The NYT headline plays it so neutral — "White House Sends F.B.I. Interviews on Kavanaugh to Senate" — that I infer the FBI report supports Kavanaugh.
“The White House has received the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s supplemental background investigation into Judge Kavanaugh, and it is being transmitted to the Senate,” Raj Shah, a White House spokesman, said in the statement, which was posted on Twitter. “This is the last addition to the most comprehensive review of a Supreme Court nominee in history, which includes extensive hearings, multiple committee interviews, over 1,200 questions for the record and over a half million pages of documents,” he added. “With this additional information, the White House is fully confident the Senate will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.”That last sentence meets my idea of journalism better than does the WSJ headline. We only know what the White House says, not what it really found. It could be lying. Maybe it found some support but chose to make an absolute statement.
The White House statement gave no further details about the material, but an official briefed on the F.B.I. review said the bureau contacted 10 people and interviewed nine of them. It was not clear why the 10th person was not interviewed. The White House concluded that the interviews did not corroborate sexual misconduct accusations against Judge Kavanaugh.
Let's check WaPo: "In 2:30 a.m. tweets, White House says FBI report supports Kavanaugh confirmation." That's neutral, but with colorful facets — tweeting, early morning hours — that might seem to minimize the seriousness with which the White House assessed the report. A reader of headlines might picture Trump — impetuous Trump — tweeting again, but it was Raj Shah (the spokesman cited in the NYT article).
Also in WaPo "Senate moves ahead on Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination with a procedural vote expected Friday."
The Senate Judiciary Committee announced Thursday that it has received the FBI’s completed report on Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh, as partisan rancor continued to grow over the scope of the investigation into sexual assault allegations that have endangered his confirmation.Good! The vote should indeed take place on Friday (unless there's something specific and substantial in the FBI report that justifies cautious delay). If there's no corroboration, I'm glad for Kavanaugh and his supporters. I'm sorry for private citizen Christine Blasey Ford if she believes what she said and that the Senate would keep her accusations private, and I'm extremely critical of the Senators who allowed her accusation to become public. They ought to have made their own attempt at corroboration — or did they try and fail? — and we should never have been subjected to this ordeal. It was a shameful display, painful for just about everyone and the pain isn't over yet.
In anticipation of the report’s arrival, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Wednesday night teed up a key vote to advance Kavanaugh’s nomination for Friday. Until that vote, senators will be rushing in and out of a secure facility at the Capitol to review the sensitive FBI report that the bureau has compiled, looking into allegations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh.
“There will be plenty of time for members to review and be briefed on this supplemental material before a Friday cloture vote,” McConnell said Wednesday night.
Posts
229 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 229 of 229Ann Althouse said,"I have maintained neutrality throughout this discussion."
I agree. Over time, I've noticed you use the blog to think out loud, often quite a bit. In an unfolding situation, this annoys some who don't like how your thinking appears to trend at that point in time. But that's their problem.
To change your mind in response to new facts brings to mind the question Keynes asked: "What do you do, sir?" You have every right to ask your critics that question.
Did they try and corroborate her? Probably and they could not so they held her claim til the very last minute and then used it as a Hail Mary pass play as if the Dems really believe in any God or religion unless it helps them gain political power. When she croaks and goes to hell, fugly old decrepit corrupt Feinstein will believe in God but then it will be too late.
Poor Inga. Hasnt she suffered enough with one obvious lefty lie collapse after another?
No, Inga is a zealot. Ford could be dragged away in a strait jacket and she would say the poor women was overcome with her feelings about being almost raped. These people don't think ..They feel.
Obstinate (asserted) neutrality in the face of disparate evidence is no virtue, but is instead indicative of bias.
evidence goes both ways. Guess that makes me neutral
Here is a question I am dying to ask.
For two weeks, Althouse has asserted a 'cruel neutrality' and even as her commenters BEGGED her to apply her expertise to the evidence, so they didn't feel they were just spinning moonbeams, she refused to answer. Despite it being her expertise. Despite the answers likely being clear cut (but never 'not arguable'. Those billables need accumulating)
So, after two weeks of NOT taking a moral stance, NOT ripping the Dems a new one for their tactics, NOT making merry when stuff fell apart, suddenly, Althouse is asserting her opinions.
Well...why now? If those tactics and that damage to the Republic is clear NOW, how was it not clear last week?
"Read carefully and not hotheadedly. Straighten up and try to correct what you've already gotten wrong. Some of you own me apologies."
Hmmmm, what does this say about your Judicial/Law Prof temperament? Don't you know that not staying cool, calm and measured shows you are out of control, were unfit to teach law and are, even, guilty, guilty, guilty.
Plus you admit you drink! The horror.
My goodness, imagine if you were faced with the level of unsubstantiated charges faced by Judge K. Might even have thrown ice at Meade.
--- Just applying the MSM/leftist level of analysis here ---
Despite it being her expertise. Despite the answers likely being clear cut (but never 'not arguable'. Those billables need accumulating)
I have wondered about this a bit. I assume some sort of feminist solidarity but you would think she would like the intellectual exercise of analyzing evidence, such as it was.
I wonder if Rachel Mitchell is interested in being a Senator? Kyle only agreed to serve until, after the election.
She could probably take McCain's seat if she wanted it. McSally will win next month.
What people here think is witty is kinda funny.
Kinda
commenters BEGGED her to apply her expertise to the evidence
What expertise?? Simply teaching law classes does not make one an expert. AA is not a practicing attorney, much less one with a trial practice.
Those who can, do; those who can't, teach.
Besides, it doesn't take expertise. Any reasonable juror -- a common lay person -- could assess the credibility of the testifying parties (considering, inter alia, things like holes and inconsistencies in their testimony), the statements of witnesses, and assess the weight of the evidence overall.
I'm sorry for private citizen Christine Blasey Ford if she believes what she said and that the Senate would keep her accusations private
Spare me.
She's been a part of this whole shitshow from the start.
From the preemptive polygraph to having all traces of her scrubbed from the Internet.
Save your sympathy for the people who deserve it. Like Kavanaugh, his family and all his friends from his youth who were dragged into this mess.
Assumes no Democrats will vote for? Seems rather bold...
No D is going to be that 50th vote. 52,3 or 4? Sure. But not 50.
Yes the fix is in as the FBI didn't interview roommates etc who wanted to make statements about about how Kavanaugh lied under oath about his year book entries and drinking at Yale. - R/V
It must be physically painful to be that stupid.
I certainly hope it is.
Evil hope
What expertise?? Simply teaching law classes does not make one an expert. AA is not a practicing attorney, much less one with a trial practice.
Good point. When I was a medical student, the chief of surgery at the Mass General was a transplant surgeon who could not operate his way out of a paper bag, He was a transplant pioneer so they made him chief but he did one surgery a month at best.
Academics, like army generals, are not people you want operating on you or defending you in court,
My (liberal Democrat) fiancé told me I was boofing in my sleep last night.
I asked her if she was sore.
"Why would I be sore?", she asked. "It must have been something you ate last night."
I am confused.
Academics, like army generals, are not people you want operating on you or defending you in court,
Good point. You know Michael K. must've been a good surgeon because of how stupid and intellectually deficient he is.
He couldn't data-interpret his way out of a paper bag!
Lol! Nursemaid, help me figure this paper bag thing out!
Hell! The drunk can't even figure out the difference between a period and a comma. At HIS age!
Does he not know the difference between an open wound and a closed wound, either?
And Butthead shows up again.
I wonder if Ritmo can smell his comments.
Failed molecular biology students can get nasty,
And failed surgeons can get repetitive and boring.
Maybe increase your Aricept dose. That way you can might be able to get your mind to move beyond McDonalds and molecular biology.
Do they notice your fixations at your assisted living facility? I can't even imagine what it would be like to share living quarters with someone who's senile AND autistic.
That must be hell on the other residents. You really should do something nice for them, like a construction paper-made apology card.
I would submit to both Mark and Michael K that however blinkered AA seems on THIS issue, both of you would be far better off with an Althouse or a Chief of Surgery than if you allowed me to defend you in court or operate on you.
She is certainly far more qualified than most of the commenters here.
But the other (nasty) side to the argument is this: One of her commenters asserted that X was 'evidence'. She rather snottily told him to Boof himself. She TAUGHT evidence so he was wrong.
Okay...granted. She is an expert. What is the quality of Ford's 'evidence'? It is a natural question. She just asserted she is an expert. To all the laypeople here (who would make fine jurors, save Ritmo and Inga) Ford's testimony seems questionable.
She STILL refuses to say a single bad thing about Ford and still wishes her Godspeed. Mighty White of her.
So this lack of expertise, this pointed lack of expertise is its own messages and if I...WE take inferences from her Silence, and she doesn't like it, she can clarify our so called misunderstanding anytime she wants.
Do you still hear the crickets?
Ah. Looks like I picked the wrong day to take a break from Althouse.
I was expecting this would be Althouse's take on the matter; the previous night I had went to the beginning of the Kavanaugh posts and read through to the present, to try to see the picture in an aerial view. A lot of cut-and-paste, and realized that a comment couldn't accommodate the amount of quotes, much less any commentary on them.
As such, I will attempt to boil down one issue of the many that have been written -- or not written -- over these weeks as a Rosetta Stone.
My consternation was not so much with Althouse's writings as the presentation of such as "cruel neutrality".
Althouse used Ford's accusations to repeatedly posit scenarios for Kavanuagh's alleged misdeeds, to the point of writing for him an apology that he might say; fair enough. However, the thumb on the scale is the lack of consideration that Ford might indeed be lying.
This has been discussed at length by many; noticeable in Althouse's protestations is any example she can bring to counter this perception: it is difficult to be challenged to present quotes to this effect when the point is that she never considered this an option, yet insisted upon the reader seeing this as cruel neutrality.
To me, the aforementioned 'Rosetta Stone' is Althouse's multiple extrapolations based on the idea of "alcohol-induced amnesia."
(quotes to follow)
(continued) 9/18: "But the bigger problem is that Kavanaugh can only say he has no memory of something. And Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is telling us that he was very drunk, so maybe a failure to remember could be attributed to drinking. He could honestly testify to no memory of the incident, but still need to establish that he didn't have a memory blanked out by alcohol use. Now, since we're not going to hear of the specific time and place of the incident, Kavanaugh will need to say that he never, in that entire period, experienced alcohol-induced amnesia. (And what if he can only say I have no memory of losing my memory?!)...
If Kavanaugh denies ever experiencing alcohol-induced amnesia during that period, anyone who hung out with him back then is a potential source of testimony that they saw him drunk and, especially damning, they had reason to know that he couldn't remember what he had done. Is there anybody who knew Kavanaugh in high school who has tales of things Kavanaugh couldn't remember later? Did Kavanaugh ever have a discussion with anyone about alcohol-induced amnesia...?
9/18: (regarding Mark Judge): He could be asked about his problems with alcohol-induced amnesia, his observation of Kavanaugh's drinking, and any alcohol-induced amnesia he saw in Kavanaugh, and he could be pressured to admit that he's unreliable as a witness to the nonoccurrence of any event from his heavy-drinking years...
But Ford said Judge was extremely drunk, so how good is the inference that it didn't happen? It's also possible that Judge had one of his admitted episodes of alcohol-induced amnesia. You can use Judge's statement in whatever way you think is correct (and nothing stops you from using it to support the conclusion you like). On its surface it corroborates Kavanaugh's lack of memory, but it also can support an alcohol-induced amnesia theory..."
(to be continued)
9/24: "What Avenatti is doing resonates with something I wrote on September 18th: "The question that can destroy Brett Kavanaugh: Have you ever been so drunk you could not remember what happened?"
College happened. There is a drinking culture. It's tied to cheap, drunken sex. Can Kavanaugh assure us that he was never anywhere close to that?
Are you and everyone you care about free of the fraternity gang rape stink? If Kavanaugh falls, are you ready for the fall of every man who had drunken sex in college...?"
...But when I think about how BK and CBF could be so far apart, I have 3 explanations: 1. BK has some alcohol blackout holes in his memory, and what CBF remembers is in one of them, 2. CBF has a false memory and really believes it (caused by some genuine trauma), 3. BK has no route but forward, and he knows he did it, but feels entitled to what he's worked all his life to attain...
9/27: "...Here's what I imagined Kavanaugh saying: I cannot be 100% certain. I know that I drank far too much on some occasions when I was an immature teenager, and though I've said that I don't remember ever suffering alcohol-induced amnesia, I cannot know for an absolute certainty that it never happened. Watching Dr. Ford testify has been a horrific experience for me. What if there is a blank, dark spot in my memory where drunken young Brett Kavanaugh did what Dr. Ford describes? I pray to God that's not true, but I cannot say 100% that it's not true, and if it is, I am so terribly sorry. I beg Dr. Ford's forgiveness. I hope for God's forgiveness. I hope that my life's work as a sober adult makes up for what I may have done all those years ago. I still believe I have devoted and useful service to give to my country, and I humbly submit myself to your vote, Senators. And I thank all of you for considering my case, and I want Dr. Ford to know that my heart goes out to her, and my heart goes out to every victim of sexual assault. Thank you.
9/28:
...There is, indeed, something we call the "frat boy." I've had an aversion to this type of person since I was a college student and no one I knew would want anything to do with a frat boy. At the time, I believed fraternities were obsolescent and would soon be gone. I thought football was about to die too. Clearly, I was wrong, but I'm just saying I never liked the "frat boy" I never wanted anything to do with. I mean, there was one frat boy I once went to a movie with. I can't remember his name. Let's say it was Bob. The friends I had called him "Frat Boy Bob," and though I liked him, I never overcame my aversion to the general stereotype that I and my friends had stamped onto him...
(to be continued)
continued
Althouse can argue that this was presented as cold analysis, and I would have no issue: she has a keen mind for such.
However, to write all of this without approaching ANY of Ford's statements with similar vigor belies any understand I could have of 'cruel neutrality'.
Meanwhile, such extrapolations as "alcohol-induced amnesia" have become accepted as truths by many in this abortion of due-process and reason (witness the "fantastic cold open" of SNL with Matt Damon as Brett Kavanaugh shotgunning a beer). Indeed, the accepted wisdom now is that he is a rapist, possibly a gang rapist, possibly a potential molester to his daughter's basketball team -- but certainly a drunk, as has been spread throughout the media (and in comments in this blog).
I view Althouse's repeated pushing of this line of argument -- without even a fig leaf that all of this could be resting on Ford lying -- as the intellectual foothold in the smearing of Kavanaugh's reputation. Essentially, Althouse was arguing a defendant's reasons for murder when there wasn't any real evidence that a murder had even occurred.
But I don't believe. I don't take anything at face value. I blog from a position I call "cruel neutrality," and I begin, always, with the prosaic awareness that people don't say everything they think, that they may sometimes outright lie but also almost always shape their telling of the truth, and that memory isn't a video recording that can be played but a mysterious process of the human brain, and that we are all blessedly human.
So I'll forgive all the commenters who misread what I wrote and fought me over the idea they got in their head when they read what I wrote..."
Perhaps Althouse could apply the part in bold to her own review of this matter.
I am Laslo.
Until last week, I was not a WSJ subscriber. I have had a NYT subscription for many years. So you know where I stand. However. Last week I had the time to watch the entire confirmation hearing. I was moved by both Ford and Kavanaugh, but I began to develop strong reservations about the allegations, based on what I heard and perceived. The awakening moment for me was reading the NYT the next day. The coverage was so extremely cherry picking and biased. They did not fairly and completely cover what I had seen and heard, paying careful attention, with my thirty years of reading people in my work with families. That is not news reporting.
So I subscribed to the WSJ, $12 for 12 weeks, and you can too. I’m going to read both papers for a while and compare.
Post a Comment