Send Out the Clowns

Judge Brett Kavanaugh called the Supreme Court nomination process a "circus." While he was certainly seated in a room nearly half-full of clowns, they were more the horror film variety. To call the process a circus is an insult to circus clowns; this was something far more sinister, more diabolical, more appalling. Beyond that, I have no name for it, because I have never witnessed anything like it.

I'd like to address several things related to this s***-show:

1. Sen. Jeff Flake's 11.9th hour condition he placed on his vote, and the ramifications thereof
2. Questions I would like to have seen asked of Dr. Ford
3. Judge Kavanaugh's demeanor in Thursday's testimony before the bad joke the Judicial Committee has become
4. Feinstein (normally, I would refer to her as Sen. Feinstein; however, she is so unworthy of respect that the usual decorum reserved for those of her station is undeserved, thus she will herewith be referred to as Feinstein - she deserves no more respect than that)
5. The true crux of the matter
6. The likely direction of the FBI investigation, and
7. My fearful prediction as to how this all plays out

First, to Sen. Flake. I'm wondering if this isn't a teaching moment for President Trump, similar to the one he experienced when the late Sen. John McCain left his sickbed to cast the deciding "no" vote on the repeal of Obamacare:

When your party only has a slim majority in the Senate, be careful about pissing off Republican Senators.

I never had confidence that Flake would support Kavanaugh, and was pleasantly surprised when he announced prior to Friday's proceedings that he would support the nominee. Flake is not seeking re-election, so he has little to lose by his last-minute move. And, he may oppose Trump in the 2020 primary (where he'll be shredded into little flakes - see what I did there?), thus he may have felt he had much to gain with independent voters. However, Flake is a RINO's RINO, John Kasich with better hair, and we saw how Kasich fared in 2016. Flake would be better off just fading into the Arizona sunset.

So as things stand now, the FBI will investigate the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. Per the agreement Flake hashed out with Dem Sen. Chris Coons (who reportedly dropped an F-bomb when his buddy Flake announced early Friday morning that he was going to vote for Kavanaugh), the investigation will be "limited in both scope and time." The time is to be no more than a week, and the scope is to be limited to "current credible allegations" against Judge Kavanaugh (although at this juncture, there don't appear to be any). That's what Flake and his buddies on the left agreed to, that's what GOP leadership acquiesced to, and that's what President Trump had no choice but to direct the FBI to do.

We'll see. Dr. Ford's lawyer (the one hand-picked by Feinstein) immediately pushed back, and said that while they applaud the decision to call for an investigation, it should not be limited by time or scope.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: private citizens do not get to dictate what the FBI investigates, nor the scope or duration of such investigations. For now, it appears Dr. Ford's lawyer is being ignored, and the scope and time will indeed be limited. But it's still early

The reason the GOP insisted that the scope be limited is to avoid the dozens of bought-and-paid-for accusers that would undoubtedly come crawling out of the woodwork in the next week to accuse Judge Kavanaugh of being the next Jack the Ripper. However, another tactic is still in play - see my last point for more on that.

On to Dr. Ford's testimony, and questions I wish she'd been asked. The prosecutor brought in by the GOP to handle questioning on their side was ineffective. Part of that has to do with the format. The Curmudgeon has had the unpleasant experience of being involved in a number of arbitration cases with former employees of his previous firm. I've seen lawyers patiently and methodically pursue a line of questioning that appears to go nowhere. But the end game is to produce an a-ha moment that results in a discrepancy in the witness's testimony, without revealing early on where the questioning is going, lest the witness figure it out and head them off at the pass. That confusion on the part of the witness may lead to other discrepancies along the way. It's part of the disingenuous cat-and-mouse game that is jurisprudence.

However, the prosecutor had but five minutes to pursue her line of questioning, before one of the Democrat co-conspirators got their five minutes to praise Dr. Ford's courage, whine for an FBI investigation, and introduce letters of support for Dr. Ford from thousands of people who don't know her, Judge Kavanaugh, or the first damn thing about this whole mess. Then, she had to pick up where she'd left off. So it was disjointed at best.

She did score a few points. Dr. Ford is apparently afraid to fly due to the trauma associated with the incident she accuses Judge Kavanaugh of, and that was the reason for the delay in her availability to testify. Yet the prosecutor got her to admit that she flies to the East coast regularly, that she flies to Hawaii and Tahiti for vacations, etc. She doesn't remember how she got home from the alleged party - an approximate 20-minute drive (we don't know for sure, because she doesn't remember where this happened). And there were other similar discrepancies. However, the prosecutor never forcefully drove home these points.

That's probably related to the reason the GOP used her in the first place. The Dems had two objectives from Thursday's proceeding: one was to try to block Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, or at least delay it until after the mid-terms (don't take my word for their desire to delay; they freely admit it). The second was to make the 11 old white guys on the GOP side look mean for going after Dr. Ford, something they could play up for women voters in the mid-terms. So the GOP basically had to use a female prosecutor to appear more sympathetic. For that reason, the prosecutor couldn't effectively exploit the discrepancies in Dr. Ford's testimony.

Suffice it to say that when the dust had settled, the prosecutor told the Senators that, were this a criminal proceeding, there would not be sufficient evidence for her to pursue a case, or even persuade a judge to issue a search warrant. There was nothing to search, because the location of the alleged incident couldn't be identified.

There are certain questions that I'd like to have seen asked, and avenues I'd like to have seen pursued further. I say this with no intent to disparage Dr. Ford. She was a sympathetic witness, and I'd go so far to say a credible one if only her allegations were not uncorroborated and her testimony were not rife with inconsistencies. Our legal system promises due process to the accused; that is and should be sacrosanct. So tough questions of the accuser are fair game.

1. I'd like to have seen the fear of flying claims explored further: how many miles per year does Dr. Ford fly? What's the longest flight she's taken? (The flight from San Francisco to Tahiti is over eight hours. I know people with no history of trauma, but a fear of flying, who would never take an eight-hour flight, no matter how appealing the destination.)

2. I'd have pressed more on her inability to recall who drove her to and from the party. This could be an important witness. Yet not only has she been unable to produce such a witness, no one has come forward, having watched the news, to say, "Yes, I knew Christine and Brett back in the day, and I drove her home from a party they both attended, and she seemed distraught." This person could be the nail in Judge Kavanaugh's coffin, in terms of his Supreme Court aspirations.

3. I'd have explored other discrepancies, such as the differences in her account as presented in her letter to Feinstein or her interview with the liberal Washington Post vs. what she said before the Committee.

4. Dr. Ford used her expertise as a psychologist to assert that brain chemistry makes cases of mistaken identity impossible: the image of the perpetrator is seared into the victim's brain, even if other details are forgotten. I'd bring up case after case of mistaken identity (I know of one personally in which the accused was convicted and imprisoned, only to be released after 24 years of incarceration). Dr. Ford's assertion is simply untrue: there are cases of mistaken identity all the time in our judicial system.

5. Finally, Dr. Ford testified that Mark Judge participated in the alleged assault with Judge Kavanaugh, that they were laughing together during and after the incident, and that it so traumatized her as to affect her willingness to fly, and her academic performance throughout the remainder of high school and her early college years. She further testified - and suggested that this was key to establishing the timeline - that she walked into a local Safeway not long after the incident and saw Mark Judge, who worked there, and walked up to him and said "Hi," and that Mr. Judge appeared uncomfortable to see her, presumably due to his guilt over the incident. She suggested that reviewing when Mr. Judge worked at the Safeway would help to establish the timing of the alleged incident, which she was fuzzy on.

So here's the question: if a victim is so traumatized by an event that he or she is afraid of flying, and his or her academic performance suffers, when they walk into a store and see one of the people who victimized them, do they walk up to them and say, "Hi"? Maybe there's a plausible explanation, but I'd have at least explored that piece of her testimony. I was the victim of bullying in middle school, and when I saw my bullies in random places, I didn't walk up to them and say, "Hi." I walked the other way, quickly. I was the uncomfortable one, not them. She didn't testify that she walked up to him to confront him: "Hi, Mark, you miserable SOB!" Again, maybe there's an explanation. I'd just have asked for it, because when I heard her relay that, my initial reaction was, "Huh?"

Again - and I feel a disclaimer is necessary here, given our current culture - I mean this as no disrespect to Dr. Ford or victims of sexual assault in general. I personally know women who've been sexually assaulted; I consider there to be nothing more heinous. But when someone accuses someone of something, it's fair to ask them questions about the incident, corroborating witnesses, the timing, the location and their behavior afterward. You need to do that, to prove their case on their behalf. I don't doubt that something happened to Dr. Ford at some point in her young life. However, that incident may not have involved Judge Kavanaugh or his friend Mr. Judge, both of whom claim the incident never happened.

On a related note, much has been made (on the Left) about the nuance between the other people Dr. Ford testified were at the party saying the incident didn't happen, and them saying they don't recall it. A couple of points are in order: first, they don't just say they don't recall the alleged incident, they don't recall the party at which it allegedly took place. They don't recall being at a party where Dr. Ford, Judge Kavanaugh, and Mark Judge were all present. And second, at least one alleged witness - Mr. Judge - not only says he doesn't recall the party, he has stated under penalty of felony perjury that he has never seen Judge Kavanaugh behave in the way Dr. Ford describes. That's a lot stronger than simply "I don't remember."

Enough on that; I've probably already succeeded in painting myself as a heartless sexist pig. Next, to Judge Kavanaugh's demeanor during his opening statement and testimony on Thursday. The Dems on the Committee are outraged that anyone dare speak to them that way, implying that for some inexplicable reason they are deserving of respect. Leftists everywhere are saying he doesn't have the temperament to be a judge. Some are saying that, because his wife was openly crying during his opening statement, that she's an abused woman. They're saying that his anger proves he is an abuser of women. (There's a word for those people in the latter two categories: idiot.)

Again, I have sat through arbitration proceedings with former employees, and one "consulting engagement" that was nothing more than a witch hunt, in which people went after my livelihood and the livelihoods of the employees who worked for me. I didn't get death threats, they didn't go after my family, just my livelihood and my reputation.

I like to think of myself as a pretty even-keeled guy, but in those instances, I became a pit bull, a Mike Tyson. I was angry, and I had no qualms about letting it show, in front of the accusers, the attorneys, and the arbitrators. Kavanaugh simply displayed that on Thursday. And the Committee Democrats deserved to be scolded, in a public way. He took them to task. The Committee members were playing the role of questioning attorney, and the judge went after them. I've seen several arbitrators and one judge get angry with the attorneys in a case and administer tongue-lashings to them. So don't tell me he doesn't have the demeanor to be a judge. I've seen it from judges first-hand. When there is a travesty of justice, I want a Supreme Court Justice to act that way. We all should.

Feinstein said after Thursday's proceedings, "I have never seen anyone who wants to sit on the highest court in the land behave in that manner." Well, Feinstein, you've also never seen anyone who wants to sit on the highest court in the land treated in this manner. You reap what you sow. He treated you and your colleagues with the respect you deserve: none.

I won't say more about her. We know what she knew, and when. We know what she did. Her crime against Dr. Ford, and Judge Kavanaugh, is well-documented, corroborated, and loathsome.

Now, as for the true crux of this matter: abortion. It's sad that this country is now defined by the divide over Roe v. Wade, a states' rights issue that should never have been the purview of the courts. The pro-legal abortion crowd now control this country, and their single issue defines it, and threatens to derail any other business that may come before the courts or Congress.

I found it telling on Friday morning when one Democrat Senator on the Committee - I wish I could recall who, so that I could research and find the exact quote - said that Judge Kavanaugh's appointment would threaten the rights of all women to decide "whether they wish to become pregnant (emphasis added)."

That Senator presented the most cogent argument against legal abortion that could be made. Legal abortion is not about a woman's decision whether to become pregnant. That decision is made before the woman could "need" to have an abortion, and I would defend the right to make that decision vigorously. That's the problem with the whole abortion debate: if women (and men) would take more care in the decision whether to become pregnant, abortion would be unnecessary. Of course women (and men) should have the right to decide whether the woman becomes pregnant.

However, as the Curmudgeon has noted before, your right to punch me in the face ends at my nose. In other words, your rights are only rights to the extent they don't infringe on the rights of others. In other words, a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy ends at the point that it denies her (and the father's) unborn child of its fundamental right to life. As technology advances, the demonstrable viability of that life moves ever closer to conception.

That's what the Dems fear: the overturning of Roe v. Wade (a decision which, no matter how you feel about it, is unarguably a states' rights issue, if you know the first thing about the Constitution). There have been three hotly contested Supreme Court nominations in my lifetime: Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh. All have involved the confirmation of a nominee to the Court who would replace a member of the majority in the Roe and Casey decisions. Justice Kennedy, who helped pen the majority opinion in Casey, vacated the seat that Judge Kavanaugh would fill. Enough said.

As for the FBI investigation in the coming week, I have no small concern related to the fact that this is the FBI of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, of James Comey and Andrew McCabe. Beyond that, if the scope is truly limited to the allegations made by Dr. Ford, it should be a slam-dunk. The FBI was given a copy of Dr. Ford's letter to Feinstein. They reviewed it, noted the lack of corroboration, and handed it off to the White House, saying the matter was closed. Like the prosecutor hired by the GOP to do their questioning on Thursday, the Fibbies determined that there was insufficient evidence to make a case or secure a search warrant. It shouldn't take them long to interview Dr. Ford, Mr. Judge, Judge Kavanaugh, and the others alleged to be present, and come to the same conclusion.

If the scope also includes the allegations of the classmate of Judge Kavanaugh's at Yale who claims he exposed himself to her, or the client of Stormy Daniels' attention-seeking lawyer who claims that Judge Kavanaugh presided over a series of ritualistic, drug-induced gang rapes while in high school, that shouldn't be hard to clear up either. Again, there is no corroboration whatsoever, and even the Democrats on the Judicial Committee didn't seek to go there, at least not with vigor.

So, if that's the extent of it, by next Friday we should be able to proceed to the first procedural vote on the Senate floor, Flake's vote securely in hand along with those of the other holdout Republicans, Collins and Murkowski, and perhaps even those of the three red-state Democrat Senators who are facing the fights of their political lives, Manchin, Heitkamp and Donnelly. (Although Donnelly has already stated he would oppose the nomination, before any evidence is presented.)

But that brings us to my final point. There are still people out there who can be bought. I fear that the Dems will succeed in securing three people, probably women in order to feed the current climate of identity politics, all liberal, all sympathetic to the cause, all anti-Trump, all pro-legal abortion, all seeking financial gain: one who attended high school with Judge Kavanaugh or Dr. Ford, who might claim, for example, that she drove Dr. Ford home from the alleged party and witnessed her trauma. One who attended Yale with Judge Kavanaugh and his accuser, who might claim that she witnessed him exposing himself. And one who knew Judge Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, and the third accuser, who claims she was witness to or victim of the alleged drug-fueled gang rapes.

Am I a cynic? Dr. Ford's GoFundMe page has raised over a half-million dollars. That's a powerful incentive for someone to testify in this hot mess, and that may be a drop in the bucket to what Feinstein and company would pay to preserve Roe v. Wade. (Feinstein's net worth is nearly $100 million.) Would you agree to testify against somebody for half a million bucks or more? GoFundMe could change "The Runaway Jury" from fiction to fact.

Here's what we know: most of the Democrat Senators on the Judicial Committee, and those not on the Committee, had decided to oppose Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court from the day he was nominated, or even before, vowing to oppose any Trump nominee. Justice Kennedy's resignation was a pucker moment for Leftists. Regardless of the outcome of an FBI investigation, they will oppose him. Even if Dr. Ford says she was lying to block his nomination, they will oppose him. This investigation is a delay tactic; nothing more.

I fear this cesspool will exude an even greater stench before the week is out, and we will see more ugliness in the form of "witnesses" who will "come forward," at the behest of Democrats and with their palms greased by the party machine and an unwitting, partisan public, and ultimately dismantle due process, and so undermine the very foundation of our system of government.

I hope I'm wrong. On only one other occasion in my life have I had so little confidence in our way of government, and thanks to the party I originally registered with prior to voting for Jimmy Carter in my first Presidential election, that confidence is about to hit a new low.

I can only say this: the implications for the Russian meddling investigation are writ large in this debacle. We need not worry about Russia interfering with and destroying our system of government. We're doing a damn fine enough job of that on our own.

If this is a circus, it's time to send out the clowns. Our next opportunity to do that comes in early November.