a chance to fill it. They obviously care a lot about giving their party control of the Supreme Court, and are willing to flout precedent and public opinion to do it. Why would they throw another vacancy away?

Unless the Trump administration is completely ignorant, it is broadcasting threats in order to shore up Republican support for Kavanaugh. Republicans senators may want to pull the damaged nominee and replace him with an equally conservative justice who was never accused of raping anybody, but the White House is shouting that the alternative is getting nobody at all. And why would they make such non-credible threats? Because they’re worried about getting the votes.

That worry also comes through in some of the other reporting. Republicans directing the Kavanaugh fight “conceded [it] to be an uphill battle in which time is not on their side,” reports Politico, also citing a person involved in the battle who puts the odds of confirmation at 50 percent.

The FBI investigation into Kavanaugh is now the key source of uncertainty. Multiple news outlets have reported over the weekend that the White House has dictated limits on the investigation. The FBI reportedly can’t even ask the supermarket that allegedly employed Mark Judge in 1982 for payroll records that would confirm his employment. (Christine Blasey Ford recalled seeing Judge working at the Safeway in Potomac after the alleged attack.)

If the White House chokes off the FBI investigation — or, more precisely, if wavering Republican senators allow the White House to do so and decide to treat an ersatz probe as legitimate — then Kavanaugh might be safe. But the fact that the administration is attempting to strangle the FBI is itself a sign of concern. And the fact that the FBI is obviously leaking about White House interference shows that at least somebody within the Bureau wants to conduct a legitimate investigation.

And what is there to turn up? Potentially a lot. Kavanaugh’s testimony was, at best, wildly misleading. You can find detailed accounts of Kavanaugh’s train of lies here, here, here, and (most thoroughly) here. Would it matter if this is proven? Senator Jeff Flake said on 60 Minutes it would, and provable testimony perjury would be disqualifying. (Obviously there is some cause to doubt whether Flake would follow through on this promise.)

[The New York Times reports this afternoon that the White House has authorized the FBI to interview anybody it deems necessary, as long as the review is complete within a week. The change appears to have come at the behest of Flake, who told an audience, “It does no good to have an investigation that gives us more cover, for example. We actually have to find out what we can find out.” This substantially increases the peril Kavanaugh faces. And Trump’s press conference remarks seemed to signal a willingness to cut Kavanaugh loose if the investigation turns up more damning evidence. “Certainly if they find something I’m going to take that into consideration,” Trump said, when asked if he would consider abandoning Kavanaugh under such circumstances. “Absolutely. I have a very open mind. The person that takes that position is going to be there a long time.”]

The issue of Kavanaugh’s lying is one his conservative defenders have only barely begun to acknowledge. It is probably the central weakness in his candidacy at the moment. Kavanaugh wrote his opening statement the night before his testimony. It was intended to rally his party with red-meat partisan rhetoric, and lead directly to a rapid vote in a flourish of tribalistic emotion. It was not intended to survive a week of close factual scrutiny by the media or potentially the FBI.

Republicans have already prepared a fallback position that Kavanaugh’s underlying offenses happened a long time ago and should not disqualify him. It will be interesting to watch them develop a defense of his perjury. The argument that exists so far simply treats the accusation that Kavanaugh has told lies as so damning that it is unthinkable. “To deny the allegations as he did—invoking his children and parents and so many others who know him—and be lying would mean that he is a sociopath,” editorialized TheWall Street Journal last week. “The logical implication of a ‘no’ vote is that a man with a flawless record of public service lied not only to the public but to his wife, his children and his community,” writes Kimberly Strassel today. “Any Republican who votes against Judge Kavanaugh is implying that he committed perjury in front of the Senate, and should resign or be impeached from his current judicial position, if not charged criminally.”

Well, yes. Kavanaugh has told many, many lies. This doesn’t make him a “sociopath.” Kavanaugh probably believes he did terrible things as a boy, but grew up to be a man who treats women respectfully. I actually accept his characterization of himself as a good father and mentor to girls in his community. The most probable account of his actions is that Kavanaugh (understandably) decided his youthful crimes should not prevent him from attaining the highest position in his career. He also calculated that any partial defense would come unraveled, and settled from the outset on a stance of total denial. This is why he has told lie after lie after lie.

But now Kavanaugh is caught in those lies. He is worried that two Republicans senators might decide they’d rather vote for a justice who hasn’t flagrantly perjured himself. And this fear has legitimate basis.

Jeff Flake Says Brett Kavanaugh’s Nomination Is ‘Over’ If He Lied to the Senate. So What Are We Still Doing Here?

Esquire

Jeff Flake Says Brett Kavanaugh’s Nomination Is ‘Over’ If He Lied to the Senate. So What Are We Still Doing Here?

 Jack Holmes, Esquire          October 1, 2018 

Photo credit: Andrew Harnik - Getty Images

Jeff Flake rounded out a tumultuous 24 hours by voting yes to advance Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, but with the caveat that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against him must be investigated by the FBI. The scope of the investigation wasn’t exactly clear-except that it could not take longer than a week. The New Yorker already reports there are questions about how the probe is being conducted, as multiple people with relevant knowledge about Kavanaugh’s behavior have been unable to get in touch with anyone at the Bureau to tell their stories. “I thought it was going to be an investigation,” a Yale classmate of Brett Kavanaugh and Deborah Ramirez told the publication. “But instead it seems it’s just an alibi for Republicans to vote for Kavanaugh.”

All that remains to be seen. But we did get a bit more insight into how Flake and his colleague on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrat Chris Coons, think it all could play out when they joined 60 Minutes Sunday. Specifically, they weighed in on the prospect that Kavanaugh lied to the committee:

So…what are we still doing then?

Kavanaugh’s nomination has sparked outrage among much of the left leaning population. Here’s some reactions from the confirmation hearing.

Kavanaugh said many things that were not true, both at the hearing Thursday and in previous testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The question, as it often is in this particular era, is whether they were “lies” or merely misleading. Many related directly to Ford’s allegations:

  • Kavanaugh repeatedly claimed some version of this statement: “Dr. Ford’s allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a longtime friend of hers.” He added an extra “refuted” for emphasis. Except, as a piece in Current Affairs points out, this is a lie: Ford’s friend, Leland Ingham Keyser, said she didn’t remember being at the party and didn’t know Kavanaugh. But she didn’t “refute” the story. In fact, Keyser said she believes Ford. Two other named witnesses-Mark Judge and someone named “P.J.”-also did not “refute” Ford’s charges. They said they didn’t remember the gathering, which Ford suggested was to be expected in all but Judge’s case. (Ford alleges he was in the room for the incident.) It wasn’t a particularly eventful night for anyone else. Kavanaugh misrepresented two witnesses’ statements and almost directly contradicted Keyser’s.
  • “I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation,” Kavanaugh said. But as that same Current Affairs piece makes clear, this is absurd: “He never attended a small gathering in Bethesda where people were drinking beer?” In fact, Kavanaugh submitted calendars showing he routinely went to small gatherings at friends’ houses to have some beers. Again, there’s reason to believe no one might remember that night specifically except Ford, Kavanaugh, and Judge. It was otherwise unremarkable. But Kavanaugh went to gatherings like the one Ford describes all the time.

Photo credit: Andrew Harnik - Getty Images

  • Kavanaugh said he didn’t hang out with the people Ford says were there, either: “[N]one of those gatherings included the group of people that Dr. Ford has identified. And as my calendars show, I was very precise about listing who was there; very precise.” But Ford named two guys-Judge and P.J.-and said another whose name she didn’t remember was also there. On Kavanaugh’s calendar, a July 1 entry said he went “to Timmy’s for skis w/Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi.” There are two of the three guys Ford named, at a small gathering with Kavanaugh drinking beer.
  • Kavanaugh also repeatedly downplayed his drinking, suggesting he rarely drank to excess. He also lashed out at Senator Amy Klobuchar when she asked if he ever blacked out, and said explicitly in his opening statement that he never drank to that point. All that has been rendered absurd by his classmates at Yale, who have said he drank to excess regularly and became belligerent and destructive when he did.
  • He lied repeatedly about details in his yearbook, including “Renate Alumnius,” “boof,” “ralphing,” and “the Devil’s Triangle.”
  • Kavanaugh lied about whether his high school drinking was legal, suggesting “seniors” were legal because the drinking age in Maryland was then 18. Except Kavanaugh was not yet a senior during the summer in question, and he was not yet 18. According to The New York Times, the drinking age was actually raised to 21 before he turned 18 as well.

Photo credit: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI - Getty ImagesOthers were not directly related to Dr. Ford’s allegations, but still blatantly untrue:

  • For some reason, Kavanaugh lied and said he had “no connections” but still got into Yale by “busting his tail.” In fact, his grandfather attended the school, making Kavanaugh a legacy. Again, it seems like a small lie-but why tell it?
  • Kavanaugh almost certainly lied when he said he had no idea that emails he got as a Bush administration staffer working on judicial confirmations were stolen from Democratic senators and their staffers. He also made this claim in his 2006 confirmation hearing.
  • Kavanaugh’s statement that he did not “personally” work on the controversial appointment of Judge William H. Pryor appears to have been false. Emails showed he was part of the “Pryor Working Group.” He suggested he did not “primarily” work on the nomination of Judge Charles W. Pickering, another controversial case. According to The New York Times, “emails also show that he worked on the Pickering nomination, and was called by one colleague ‘much more involved in the Pickering fight.’”

This is not a comprehensive list. It is exceedingly clear that Kavanaugh did not tell the truth at many points while testifying under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In many instances, he misrepresented or completely fudged details relating directly to Dr. Ford’s allegations. In others, he seemed to lie when he didn’t even need to-because he could, and because, as some analysts have suggested, he and the people he needs to support him believe this is all the means to a greater end.

But a lack of concern for what is true is a dangerous attribute for any judge-much less one who seeks to help wield the definitive, crushing power of the Supreme Court. If anything can be true, especially in service of a perceived higher aim, anything can be justified. History tells us that the Court has often found a way to justify the indefensible.

Kavanaugh Yale friend remembers heavy drinker

Associated Press

FBI interviews accuser; Yale friend remembers heavy drinker

Darlene Superville and Michael Balsamo, AP      October 1, 2018  

Washington (AP) — FBI agents on Sunday interviewed one of the three women who have accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct as Republicans and Democrats quarreled over whether the bureau would have enough time and freedom to conduct a thorough investigation before a high-stakes vote on his nomination to the nation’s highest court.

The White House insisted it was not “micromanaging” the new one-week review of Kavanaugh’s background but some Democratic lawmakers claimed the White House was keeping investigators from interviewing certain witnesses. President Donald Trump, for his part, tweeted that no matter how much time and discretion the FBI was given, “it will never be enough” for Democrats trying to keep Kavanaugh off the bench.

And even as the FBI explored the past allegations that have surfaced against Kavanaugh, another Yale classmate came forward to accuse the federal appellate judge of being untruthful in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the extent of his drinking in college.

In speaking to FBI agents, Deborah Ramirez detailed her allegation that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party in the early 1980s when they were students at Yale University, according to a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to publicly discuss details of a confidential investigation.

Kavanaugh has denied Ramirez’s allegation.

The person familiar with Ramirez’s questioning, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity, said she also provided investigators with the names of others who she said could corroborate her account.

But Christine Blasey Ford, a California professor who says Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were teenagers, has not been contacted by the FBI since Trump on Friday ordered the agency to take another look at the nominee’s background, according to a member of Ford’s team.

Kavanaugh has denied assaulting Ford.

In a statement released Sunday, a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh’s said he is “deeply troubled by what has been a blatant mischaracterization by Brett himself of his drinking at Yale.” Charles “Chad” Ludington, who now teaches at North Carolina State University, said he was friend of Kavanaugh’s at Yale and that Kavanaugh was “a frequent drinker, and a heavy drinker.”

“On many occasions I heard Brett slur his words and saw him staggering from alcohol consumption, not all of which was beer. When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive,” Ludington said. While saying that youthful drinking should not condemn a person for life, Ludington said he was concerned about Kavanaugh’s statements under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Speaking to the issue of the scope of the FBI’s investigation, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said White House counsel Don McGahn, who is managing Kavanaugh’s nomination, “has allowed the Senate to dictate what these terms look like, and what the scope of the investigation is.”

“The White House isn’t intervening. We’re not micromanaging this process. It’s a Senate process. It has been from the beginning, and we’re letting the Senate continue to dictate what the terms look like,” Sanders said.

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said the investigation will be “limited in scope” and “will not be a fishing expedition. The FBI is not tasked to do that.”

Senate Judiciary Committee member Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., requested an investigation last Friday — after he and other Republicans on the panel voted along strict party lines in favor of Kavanaugh’s confirmation — as a condition for his own subsequent vote to put Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court.

Another committee member, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Sunday that testimony would be taken from Ramirez and Kavanaugh’s high school friend Mark Judge, who has been named by two of three women accusing Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct.

“I think that will be the scope of it. And that should be the scope of it,” Graham said.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, called on the White House and the FBI to provide the written directive regarding the investigation’s scope. In a letter Sunday, she also asked for updates on any expansion of the original directive.

Sen. Susan Collins said Sunday she is confident in the investigation and “that the FBI will follow up on any leads that result from the interviews.” The Maine Republican supports the new FBI investigation and is among a few Republican and Democratic senators who have not announced a position on Kavanaugh.

Republicans control 51 seats in the closely divided 100-member Senate and cannot afford to lose more than one vote on confirmation.

Collins and Flake spoke throughout the weekend.

Senate Republicans discussed the contours of the investigation with the White House late Friday, according to a person familiar with the call who was not authorized to discuss it publicly.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., had gathered Judiciary Committee Republicans in his office earlier. At that time, the scope of the investigation was requested by Flake, Collins and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, said McConnell’s spokesman Don Stewart.

Murkowski is not on the committee, but also has not announced how she will vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Republicans later called the White House to discuss the scope of the probe, the person said.

McConnell’s office declined to elaborate Sunday on which allegations would be investigated, reiterating only that it would focus on “current credible allegations.” Stewart said the investigation’s scope “was set” by the three GOP senators Friday and “has not changed.”

But Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, a Judiciary Committee member, doubted how credible the investigation will be given the time limit.

“That’s bad enough, but then to limit the FBI as to the scope and who they’re going to question, that – that really – I wanted to use the word farce, but that’s not the kind of investigation that all of us are expecting the FBI to conduct,” she said.

Trump initially opposed such an investigation as allegations began mounting but relented and ordered one on Friday. He later said the FBI has “free rein.”

“They’re going to do whatever they have to do, whatever it is they do. They’ll be doing things that we have never even thought of,” Trump said Saturday as he departed the White House for a trip to West Virginia. “And hopefully at the conclusion everything will be fine.”

He revisited the “scope” question later Saturday on Twitter, writing in part, “I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion.”

Sanders said Trump, who has vigorously defended Kavanaugh but also raised the slight possibility of withdrawing the nomination should damaging information be found, “will listen to the facts.”

At least three women have accused Kavanaugh of years-ago misconduct. He denies all the claims.

The third woman, Julie Swetnick, accused Kavanaugh and Judge of excessive drinking and inappropriate treatment of women in the early 1980s, among other accusations. Kavanaugh has called her accusations a “joke.” Judge has said he “categorically” denies the allegations.

Swetnick’s attorney, Michael Avenatti, said Saturday that his client had not been contacted by the FBI but was willing to cooperate with investigators.

Ford also has said Judge was in the room when a drunken Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. Judge has said he will cooperate with any law enforcement agency that will “confidentially investigate” sexual misconduct allegations against him and Kavanaugh. Judge has also denied misconduct allegations.

Sanders spoke on “Fox News Sunday,” Conway appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union” and Graham and Hirono were interviewed on ABC’s “This Week.”

Associated Press writers Eric Tucker, Lisa Mascaro and Mary Clare Jalonick in Washington and Jonathan Lemire in New York contributed to this report.

James Comey: The F.B.I. Can Do This

New York Times – Opinion

James Comey: The F.B.I. Can Do This

Despite limitations and partisan attacks, the bureau can find out a lot about the Kavanaugh accusations in a week.

By James Comey      September 30, 2018

Mr. Comey is the former F.B.I. director.

CreditCreditAndrew Harrer/Bloomberg

The F.B.I. is back in the middle of it. When we were handed the Hillary Clinton email investigation in 2015, the bureau’s deputy director said to me, “You know you are totally screwed, right?” He meant that, in a viciously polarized political environment, one side was sure to be furious with the outcome. Sure enough, I saw a tweet declaring me “a political hack,” although the author added, tongue in cheek: “I just can’t figure out which side.”

And those were the good old days. President Trump’s decision to order a one-week investigation into sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, his Supreme Court nominee, comes in a time of almost indescribable pain and anger, lies and attacks.

We live in a world where the president routinely attacks the F.B.I. because he fears its work. He calls for his enemies to be prosecuted and his friends freed. We also live in a world where a sitting federal judge channels the president by shouting attacks at the Senate committee considering his nomination and demanding to know if a respected senator has ever passed out from drinking. We live in a world where the president is an accused serial abuser of women, who was caught on tape bragging about his ability to assault women and now likens the accusations against his nominee to the many “false” accusations against him.

Most disturbingly, we live in a world where millions of Republicans and their representatives think nearly everything in the previous paragraph is O.K.

In that world, the F.B.I. is now being asked to investigate, on a seven-day clock, sexual assaults that the president says never happened, that some senators have decried as a sham cooked up to derail a Supreme Court nominee, and that other senators believe beyond all doubt were committed by the nominee.

If truth were the only goal, there would be no clock, and the investigation wouldn’t have been sought after the Senate Judiciary Committee already endorsed the nominee. Instead, it seems that the Republican goal is to be able to say there was an investigation and it didn’t change their view, while the Democrats hope for incriminating evidence to derail the nominee.

Although the process is deeply flawed, and apparently designed to thwart the fact-gathering process, the F.B.I. is up for this. It’s not as hard as Republicans hope it will be.

F.B.I. agents are experts at interviewing people and quickly dispatching leads to their colleagues around the world to follow with additional interviews. Unless limited in some way by the Trump administration, they can speak to scores of people in a few days, if necessary.

They will confront people with testimony and other accounts, testing them and pushing them in a professional way. Agents have much better nonsense detectors than partisans, because they aren’t starting with a conclusion.

Yes, the alleged incident occurred 36 years ago. But F.B.I. agents know time has very little to do with memory. They know every married person remembers the weather on their wedding day, no matter how long ago. Significance drives memory. They also know that little lies point to bigger lies. They know that obvious lies by the nominee about the meaning of words in a yearbook are a flashing signal to dig deeper.

Once they start interviewing, every witness knows the consequences. It is one thing to have your lawyer submit a statement on your behalf. It is a very different thing to sit across from two F.B.I. special agents and answer their relentless questions. Of course, the bureau won’t have subpoena power, only the ability to knock on doors and ask questions. But most people will speak to them. Refusal to do so is its own kind of statement.

RELATED
More on the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh
Opinion | Maureen Dowd: Capitol Hill Ralph Club

Opinion | Frank Bruni: Brett Kavanaugh Loves His Beer

Opinion | The Editorial Board: Women Are Watching

Agents will summarize every witness encounter in a detailed report called a 302, and then synthesize all the interviews into an executive summary for the White House. Although the F.B.I. won’t reach conclusions, their granular factual presentation will spotlight the areas of conflict and allow decision makers to reach their own conclusions.

It is idiotic to put a shot clock on the F.B.I. But it is better to give professionals seven days to find facts than have no professional investigation at all. When the week is up, one team (and maybe both) will be angry at the F.B.I. The president will condemn the bureau for being a corrupt nest of Clinton-lovers if they turn up bad facts. Maybe Democrats will similarly condemn agents as Trumpists if they don’t. As strange as it sounds, there is freedom in being totally screwed. Agents can just do their work. Find facts. Speak truth to power.

Despite all the lies and all the attacks, there really are people who just want to figure out what’s true. The F.B.I. is full of them.

James Comey is the former F.B.I. director and author of “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership.”

Chili is building a scenic trail through its Patagonian wilderness

EcoWatch

September 30, 2018

You’ll need good footwear.

via World Economic Forum

Chile is launching a huge scenic route through its Patagonian wilderness

You'll need good footwear. via World Economic Forum

Posted by EcoWatch on Sunday, September 30, 2018

Kavanaugh ‘lied’ in Fox News interview, drank to excess frequently, classmate from Yale says

Good Morning America

Kavanaugh ‘lied’ in Fox News interview, drank to excess frequently, classmate from Yale says

Acacia Nunes, Cameron Harrison, GMA        September 28, 2018
Kavanaugh ‘lied’ in interview, drank to excess, classmate from Yale says

Scroll back up to restore default view.

Kavanaugh ‘lied’ in Fox News interview, drank to excess frequently, classmate from Yale says originally appeared on goodmorningamerica.com

Brett Kavanaugh “lied on that Fox News interview” about who he was, a former Yale classmate said, adding that the person he professed to be wasn’t the one she knew.

Hours after the Senate Judiciary hearing ended on Thursday, Lynne Brookes told ABC News’ Cameron Harrison that she frequently “drank to excess” with Kavanaugh.

“We were in the same social circles,” Brookes said. “When he would drink, he would get obnoxious.”

Brookes told Harrison that Kavanaugh “mischaracterized himself” during the hearing on Thursday at which Christine Blasey Ford, who’s accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault, also spoke.

Kavanaugh has repeatedly denied Ford’s accusations and defended his drinking habits in Capitol Hill testimony Thursday, telling senators repeatedly that he does not drink to excess.

“I like beer,” Kavanaugh testified. “I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexually assaulted anyone.”

(MORE: 5 key takeaways from the Ford-Kavanaugh hearing)

PHOTO: Lynne Brookes, a former Yale classmate of Brett Kavanaugh appeared, on 'Good Morning America,' Sept. 28, 2018. (ABC News)But Brookes pointed to a broader issue. “This is about the integrity of the Supreme Court,” she said. “I know that Brett mischaracterized himself, and it’s incredibly disappointing that despite that this man could be elevated to the Supreme Court.”

Brookes said she was frustrated listening to Kavanaugh’s comments on Thursday and that he dodged too many questions, emphasizing that hard partying and succeeding in the classroom or athletically were mutually exclusive.

“He was trying to portray that it’s one or the other, and at Yale there are many people for which it was both,” she said. “I played two sports. I got good grades. I went to Wharton. And I drank in excess many nights with Brett Kavanaugh.”

Brookes later described a time when she saw Kavanaugh on the library green as a fraternity pledge.

“From something I witnessed personally,” she added, “I find it very hard to imagine that he never blacked out or had memory problems.”

When Brookes was asked if she ever felt unsafe around him, she clarified that she wasn’t speaking to the sexual-assault allegations discussed Thursday on Capitol Hill. She said she never witnessed his making untoward sexual advances.

Brookes said during her junior year she was roommates with Deborah Ramirez, another woman who’s accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, which he has also denied.

(MORE: Christine Blasey Ford sparks Democratic fire, but who carries the torch?: ANALYSIS)

Brookes told ABC News that she didn’t attend the party in question, pertaining to Ramirez’s allegation, but that she doesn’t know why her former roommate would fabricate such a story.

“I don’t know why Debbie would make that up,” Brookes said.

A registered Republican, Brookes said she isn’t part of any left-wing conspiracy, rather that she’s concerned for the integrity of America’s highest court.

“Our judicial system is based on the foundation of truth,” she added. “And if you have a judge that lies to you, how can you trust the judicial system?”

A Republican Yale drinking buddy of Kavanaugh’s tells CNN he lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee

The Week

A Republican Yale drinking buddy of Kavanaugh’s tells CNN he lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee

September 28, 2018

When Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh told Fox News he never drank to excess, several of his Yale classmates were so outraged they decided to set the record straight. One of them, Lynne Brookes, also accepted Chris Cuomo’s invitation to join him on CNN after Kavanaugh repeated his claim of relative sobriety under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. Cuomo asked Brookes — a Republican who admires Kavanaugh’s judicial record — why she changed her mind.

“I’ll tell you, Chris, I watched the whole hearing, and a number of my Yale colleagues and I were extremely disappointed in Brett Kavanaugh’s characterization of himself and the way that he evaded his excessive drinking question” and “was lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee today,” Brookes said. “There is no doubt in my mind that while at Yale, he was a big partier, often drank to excess, and there had to be a number of nights where he does not remember.” She said she can “almost guarantee” he doesn’t remember a night she witnessed where he was “stumbling drunk, in a ridiculous costume, saying really dumb things” to pledge a fraternity.

Brookes also dismissed Kavanaugh’s defense that his studies and sports precluded heavy drinking, noting she played two varsity sports. “I studied really hard, too,” she said. “I went to Wharton business school, I did very well at Yale, I also drank to excess many nights with Brett Kavanaugh.” She recounted a party where Kavanaugh and Chris Dudley, one of his character witnesses, humiliated a female student by barging in on her in a compromising position.

“I’m not saying it’s wrong that he drank,” Cuomo concluded after the interview, but “if he’s going to be the ultimate judge of truth in our society, a Supreme Court justice, and at 53 years old he’s going to lie about what he did when he was 15, what else will he lie about?” Watch below. Peter Weber

Magazine of Jesuits urges withdrawal of Kavanaugh nomination

Magazine of Jesuits urges withdrawal of Kavanaugh nomination

Nicole Winfield, Associated Press        September 28, 2018
Trump doubles down on Kavanaugh support amid sexual assault allegations

 

ROME (AP) — The magazine of the Jesuit religious order in the United States has publicly withdrawn its endorsement of Judge Brett Kavanaugh as Supreme Court justice following testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by the Jesuit-educated Kavanaugh and the woman accusing him of sexually assaulting her decades ago.

In an editorial posted late Thursday, America magazine said it had no special insight into whether Kavanaugh or Christine Blasey Ford is telling the truth. But it said that the nomination was no longer in the interests of the country and “should be withdrawn.”

“If Senate Republicans proceed with his nomination, they will be prioritizing policy aims over a woman’s report of an assault,” the editors wrote. “Were he to be confirmed without this allegation being firmly disproved, it would hang over his future decisions on the Supreme Court for decades and further divide the country.”

The reversal is significant given Kavanaugh has repeatedly cited his Catholic faith and Jesuit education in defending himself against Ford’s accusations. In his opening statement Thursday, Kavanaugh twice referenced his years as a student at the Jesuit-run Georgeown Prep school in Maryland. Ford has accused a drunken Kavanaugh of assaulting her at a house party in the summer of 1982, when he was a student at the school. Kavanaugh has vigorously denied her claims.

America in July had endorsed Kavanaugh on the grounds that he might have provided the Supreme Court with the vote needed to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide. The Catholic Church firmly opposes abortion.

“Anyone who recognizes the humanity of the unborn should support the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh,” the editors entitled their July 9 editorial, before Ford’s accusation was made public.

In their new editorial, America’s editors said they were still committed to finding a justice with Kavanaugh’s textualist approach to jurisprudence that is suspicious of the kind of judicial innovation that led to the Roe decision. But they said Kavanaugh was not the only candidate available.

“For the good of the country and the future credibility of the Supreme Court in a world that is finally learning to take reports of harassment, assault and abuse seriously, it is time to find a nominee whose confirmation will not repudiate that lesson,” the editors wrote.

The magazine is not the only Jesuit institution to respond to the nomination.

The president of Georgetown Prep, the Rev. James R. Van Dyke, has said the controversy over Ford’s accusations has compelled the school to “evaluate our school culture” and redouble efforts to help students develop a healthy understanding of masculinity.

“And it is a time to talk with them honestly and even bluntly about what respect for others, especially respect for women and other marginalized people means in very practical terms_in actions and in words,” Van Dyke wrote to the school community Sept. 20.

This version corrects the location of Georgetown Prep to Maryland not Washington.

Kavanaugh, Uncivil Supreme Court Nominee

The New Yorker

The Ford-Kavanaugh Hearings Will Be Remembered as a Grotesque Display of Patriarchal Resentment

By Doreen St. Felix       September 27, 2018

There was, in Brett Kavanaugh’s Trumpian performance, not even a hint of the composure one would think a potential Supreme Court Justice would have carefully cultivated. Photograph by Melina Mara / Getty

Judge Brett Kavanaugh is almost certainly going to be appointed the next member of the Supreme Court of the United States. Whatever Christine Blasey Ford said in her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, and whatever Kavanaugh said in his, and however credible and convincing either one seemed, none of it was going to affect this virtual inevitability. The Republicans, if they stick together, have the necessary votes. A veneer of civility made it seem as if the senators were questioning Ford and Kavanaugh to get to the truth of whether Kavanaugh, as a drunk teen-ager, attended a party where he pinned Ford to a bed and sexually assaulted her, thirty-six years ago. But that’s not what the hearing was designed to explore. At the time of this writing, composed in the eighth hour of the grotesque historic activity happening in the Capitol Hill chamber, it should be as plain as day that what we witnessed was the patriarchy testing how far its politics of resentment can go. And there is no limit.

Dressed in a blue suit, taking the oath with nervous solemnity, Ford gave us a bristling sense of déjà vu. “Why suffer through the annihilation if it’s not going to matter?” Ford had told the Washington Post when she first went public with her allegations. With the word “annihilation” she conjured the spectre of Anita Hill, who, in her testimony against Clarence Thomas, in 1991, was basically berated over an exhausting two-day period, and diagnosed, by the senators interrogating her, with “erotomania” and a case of man-eating professionalism. Ford’s experience—shaped by the optics of the #MeToo moment, by her whiteness and country-club roots—was different. The Republicans on the committee, likely coached by some consultant, did not overtly smear Ford. Some pretended, condescendingly, to extend her empathy. Senator Orrin Hatch, who once claimed that Hill had lifted parts of her harassment allegations against Thomas from “The Exorcist,” called Ford “pleasing,” an “attractive” witness. Instead of questioning her directly, the Republicans hired Rachel Mitchell, a female prosecutor specializing in sex crimes, to serve as their proxy. Mitchell’s fitful, sometimes aimless questioning did the ugly work of softening the Republican assault on Ford’s testimony. Ford, in any case, was phenomenal, a “witness and expert” in one, and it seemed, for a moment following her testimony, that the nation might be unable to deny her credibility.

Then Kavanaugh came in, like an eclipse. He made a show of being unprepared. Echoing Clarence Thomas, he claimed that he did not watch his accuser’s hearing. (Earlier, it was reported that he did.) “I wrote this last night,” he said, of his opening statement. “No one has seen this draft.” Alternating between weeping and yelling, he exemplified the conservative’s embrace of bluster and petulance as rhetorical tools. Going on about his harmless love of beer, spinning unbelievably chaste interpretations of what was, by all other accounts, his youthful habit of blatant debauchery, he was as Trumpian as Trump himself, louder than the loudest on Fox News. He evaded questions; he said that the allegations brought against him were “revenge” on behalf of the Clintons; he said, menacingly, that “what goes around comes around.” When Senator Amy Klobuchar calmly asked if he had ever gotten blackout drunk, he retorted, “Have you?” (He later apologized to her.)

There was, in this performance, not even a hint of the sagacity one expects from a potential Supreme Court Justice. More than presenting a convincing rebuttal to Ford’s extremely credible account, Kavanaugh—and Hatch, and Lindsey Graham—seemed to be exterminating, live, for an American audience, the faint notion that a massively successful white man could have his birthright questioned or his character held to the most basic type of scrutiny. In the course of Kavanaugh’s hearing, Mitchell basically disappeared. Republican senators apologized to the judge, incessantly, for what he had suffered. There was talk of his reputation being torpedoed and his life being destroyed. This is the nature of the conspiracy against white male power—the forces threatening it will always somehow be thwarted at the last minute.

The Hill-Thomas hearings persist in the American consciousness as a watershed moment for partisanship, for male entitlement, for testimony on sexual misconduct, for intra-racial tension and interracial affiliation. The Ford-Kavanaugh hearings will be remembered for their entrenchment of the worst impulses from that earlier ordeal. What took place on Thursday confirms that male indignation will be coddled, and the gospel of male success elevated. It confirms that there is no fair arena for women’s speech. Mechanisms of accountability will be made irrelevant. Some people walked away from 1991 enraged. The next year was said to be the Year of the Woman. Our next year, like this one, will be the Year of the Man.

Doreen St. Félix is a staff writer at The New Yorker