The Senators aren't evaluating witnesses. They are weighing the politics consequences of a vote.
If this were a trial, then Dr. Ford won.
Kavanaugh made sure it wasn't a trial.
 |
| Judge Arnold is right, but that is irrelevant. |
A wise and experienced judge, Phil Arnold, posted some Facebook thoughts yesterday about the demeanor and testimony of Dr. Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh. He asked the question: "Are you persuaded by anger or by a reasonable recounting of events," and posted this photo of angry faces.
He posited some questions a judge or juror should ask in order to evaluate credibility, including:
***how did the witness look when speaking?
***what were the motives of each witness?
***did the witness use emotional or other tactics to sway the jurors?
Retired Judge Arnold noted that neither Ford nor Kavanaugh looked "shifty eyed" or in any other way betrayed obvious dishonesty. He thought Ford's had no apparent motive to lie, but that Kavanaugh certainly did have motive. He thought Ford's emotions seemed genuine and that she did not appear to be operating out of anger or vengeance. He took close note of Kavanaugh's anger, directed at the Democratic Senators, and thought it convenient and tactical because it cut off dialog, and perhaps revelatory of a guilty conscience.
Judge Arnold, with lots of experience evaluated witnesses, believed Dr. Ford. "Kavanaugh certainly is protesting too much, but there's more. Anger is a classic defense when one is wrong," Arnold wrote.
It started as a trial. Which one is telling the truth? Even Trump in anticipation of the hearing briefly wavered, saying he had an open mind and saying he wanted to look at the testimony.
A trial would have been a disaster for Kavanaugh, and we saw that unfold in the first hour. Senate Republicans let a female prosecutor try to clarify Dr. Ford's testimony with her questions. Dr. Ford looked clear and credible.
Then it all changed, from a trial, to a Republican loyalty test.
Disaster was averted for Republicans because Republican Senators and Judge Kavanaugh switched the frame. The hearing stopped being about whether Ford or Kavanaugh was telling the truth. They made it about whose side you are on, Democrats or Republicans. Republican Senators quit questioning Dr. Ford and started condemning Senator Feinstein. Feinstein was on trial and Kavanaugh was the victim, and Dr. Ford was the unwitting tool.
Kavanaugh said he was innocent, totally innocent, was not a sexual aggressor nor a problem drinker. Period. He left no door open for middle ground. He didn't attack Dr. Ford. Instead he openly contested Democratic Senators, the process for revealing the allegations, and the very hearing itself. He said this whole hearing was a travesty of justice, a smear job, part of a comprehensive plan to stop Republicans from placing judges onto the courts.
The interruptions and stall tactics that Judge Arnold observed as indications of a dishonest testifier, now served him well in the new frame: partisan warrior.
Republicans have a narrative: Democrats will stoop to anything to stop Republicans from putting a conservative on the court. It makes the veracity of Dr. Ford's testimony irrelevant, because the issue is Feinstein, not Kavanaugh. Relevant is whether Republican Senators will let Democrats get away with this.
It tests party loyalty versus gender and reproductive rights. Are Senators Lisa Murkowski and Sue Collins Republicans first, or pro-reproductive rights women first. They are in a bind. They lose crucial support whichever way they choose. The Democrats on the supposed fence are actually not in play, because the conservative Democrats from Indiana and West Virginia, Joe Donnelly and Joe Manchin will go along with Collins and Murkowski either way. The smart vote for Donnelly and Manchin is to be part of the majority, not be the swing vote. Hide in the crowd.
The question is which is the smart survival vote for Collins and Murkowski. Lose women or lose Republicans. Are you with the lying loathsome Democrats, or against them.
 |
| Fairbanks Newspaper |
Either way, also lost is the truth about what happened to Dr. Ford or the behavior of Judge Kavanaugh in his youth and how he testifies about it today. He evaded that truth, but asserted a different one: he is a Republican under attack by Democrats.
Either Collins and Murkowski stand by their party or they stand by women. I expect them to be Republicans first.
4 comments:
I think it will come out of Committee, 11 to 10, Party line vote, and probably Monday, the Court will have lost any creditibility as impartial arbiters of the Law for at least a generation, perhaps forever.
Peter, thank you for your commentary. I hope all the people who didn't believe that 2016 was about the SCOTUS rest easy as the Bill of Rights is dismantled by the Gorsuch/Kavanaugh faction, abetted by Alito and Roberts. Thomas is just a tool who will support the other 4 no matter how dismal their decisions.
Much will be said about the politics, but what struck me was that it seemed that Graham was truly angry that HE had been put in this position by Trump, not so much outrage about the "smear". Not only was this candidate not vetted, he didn't have the common sense to remove himself, knowing what might be revealed, and that he would be forced to admit things that didn't reflect well. Unable to criticize Trump, Graham directs his frustration at the Democrats, who are simply doing using the same tactics used by the Republicans for the eight years of the Obama administration. with the distinction that the allegations have substance.
Appreciate your insights Peter. I’m surprised how surprised I am that supposedly educated, intelligent, rational humans, become so loyal to their political tribe, that in order to maintain the perpetuation of that tribe, they violate nearly every distinctive and core value of that tribe (and its affiliates) Pro-life/human dignity? Traditional morality? . Hmmmm.
You failed to address the denials of Ford's putative witnesses. Those denials 4x have more weight than Ford's allegations. As to anger, by Arnold's logic, it's inconsistent with the truth. So all angry people are liars? What about the angry sex abuse victims that confronted Sen Flake...are they liars? This rule bears inconsistent results
Post a Comment