1. Back in the Dark Ages, when President Trump nominated Judge Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, the nominee was widely regarded as a two-fer: he would be a reliable hard-right vote on the Supreme Court for a long time, and he would boost Republican prospects in the midterm elections. Now that the sexual assault allegation has come to light, the former still holds but the latter is kaput.
2. The analysis behind the "two-fer" theory relied on Kavanaugh's judicial opinions and his history as a Republican political operative (the reliable hard-right vote on the Supreme Court strand), together with the manner in which his confirmation would galvanize the Trump base right before the midterms and sink the electoral prospects of any red-state Democratic senator who had the gumption to vote against his confirmation (the strand concerning the boost Republicans would receive in the midterm election). Their new analysis is, or ought to be, that they will trade control of Congress for a Kavanaugh seat on the Supreme Court, since there is a congressional election every two years whereas Kavanaugh's tenure on the Supreme Court is best gauged by actuarial science.
3. For the likely consequence of a hearing before the Judiciary Committee, featuring sworn testimony from both Kavanaugh and his accuser, will now be to galvanize Democratic voters while further alienating white women who might otherwise vote Republican. It's evident that Republicans recognize this, for they've floated a proposal that a female lawyer be engaged to cross-examine Kavanaugh's accuser. That strikes me as a terrible move. Just what women want to see--a bunch of privileged chickenshit old white men outsourcing their dirty work to a lady lawyer.
4. That the above is at least mostly true may be seen in polling indicating that a growing plurality of Americans oppose Kavanaugh's confirmation; also, in the announcement, earlier this week, by one of those endangered red-state Democrats--Claire McCaskill, of Missouri--that she will vote No on Kavanaugh. Republicans were ready to relish McCaskill writhing in the vice they'd put her in but her announcement barely registered. It's not Democratic senators in the vice any more. If the allegation remains in he-said, she-said territory, and the nomination is not withdrawn and the Republican majority moves to an up-or-down vote on Kavanaugh, it appears likely now that all 49 Democrats will oppose and the klieg lights prepared for McCaskill et al will be shining instead on Susan Collins et al.
5. As to the likelihood that the allegation remains "he-said, she-said": it's obvious Republicans believe that's the best they can hope for. It's Democrats and the accuser who want an investigation, testimony from witnesses, more light. The single weightiest piece of evidence indicating the accuser is telling the truth might be that she has placed in the bedroom where the alleged assault occurred a third person, a good friend of Kavanaugh's. She would know that he could be expected to back up Kavanaugh, and indeed he has, but Republicans on the Judiciary Committee don't want to hear from anyone but the two principals. Why? Moreover, Kavanaugh's friend, while stating that he never witnessed an assault such as the accuser describes, has also said he has nothing more to say on the subject and won't testify before the committee. Why? If your friend is accused of a serious crime, and you know the charge is false, wouldn't you want to travel anywhere in the world, if necessary on your own dime, to say under oath that the accusation is a lie? My conclusion is that it's not the accuser who stands to lose the most from a thorough cross-examination, and that Team Kavanaugh knows it.
6. Laurence Tribe, of Harvard Law School, makes this point in the admirably concise fashion required by the Twitter discipline:
Easy IQ test:
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) September 21, 2018
C claims “B tried to rape me and I want the FBI to investigate my story.” B replies “I never tried to rape C but I don’t want the FBI to investigate.”
Who’s more likely to be telling the truth?
1. B?
2. C?
3. I don’t know; it’s just a case of “C said, B said.”
7. Possibly the most bizarre sidelight of the Kavanaugh fracas: Ed Whelan, a right-wing lawyer and Republican operative, has used Zillow, Google Maps, and old yearbooks from Kavanaugh's private prep school to concoct a theory, posted on his Twitter feed (he's deleted the thread so I can't link to it), that the alleged assault did happen but that the likely perpetrator, whom he names, is Kavanaugh's doppelganger. Whelan occupies a sufficiently lofty place in Republican legal circles to make doubtful the possibility that he did this without the approval of Team Kavanaugh, so there is a whiff of desperation in the air. The accuser immediately put out a statement asserting that she knew both these guys and would hardly be confused about which one assaulted her. I think the putative doppelganger, a classmate of Kavanaugh's at the prep school who now works as a middle-school teacher in the Atlanta area, should sue the shit out of Whelan. He could invest the settlement money and, maybe just by cashing out the interest, double his middle-school teacher income. At least someone would benefit from this debacle! Whelan seems to tardily concur, for he has this morning posted an apology:
I made an appalling and inexcusable mistake of judgment in posting the tweet thread in a way that identified Kavanaugh's Georgetown Prep classmate. I take full responsibility for that mistake, and I deeply apologize for it. I realize that does not undo the mistake.
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 21, 2018
Comments