Another Woman Charges Kavanaugh

[jserraglio]

Thanks. The Times article lays bare either self-deception or purposeful deception. Not sure now which it was.

This article confirmed a lot of what I felt about BK's testimony re. alcohol use and abuse when I watched the tail end of it after work. I didn't see any of Ms Blasey's, but heard it was disturbing and compelling.

I do think Kavanaugh sincerely believes he did not assault Blasey. I do not think he tried to mislead the Senate about that, only about his "party-boy" antics. One self-serving statement cascaded into the next. It was painful to watch.

Now that I've read the Times story, though I'm not sure any more that Kavanaugh committed perjury. It may be that he has deceived himself and simply cannot see his behavior the way others recall it from that bygone era.

So he may have lied under oath, but I don't think he committed perjury. Either way, I don't think he can credibly assume a seat on the Court. He should withdraw quietly and spare his family and the country more anguish.

[lennygoran]

I didn't see Ms Blasey's.

I saw the whole thing-Blasey had me in tears-like I feel at certain operas-what a soprano! Regards, Len

PS-what a scene that elevator showed-I remember an elevator in the Met's current Rigoletto--a production I hate-however this elevator scene with Flake and the women was superb!

[jserraglio]

Blasey had me in tears-like I feel at certain operas-what a soprano! Regards, Len

A case of life imitating art? I felt pretty bad for Kavanaugh too. The wanton boy who once laughed at a young girl's pain morphs into a man in his prime forced to confront his own inner torment. It strikes me as more tragic than operatic.

[lennygoran]

I felt pretty bad for Kavanaugh too.

I don't feel this way-maybe I should. But if he lied to Congress and all of us that's not good. Let's say he had admitted his early indiscretions right away-drunkeness and sexual assault-nasty drunkeness-would we still want him to be on the Supreme Court--could we forgive him-would they even have considered him. Then there's the issue involving those memos back when he was working for Bush.

I admit that besides all of the above I'm against him because of his views on legitimate issues where people have different political views-I just don't trust him on women's rights, citizens united, investigating a president while in office. Well I hope he just withdraws. Regards, Len

[jserraglio]

I agree Kavanaugh doesn't belong on the Court and I'd be shocked if he got there (even though he still might get there given the ruthlessness of the rightist and leftist radicals in Congress, both of which tribes are beating the drums for civil war). Kudos to Senators Jeff Flake and Chris Coons for taking on the nut-jobs in their respective parties. And a shout-out too to Senator Amy Klobuchar, who I think would be a great POTUS someday.

But you can only perjure yourself if you are wittingly deceptive. After reading that Times article you posted, I realized he was probably unwittingly so. It's sad in a way.

[lennygoran]

>Now that I've read the Times story, though I'm not sure any more that Kavanaugh committed perjury. It may be that he has deceived himself and simply cannot see his behavior the way others recall it from that bygone era.
So he may have lied under oath, but I don't think he committed perjury. Either way, I don't think he can credibly assume a seat on the Court. He should withdraw quietly and spare his family and the country more anguish.

I admit I'm having some trouble grasping the difference between perjury and lying-I think it's my own limitation. Anyway I googled for some help-there's plenty out there-I'll have to study it more when we return from a little mini trip we're making-Longwood Gardens with Sue's garden club for their famous firework fountain display and then for us onto Atlantic city for some ocean and bird watching experiences--no gambling--maybe by then he'll take your suggestion and withdraw his name. Regards, Len

Perjury and false statements are both felonies, punishable under federal law by up to five years in prison. While the two crimes have similar elements, there are some important distinctions. Here is an explanation:

False Statement

The crime of false statement involves knowingly and willfully making a false statement to a government official (such as an investigator) about a material fact, or falsifying or covering up a material fact. This latter point includes knowingly omitting information that is material. The key point is the speaker's intent: that the speaker has knowingly made the false statement, or omitted relevant information.

A material fact is information of fundamental importance to a case, not information either peripheral or irrelevant to the issue being investigated.

Perjury

A person commits perjury when he intentionally lies under oath, usually while testifying in court, administrative hearings, depositions, or in answers to interrogatories. Perjury can also be committed by knowingly signing or acknowledging a written legal document (such as affidavit, declaration under penalty of perjury, deed, license application, tax return) that contains false information.

Perjury can be difficult to prove. The testimony of one witness is not enough to support evidence that the testimony was false. There must be additional evidence, from either the testimony of another person or other evidence.

A person can be charged with both crimes if the same lie is repeated -- once under oath before a grand jury and again to investigators during the course of an investigation. Prosecutors normally choose to charge someone under one or the other.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/CIALeak ... id=1259415

[jserraglio]

Thanks for the info. I am no lawyer, but under False Statement the words that leapt out at me were "knowingly and willfully". Yesterday I would have said BK intentionally deceived. The Times story changed my mind. I am also no psychologist, but common sense tells me that this man unknowingly and unwittingly misled the Senate. His self-image is distorted, but he really believes what he said about himself. So making a criminally false statement about his own behavior would simply not apply in this instance.

Again, he is not a good fit for the Court, should withdraw quietly and, if still possible, go back to trying to be an effective judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals.

[lennygoran]

Again, he is not a good fit for the Court, should withdraw quietly and, if still possible, go back to trying to be an effective judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals.

Gotta admit all this talk drew me to this article for better or for worse! Regards, Len

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/27/17910524/ ... -kavanaugh

Disclaimer-at one time in the past I had ideas of going to law school-I remember having to take the law review test or law board exams-forget the exact name-I forget if it was once or twice--anyway I failed and only remember that at the time I felt it was by far the hardest test I ever took-excruciating. I wonder if the FBI could go back and find out when I took the test, what my results were and other pertinent info. Regards, Len

[jbuck919]

Yes, well, in terms of risking standing up to the rest of government, the only SCOTUS failure I know about is Andrew Jackson's refusal to follow John Marshall's decree that the Eastern nations could not be removed onto the trail of tears. Jackson said something like "Marshall has his opinion, now where are his troops?" Other than that, the Supreme Court has been and remains nearly omnipotent. A case can be made that with the Dred Scott decision they brought on the Civil War. Those of approximately my age are used to the notion that the court has ruled in the interest of the people, and under Earl Warren and Warren Burger, this was often true, but it is far from the whole history of an institution that is profoundly un-democratic.

[jserraglio]

far from the whole history of an institution that is profoundly un-democratic.

Agreed. The idea that the Court has been largely above politics is a myth. But the issue is not whether the Court is undemocratic. Of course the Court is undemocratic and was designed largely to be just that. Hard to imagine Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in a pure democracy. Our undemocratic Court, after all, sometimes gets it right.

The question this week lay not with the Court but the Senate. To what extent the Senate, also designed to be in part undemocratic, can rise above shifts in popular will but still be accountable to the people? Hats off to Senators Jeff Flake on the right and Chris Coons on the left for outflanking the radicals in their respective parties.

Also to Senator Amy Klobuchar for calmly and quietly exposing Kavanaugh for what he is: a sputtering, blustering bully. Klobuchar is my first choice to run against Trump. I think the Democrats need another Midwestern moderate to ride herd on some of the Coastal Crazies that want to steer the party hard Left.

I missed most of the Kavanaugh hearings because I was at work. This helpful clip filled me in on the main events:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRJecfRxbr8

[jbuck919]

Speaking from personal experience, and not because I was ever an offender myself but because I have been a teacher, sexual harassment in high school is a huge, huge problem that has largely gone unaddressed. You will see things about bullying, which is bad enough, but as far as I know, nobody ever tried to teach the boys not to behave as though they had been born in a barn.

[jserraglio]

Speaking from personal experience, and not because I was ever an offender myself but because I have been a teacher, sexual harassment in high school is a huge, huge problem that has largely gone unaddressed. You will see things about bullying, which is bad enough, but as far as I know, nobody ever tried to teach the boys not to behave as though they had been born in a barn.

Strongly agree, not to speak of the philandering professors and predatory classmates & upperclassmen the vulnerable among these kids, often away from home for the first time, will meet in college. It's a scandal, which the colleges themselves, because parents often have not, are having to address in pre-college orientation.

Well, the public at large got a glimpse of that scandal last Thursday when Senator Klobuchar asked Judge Kavanaugh about his high-school binge drinking. Before my eyes, Dr. Jekell morphed into Mr. Hyde. I saw a 50-year-old act like a leering satyr and taunt Ms. Klobuchar much as he may have humiliated a defenseless 15-year-old girl years before.

Klobuchar stated afterwards that, despite his later apology, she was shocked by his antics before the committee and by the contemptuous way he treated her. There is no way, in my view, that this man is fit to serve as a Supreme Court justice. He should withdraw his name immediately. He acted like he was born in a bar.