If it’s true that SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh didn’t sexually assault Christine Blasey Ford, why is he so opposed to an FBI investigation of an event he supposedly had no knowledge of and no involvement in? As a judge and a professed seeker of justice, wouldn’t he want law enforcement to investigate such matters? That was the key question, one he evaded time and time again during yesterday’s hearing. We begin today’s roundup with The New York Times and its summary of how non-credible Kavanaugh was during his Trumpian performance:
What a study in contrasts: Where Christine Blasey Ford was calm and dignified, Brett Kavanaugh was volatile and belligerent; where she was eager to respond fully to every questioner, and kept worrying whether she was being “helpful” enough, he was openly contemptuous of several senators; most important, where she was credible and unshakable at every point in her testimony, he was at some points evasive, and some of his answers strained credulity. [...]
Judge Kavanaugh’s biggest problem was not his demeanor but his credibility, which has been called in question on multiple issues for more than a decade, and has been an issue again throughout his Supreme Court confirmation process.
The Washington Post says the Senate can’t vote on Kavanaugh in light of yesterday’s hearing (but you can bet they will anyway, because Republicans have promised to “plow through” the truth):
Any deadline has been artificially imposed by the Republican majority for purely partisan reasons, a majority that was happy to leave a Supreme Court chair vacant for most of 2016. As we have said repeatedly, the Senate still has not been given access to all relevant documents, let alone fully checked out Ms. Ford’s allegation.
It would be irresponsible for Republicans to insist on an immediate vote. If they do, the responsible vote must be no.
No comments: