Trump addressed the UN on Tuesday and reprised his anti-globalism theme: “America will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance, control, and domination,” he said. “I honor the right of every nation in this room to pursue its own customs, beliefs, and traditions. The United States will not tell you how to live, work, or worship. We only ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.”
A Vox analysis put it this way: “But this apparent attempt to inspire rang hollow, considering what had proceeded it. Trump seemed to be arguing that the more each nation focused on themselves and their own interests, the more each could end up cooperating — but failed to explain how. Instead, he just threw out a bunch of florid phrases.”
On Thursday’s Judiciary Committee hearing Christine Blasey Ford testified first. She responded to questions from Democrat senators and, speaking for the Republicans, a sexual assault prosecutor named Rachel Mitchell. Ford answered the questions about her assault, sometimes with her voice cracking, and sometimes apologetically for not being able to provide more specifics. Her testimony was widely viewed as credible. Kavanaugh testified after and gave a forceful, angry defense. He said his confirmation was a “search and destroy mission” on the part of Democrats who are holding grudges against him going back to the Clinton era. He denied that he assaulted Ford but was evasive on all of the Democrat’s questions that tried to establish the culture of partying and drinking that is the context of the night in question. The Republicans stopped using Mitchell to question Kavanaugh when her questions were perceived as being too prosecutorial and stripped of the partisan slant that the Republican senators could provide.
When questioned about his drinking habits and his year book entries, Kavanaugh is believed to have been evasive to the point of dissembling. Some are calling them outright lies.
Conservatives cheered Kavanaugh’s defense. David French wrote that while Ford could offer no evidence, Kavanaugh did: “He constantly reminded the committee that Dr. Ford’s named witnesses could not place him at the party. He went through calendars showing that it was improbable that he would have been at the party that Dr. Ford described. He showed time and again that there was no corroborating evidence supporting Dr. Ford’s allegations.”
Bret Stephens of the New York Times editorial page explains the conservative view that not confirming Kavanaugh would set a bad precedent because it would make false allegations a political tactic from now on: “And if suspicion based on allegation — even or especially ‘believable’ allegations — becomes a sufficient basis for disqualification, it will create overpowering political incentives to discover, produce or manufacture allegations in the hopes that something sticks.”
Douthat disagrees that Ford’s allegations are clearly false and that no evidence can be found one way or the other. He argues that Mark Judge should have been asked to testify: “Doesn’t it seem, since he’s the link between all these characters (including perhaps the unnamed other guy), that there might be useful questions to ask him under oath?… Not least because I think any convincing defense of Kavanaugh has to establish more about the social context of this incident.”
Douthat followed up with a column that argued the only way out of this mess is for there to be an investigation that brings more evidence to light: “If nothing else shakes loose from that, then they could proceed to confirmation — and maybe nothing will. But speaking as the last person in the American political-journalistic apparatus (or so it feels) who’s still agnostic about Kavanaugh’s guilt or innocence, I am more convinced than ever that somebody knows something that could prevent this from metastasizing into our era’s Dreyfus Affair — a source of unresolved hatreds for years and decades yet to come.”
But French makes a argument that goes beyond the evidence, that this is a false smear against a conservative judge, and to allow it to pass will bring more such tactics in the future: “it is a simple fact that time and again good conservative men and women have been subjected to horrific smears for the sin of disagreement, for in good faith believing in different policies, or in good faith holding different religious beliefs. They (we) have been called bigots, racists, and — yes — evil. Even our noblest politicians have been subject to the most hateful of smears…. Today, there were conservatives across the nation who choked up — some openly wept — during his testimony. Not because they disrespect women. Not because they excuse sexual assault. But because they also love their sons. Because they are tired of being painted as evil when they are seeking to do what’s right. Because they want to see a man fight with honor.”
Kavanaugh’s approach was to make an emotional appeal by playing into fears of men by saying Ford’s single accusation “permanently destroyed” his and his family’s reputation. At least based on French’s column, this was effective: “When Brett Kavanaugh spoke with great emotion not just about the sexual-assault allegations against him but also the broader character attacks made against him by Democrats, he voiced the emotion of honorable conservatives across the nation.”
This is where the battle line lies: between those who believe Ford is telling the truth and represent all women who have been assaulted, and men who are afraid of having their careers and reputations ruined based on mistakes in their past.
Friday afternoon the Judiciary Committee voted to send Kavanaugh for a floor vote. Flake voted for, but before the vote he called for a one week FBI investigation of the allegations. This was then approved by McConnell and ordered by Trump.
Here is an interview Flake gave to McCoppins around midnight on the day of the vote. He explained his thinking. He’s motivated by the view that the “country’s coming apart on this” and an FBI investigation might at least lower the partisan blowback to however the final vote ends up. He also said that he is “getting calls and emails for days from friends and acquaintances saying, ‘Here’s my story, here’s why I was emboldened to come out.’ Dr. Ford’s testimony struck a chord, it really did, with a lot of women.”
In Russia News:
On Monday Rosenstein and the DOJ was preparing for his resignation, hoping to head off being fired via tweet by Trump for last week’s report about him wanting to wear a wire in front of Trump, and discussing the 25th Amendment. The White House talked him out of resigning (amid concern by Republicans in Congress about it happening before the election) and set up a meeting between Rosenstein and Trump for Thursday.
This Washington Post story quotes sources who say that Trump is unlikely to remove Rosenstein until after the midterms, but at that point both he and and Sessions will be out of DOJ.
Trump postponed his meeting with Rosenstein because he did not want it to distract from the Kavanaugh hearings.
Child Separation:
A FOIA request has surfaced a Homeland Security memo to Secretary Nielson from April 23 that contains the rational for the child separation policy: “Option 3 as the most effective method to achieve operational objectives and the Administration’s goal to end ‘catch and release.’” That third option involved prosecuting and separating those “presenting with a family unit, between ports of entry in coordination with DOJ.” The memo also describes a pilot program where families were separated in El Paso from July to November 2017. The memo said this pilot reduced illegal family crossings by 64%.
There were new government numbers released this week:
- 136 *still* in custody, not eligible for reunification or discharge.
- 3 of those kids are under 5 years old.
- Parents of 96 of those kids already deported.
—
Trump’s Job Approval: 41.5%