28 September 2018 ~ 140 Comentarios

Trump’s war on the American democracy: The Kavanaugh case

COLUMNISTAS INVITADOS

Por Manuel Castro-Rodríguez

With Republicans in control of the Executive, the Senate and the House of Representatives, only lacks the GOP’s control of the Supreme Court so that a ruler with authoritarian aspirations achieve his dream. Because of this, President Trump leads aggressive, all-out GOP drive to save Kavanaugh.

On Friday, January 20, 2017, was the inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States. According to Human Rights Watch (HRW),

The first year of US President Donald Trump’s administration was marked by a sharp regression in government efforts to protect and promote a range of human rights, Human Rights Watch said today in its World Report 2018. The Trump administration made policy changes that have harmed refugees and immigrants, undermined police accountability for abuse, and rolled back women’s rights, including access to important health services.

A position on the Supreme Court becomes available when one of the nine sitting justices resigns, retires or dies. With the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh for Supreme Court, President Trump is set to cement his significant influence on the highest court in the world, with a majority of sitting justices nominated by Republican presidents.

If Kavanaugh is confirmed, Trump will have made as many appointments in two years as Barack Obama did in two full terms. This wind of change brings a conservative sway for decades that will only get stronger if Trump could secure a third pick.

On February 1, 2017, Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch as his pick to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. His nomination was marred by partisan battle in the Senate, during which Democrats attained enough votes to block him until Republicans employed the “nuclear option” to end floor debate on the judge by a simple majority rather than by 60 votes.

Figurative use of the term “nuclear option” is relatively new, it wasn’t until 2003. According to Merriam-Webster,

“nuclear option is a parliamentary procedure by which the requirement of the affirmative votes of a supermajority of senators is changed to require only a simple majority to invoke cloture in order to stop a filibuster and allow a vote on a matter (as a nomination) to proceed.”

We need to remember that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, defended his support of Priests for Life, an anti-abortion group, on the third day of his hearing. Besides, Kavanaugh wrote an email in March 2003 which was made public this month, questioning whether Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion rights decision. He acknowledged that the Supreme Court “can always overrule” Roe v. Wade.

“I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent,”Kavanaugh wrote, adding that some conservative justices then on the court “would do so.” Thus, the Supreme Court would heavily change birth control access if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed.

The GOP is suffering a significant breakdown of civility and ethical behavior. For example, President Trump questions validity of Kavanaugh’ accuser,

“I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn date, time, and place!”

Trump received a lot of answers:

Patti Davis, daughter of Ronald and Nancy Reagan, reveals she was sexually assaulted, calls Christine Blasey Ford “brave”.

Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo responded to Trump it is ‘a fact’ sex crimes go underreported as president demands Kavanaugh assault evidence.

Susan Collins (R-ME) “appalled” by Trump’s tweet about Christine Blasey Ford.

Donald Trump May Not Have the Most Advanced Understanding of How Sexual Assault Trauma Works

What is victim blaming and what did Donald Trump tweet about Christine Blasey Ford?

Besides, after the president questioned why professor Christine Blasey Ford didn’t report the alleged sexual assault to the authorities, sexual assault survivors responded on social media with their own stories of why they didn’t report:

Sexual assault survivors respond to Trump with #WhyIDidntReport

#WhyIDidntReport Is A Gut-Wrenching Response To Trump’s Attack on Ford’s Credibility

Senate Republicans are pressing for a swift vote to confirm Kavanaugh at all cost. For instance, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the 11 Republicans who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, made it clear Sunday that while he is willing to hear out Professor Christine Blasey Ford about her sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh, he has not heard enough evidence to “ruin Judge Kavanaugh’s life over this.”

What can be said about what is to be done for some GOP women on Kavanaugh allegations: “What boy hasn’t done this in high school?” These ladies,including several Cubans, said that even if the allegation is true, they will support Kavanaugh joining the Supreme Court. Facts like this happen although thanks to a nationwide #MeToo movement an historic number of women will appear on general election ballots in congressional and Senate races, andfemale candidates are talking more about sexual misconduct.

More women than ever are running for Congress this cycle, and the dramatic increase comes mainly from one party. More than 200 of the 262 women running for House and Senate seats this cycle are Democrats, according to data compiled by the Center for American Women and Politics.

In a survey conducted in November and December 2017, women and men in both parties said that sexual harassment allegations reflect widespread problems in society: 69 percent of Republican ladies compared with 74 percent of Democratic women and 54 percent of Republican men. Nevertheless, in aVox/Morning Consult poll on #MeToo conducted in March 2018, only 22 percent of Republican women said they strongly supported the movement, compared with 55 percent of Democratic ladies.

But the GOP rush to confirm Kavanaugh backfired, because Senate Democrats are investigating a new allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. On Monday morning, the White House hastily arranged a conference call with surrogates across the country to address the latest sexual-misconduct allegations levied against President Trump’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, speaking on ‘CBS This Morning’ Monday, said“it’s starting to feel like a vast left-wing conspiracy.”

Kavanaugh joked in 2015 lecture: What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep. But The New York Times reported Monday that Renate Schroeder Dolphin, a woman who signed a letter supporting Brett Kavanaugh after he was accused of sexual assault earlier this month, called revelations from his high school yearbook that showed he and his friends reportedly boasted about their supposed conquests with her “horrible, hurtful”.

Kavanaugh included “Renate Alumnius” as an entry in his high school yearbook page, and two of Kavanaugh’s classmates told the Times the mentions of “Renate” were part of the high school football players’ unsubstantiated boasting about their conquests.

Renate Schroeder Dolphin said she never kissed Kavanaugh. “I think Brett must have me confused with someone else, because I never kissed him,” she said.

When Schroeder Dolphin, who attended a nearby Catholic girls’ school and was then known as Renate Schroeder, signed the September 14 letter, the Times reports, she wasn’t aware of the “Renate” yearbook references about herself on the pages of Kavanaugh and his football teammates.

“I learned about these yearbook pages only a few days ago,” Dolphin said in a statement to the Times. “I don’t know what “Renate Alumnius” actually means. I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way. I will have no further comment.”

Republicans mounted a combative, coordinated drive Monday to salvage Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination as they fought to keep a second woman’s allegation of long-ago sexual misconduct from derailing his confirmation. President Donald Trump leapt to his defense, the top Senate Republican accused Democrats of a “smear campaign” and an emotional Kavanaugh pledged to fight for his nomination and proclaimed, “I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone.”

Nearly six in 10 Americans say a vote on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court should wait until after more investigations and hearings are done. When Professor Christine Blasey Ford — who publicly alleged that the Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school —requested an FBI investigation before she’ll testify about Kavanaugh, the president Trump immediately rejected it.

This was a crucial mistake, which the GOP seems poised to repeat now that a new allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh have surfaced. Senate hearing can’t possibly get at the truth; it is obvious that a Senate hearing is not a forum for rigorous fact-finding, because Lawmakers are not suited to the role of professional interrogators.

Why won’t President Trump ask the FBI to investigate the allegations against Kavanaugh? As history has shown, the FBI does do that if instructed to do so by the White House. There is precedent for this. In 1991, when law professor Anita Hill’s sexual-harassment allegations against Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas were revealed at a later stage in his confirmation process, a spokeswoman for then-President Bush announced that “in consultation with the committee, the White House promptly directed the FBI to conduct a full, thorough and expeditious investigation.”

The FBI did investigate Anita Hill’s accusation. In regard to the Kavanaugh case, Anita Hill argues now that an FBI investigation is “absolutely…the right move.” She says: “The hearing questions need to have a frame, and the investigation is the best frame for that; a neutral investigation that can pull together the facts, create a record, so that the senators can draw on the information they receive to develop their questions.”

It is scandalous the President Trump’s assertion that there should be no additional investigation by the FBI because that “is not what they do.” That is precisely why the agency is called the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). As Judiciary Committee Democrats explain it,

“It is our understanding that the FBI conducts background investigations of nominees at the White House’s request. Accordingly, the President can request an appropriate follow-up, even after a background investigation may be closed. We ask that the President immediately do so here.

We take these allegations extremely seriously and believe it is in the best interest of all parties to have a thorough examination by FBI career professionals with the requisite investigative expertise. Since Dr. Ford has come forward there have been reports of medical documentation and other witnesses, as well as her own account. It is clear these allegations require a thorough examination and we request your immediate confirmation that the FBI will be re-opening its review.”

The investigation of Kavanaugh needs to be extended and expanded in response to mounting evidence of what former Judiciary Committee member Russ Feingold refers to as “the nominee’s disturbing willingness to avoid the truth.” The former Judiciary Committee member demonstrates in a Huffington Postessay that Brett Kavanaugh has lied under oath already. Why is this not a major problem for all 100 senators?

We need to remember that the Supreme Court is one of the majors pillars of American democracy. Therefore, its members should be guided by the proverb “Caesar’s wife’s admonitions to be above reproach”. What is the rush on the Kavanaugh nomination?

Share the post "Trump’s war on the American democracy: The Kavanaugh case"

140 Responses to “Trump’s war on the American democracy: The Kavanaugh case”

  1. Arturo Romeu 28 September 2018 at 11:12 pm Permalink

    Estimado Montaner,
    cual es el objetivo de esta publicación?
    Informar a quien sobre este tema tan complejo y en inglés?
    Su blog está destinado más bien al lector latino o hispano, correcto?
    Que intereses se ocultan detrás de esta opinión partidista y tendenciosa?
    Cordialmente
    Arturo Romeu

    Reply
  2. Julian Perez 29 September 2018 at 10:11 am Permalink

    No sé si este artículo se merece un comentario pero, ante la posibilidad de que algún lector de este blog no esté al tanto de los hechos, voy a vencer mi repugnancia. Trataré de ser lo más breve posible. Una respuesta apropiada a esta asquerosidad sería muy larga.

    Comienza el artículo con la ridícula afirmación de que el GOP, ¨en pleno¨ se ha decidido a defender a Kavanaugh. No, señor. El GOP tiene una mayoría de 51 a 49 en el Senado. El circo que han montado los Demócratas se desplomaría como un castillo de naipes si los 51 votaran a favor de la nominación. Algunos le dan a la Doctora Ford el beneficio de la duda, pese a que sus acusaciones, negadas por los testigos que ella misma menciona y llenas de impresiciones, no se sostendrían ante ningún tribunal.

    Agregemos a eso que los Demócratas conocían de dicho alegato desde muchísimo tiempo antes, que lo sacaron a última hora cuando todos los números circenses que habían montado durante la nominación fracasaron, que aplazaron el testimonio de la Dra Ford todo lo que pudieron, agregando más y más ridículas condiciones, que después se sacaron de la manga otras dos ¨acusaciones¨, cada una más absurda que la anterior (me imagino que la próxima será que Kavanaugh pertenece a los Illuminatis y mató a Robin Williams o controla el clima y ha sido la causa del calentamiento global)

    No, señor, los Republicanos no están haciendo ¨todo lo posible¨ por poner a Kavanaugh en el Tribunal Supremo. Son los Demócratas los que, de una forma bochornosa, están tratando de ganar tiempo con la esperanza de recuperar el control del Senado en Noviembre y oponerse a ésa y a todas las nominaciones de jueces conservadores que la sigan.

    Reply
    • Julian Perez 29 September 2018 at 10:15 am Permalink

      Y pido disculpas por haber escrito mal imprecisiones. Lamentablemente, este blog no permite editar los posts. Me di cuenta después de postearlo. No dudo que haya otros errores. Escribí rápido y muy enfadado.

      Reply
      • Julian Perez 29 September 2018 at 10:35 am Permalink

        Si Jorge Luis Borges aún viviera, le dedicaría un nuevo capítulo de su ¨Historia Universal de la Infamia¨ a lo que están haciendo los Demócratas en el caso Kavanaugh. Son ellos, y no Trump, los que le han declarado la guerra (desde hace tiempo) a todo lo que representa este país.

        Yo no soy exactamente un fan del Presidente Trump. Apruebo muchas de las cosas que está haciendo y el saldo me parece muy positivo, pero desapruebo profundamente su personalidad. Pero, comparado con esto, Trump es un santo.

        Reply
      • Manuel Castro Rodríguez 13 October 2018 at 3:15 pm Permalink

        Brett Kavanaugh and the G.O.P.’s bargain with Trump
        Once the Senate Republicans decided to countenance demagoguery, one step led to another.
        The problem of bystanderdom here goes well beyond the sexual-assault allegations against Kavanaugh. It was on display during the first part of his hearings, when Republican senators, in the interest of getting a conservative nominee confirmed, discounted the apparent lies that he told about his role in Bush-era torture and detention policies and in judicial nominations. And it extends to their decision to tolerate the excesses of Donald Trump, in return for his promise to nominate a conservative. When you decide to countenance demagoguery, one step leads to another.

        https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/15/brett-kavanaugh-and-the-gops-bargain-with-trump

        Reply
    • Manuel Castro Rodríguez 5 October 2018 at 3:35 pm Permalink

      With the report completed, it became clear how limited the FBI’s scope had been. Agents did not interview Kavanaugh or Swetnick, despite Trump’s comments on Monday, nor did they interview Ford. (The stated rationale was that both Kavanaugh and Ford had testified under oath in public.) They did interview Deborah Ramirez, who says Kavanaugh exposed himself to her, but they did not speak to a range of potential witnesses who tried to get in touch.

      https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/trumps-unusual-kavanaugh-nomination-strategy-patience/572179/

      Reply
  3. Ramiro Millan 29 September 2018 at 12:47 pm Permalink

    Creo que lo que realmente importa es si el candidato a ocupar el cargo de juez de la Corte Suprema de Justicia es un ciudadano moral y éticamente intachable y además con probada instrucción académica respecto de la función que le ocupará.
    Si es más o menos liberal no tiene demasiada relevancia ya que deberá ajustarse siempre a la ley y la constitución. Y lo que garantiza que así será es su integridad personal y profesional, no su inclinación ideológica (aunque alguna importancia en algunos casos pueda ser relevante, pero para lo que define el futuro de la Nación seguro que no).
    Pero muchísimo más importante que estos requisitos necesarios para aprobar a un candidato propuesto por el ejecutivo, es la reacción de la ciudadanía ante las circunstancias en que se elegirá al nuevo juez.
    Si para la ciudadanía en general no implica más que cualquier otra noticia irrelevante y por tanto incapaz de mover el amperímetro electoral en caso de que suceda una elección fraudulenta por ocultamiento de antecedentes reprochables que deben inhabilitar necesariamente al propuesto para el cargo, entonces SÍ que se está en un enorme problema.
    Si así fuere, la decadencia la tendrán asegurada más tarde o temprano.
    Es exactamente esto lo que sucede en los países subdesarrollados y pobres.
    En mi provincia (Estado para EEUU) por ejemplo, la Corte Suprema de Justicia está totalmente cooptada por jueces total y absolutamente corruptos y socios de los gobernantes de turno y en las elecciones este hecho no modifica ni siquiera el 0.000001% de la tendencia electoral.
    Obviamente, así estamos.
    Desconozco cuál es la reacción mayoritaria de la ciudadanía estadounidense en estos casos pero sin dudas es lo que realmente deberían vigilar.

    Reply
  4. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 29 September 2018 at 3:42 pm Permalink

    For women and survivors of sexual assault, the Brett Kavanaugh allegations have reopened wounds that run deep.
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-worst-week-brett-kavanaugh_us_5babf7fce4b091df72ed14be

    Reply
  5. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 29 September 2018 at 3:46 pm Permalink

    Lamenting the ways she sees Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination as “not normal,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., laid out an argument for why a “finite” FBI probe into the sexual assault allegation presented by Christine Blasey Ford is necessary. “Where is the bravery in this room?” she implored the Senate Judiciary Committee ahead of its vote, suggesting Republicans were afraid of what they might find out. “This isn’t a he said-she said. This is a he said-they said,” she said.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-oIV81WVzM

    Reply
  6. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 29 September 2018 at 3:47 pm Permalink

    President Donald Trump on Friday ordered an FBI investigation into the sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, after Republican Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona joined Democrats in calling for a delay in the confirmation vote.
    “As the Senate has requested, this update must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week,” Trump added.

    Reply
  7. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 29 September 2018 at 3:48 pm Permalink

    The scope of the investigation that FBI agents will undertake now is unclear. We need to remember that the Supreme Court is one of the majors pillars of American democracy. Therefore, to grant him a lifetime seat on the nation’s highest court, someone who will shape our civil rights and liberties for decades, it requires a full investigation. Can the FBI really investigate the Kavanaugh accusations in just one week?

    Reply
  8. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 29 September 2018 at 3:52 pm Permalink

    On Friday, I sent this letter to Sen Marco Rubio: “Why do not you support a full investigation?”

    Senator Marco Rubio, the American Bar Association urged senators late Thursday to postpone any vote until the FBI could conduct an investigation,

    Deciding to proceed without conducting additional investigation would not only have a lasting impact on the Senate’s reputation, but it will also negatively affect the great trust necessary for the American people to have in the Supreme Court.

    As you are aware, Professor Christine Blasey Ford gave her testimony yesterday, and we saw a woman show incredible bravery — going into painstaking detail to recount, in front of the nation, what she saied was the hardest moment of her life.

    Patti Davis, daughter of Ronald and Nancy Reagan, reveals she was sexually assaulted, calls Christine Blasey Ford “brave”. For many Republican women, the issue of sexual misconduct knows no party,

    They’re frustrated with the support Roy Moore received after multiple women accused him of pursuing them when they were teenagers and with the fact that President Donald Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct by 19 women and has yet to face consequences.

    Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee had a heated exchange yesterday about whether the hearing over an alleged sexual assault would be better served by an FBI investigation. “Why would you resist that kind of investigation?”, Durbin asked and leaved Kavanaugh silent.

    According to Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore, “Brett Kavanaugh showed himself today to be a partisan hack in a robe, utterly lacking the temperament to be a justice of the Supreme Court. And his repeated refusal to request an FBI investigation speaks volumes.”

    Like all women, Dr. Blasey Ford deserves to be heard. But for the Senate to fully perform its constitutional duties of thoughtfully considering this lifetime appointment — and for us to truly say that all of the assault allegations were taken seriously — the examination into Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s past cannot end with Thursday’s hearing.

    Yesterday, Professor Christine Blasey Ford had to relive her trauma. Not because she wanted to, but because she felt that it was her civic duty, ”

    I am here today not because I want to be. I am terrified. I am here because I believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while Brett Kavanaugh and I were in high school.”

    Now, it is our civic duty to ensure that Thursday’s painful testimony was not made in vain. According to Martin Luther King Jr, “History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.”

    As José Martí taught us, “To view a crime calmly is to commit it.” Therefore, good people will not tolerate anything less than a thorough, comprehensive, and transparent investigation of the sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

    Senator Rubio, I would like to thank you in advance for your consideration of this request. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you. I would appreciate your prompt response,

    Manuel Castro-Rodríguez

    Reply
  9. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 30 September 2018 at 3:10 pm Permalink

    Amnesty International Monday called on a halt to a vote on President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States. The human rights organization wrote in a Monday letter that Kavanaugh might have been involved “in issues related to torture and rendition after 9/11.”
    https://www.amnestyusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Letter-to-Senators-in-re-Kavanaugh.pdf

    Reply
  10. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 30 September 2018 at 3:11 pm Permalink

    Brett Kavanaugh and I have a lot in common
    https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/28/opinions/kavanaugh-hearing-brought-back-assault-jennifer-taub/index.html

    Reply
  11. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 30 September 2018 at 3:11 pm Permalink

    Christine Blasey Ford Didn’t Have The Luxury Of Being Angry
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-courtesy-rage_us_5bad53f5e4b09d41eb9fe35a?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=__Entertainment__092818&utm_content=__Entertainment__092818+Version+A+CID_e618fa4cb46d60d68fcbf0a76d027bf6&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=Christine%20Blasey%20Ford%20Didnt%20Have%20The%20Luxury%20Of%20Being%20Angry&ncid=newsltushpmgentertainment__Entertainment__092818

    Reply
  12. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 3 October 2018 at 4:02 pm Permalink

    Kavanaugh misled Congress on his drinking habits.
    There’s no problem in drinking beer in college, the problem is lying about it

    Professor Chad Ludington: Kavanaugh misled Congress on his drinking habits. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Kavanaugh denied that he had ever drunk alcohol to the point of blacking out. But North Carolina State University professor Chad Ludington has joined a handful of other former classmates of Brett Kavanaugh in contradicting the Supreme Court nominee’s claims about his past drinking habits.

    Ludington told the New York Times in a statement Sunday that Kavanaugh played down “the degree and frequency” of his drinking to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. He said he often saw Kavanaugh “staggering from alcohol consumption.”

    Kavanaugh, who has been accused of sexual misconduct by three different women, denied in his testimony that there was any possibility he ever drank so much alcohol that he may have lapses in his memory.

    Ludington called Kavanaugh’s answers about drinking a “blatant mischaracterization” based on his experiences around the judge when they attended Yale University together. Ludington claimed he often saw Kavanaugh “belligerent and aggressive” while drunk.

    “It is truth that is at stake, and I believe that the ability to speak the truth, even when it does not reflect well upon oneself, is a paramount quality we seek in our nation’s most powerful judges,” Ludington said in a statement to the Times. Ludington told the Times he wants to take his “information to the FBI.”

    And Ludington’s not the only one countering parts of Kavanaugh’s testimony.

    Former Yale classmates Liz Swisher, James Roche, and Lynne Brookes have also made public statements about Kavanaugh’s excessive drinking during their youth. Swisher told CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Friday that though she never saw Kavanaugh be sexually aggressive, the judge was a “sloppy drunk.”

    “There’s no problem in drinking beer in college, the problem is lying about it,” Swisher told CNN. “He drank heavily, he was a partier, he liked to do beer bongs, he played drinking games, he was sloppy drunk.”

    Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who goes by Christine Blasey professionally, claims Kavanaugh forced himself on her at a high school party more than 35 years ago. Blasey testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday that she was certain Kavanaugh was the one to pin her down, force himself on her, attempt to take off her clothes and then hold a hand over her mouth when she tried to scream when they were teenagers.

    Deborah Ramirez alleges Kavanaugh took off his pants and thrust his penis at her face at Yale party during their freshman year. Julie Swetnick wrote in a sworn declaration that Kavanaugh was present at high school parties where boys engaged in raping girls. Swetnick claims she saw Kavanaugh drink excessively at these parties, “press girls against him without their consent” and attempt to remove or shift their clothing.

    Roche, a roommate of Kavanaugh’s during freshman year, told the New Yorker he found Ramirez’s claims to be credible. Roche added that he saw Kavanaugh “frequently, incoherently drunk.” Another unnamed classmate told the New Yorker Kavanaugh could be “aggressive and even belligerent” when he drank.

    Brookes, who also attended Yale, told CNN Thursday that Kavanaugh was “lying” to the Senate Judiciary Committee about his drinking. “There is no doubt in my mind that while at Yale, he was a big partier, often drank to excess and there had to be a number of nights where he does not remember,” Brookes told CNN.

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) asked that the FBI investigate Kavanaugh’s old drinking habits, as well as several other statements by the Judge Sander’s believes may have been lies. Lying to Congress under oath is a federal crime.
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-classmates_us_5bb157bce4b027da00d46d72

    Reply
  13. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 3 October 2018 at 4:08 pm Permalink

    Al rendir testimonio ante el Comité Judicial del Senado, Christine Blasey Ford conmovió hasta las lágrimas de reconocimiento a miles de mujeres estadounidenses en todo el país.

    Su testimonio notablemente creíble de que Brett Kavanaugh, nominado para la Corte Suprema de EEUU, la agredió sexualmente cuando eran adolescentes, no fue solo un hito crucial en la historia judicial del país. Fue un huracán cultural para mujeres y hombres solidarios que también alzaron sus voces en las redes sociales y en el Congreso para decirle a la doctora Blasey Ford: Yo te creo. Eres una heroína por venir y dar testimonio ante los ojos del mundo entero. Eres una patriota por hacer, como ella lo llamó, “mi deber cívico”.

    Cuando se le preguntó qué tan segura estaba de que el hombre que la inmovilizó en la cama, que trató de desgarrar su ropa, y le tapó su boca con la mano para amortiguar sus gritos fue Kavanaugh, la psicóloga investigadora y profesora dio una respuesta inequívoca: “100 por ciento”.

    Este pudo haber sido el momento que finalmente cambió la forma en que se trata a las mujeres en este país, como dijo la senadora Dianne Feinstein, demócrata de California, que era su esperanza.

    Pero, desafortunadamente, a pesar del conmovedor testimonio de Ford y de las exigencias de una investigación independiente, por parte de organismos que antes habían apoyado a Kavanaugh como el American Bar Association y la universidad de Yale, los republicanos están avanzando para confirmar a Kavanaugh. Solo al último momento del voto 11-10 para mandar la nominación al Senado accedieron a una investigación muy limitada por el FBI, que ya esta siendo criticada por todo lo que no abarca.

    Es un vergonzoso abuso de poder.

    Al Partido Republicano no le importa que dos mujeres más de sus épocas de preparatoria y universidad, Deborah Ramírez y Julie Swetnick, hayan presentado denuncias también y quieran ser escuchadas. ¿A qué le tienen miedo? ¿A que más mujeres profesionales y creíbles rindan valientes testimonios como el de Ford?

    Curiosamente, el juez Kavanaugh admitió que no vio el testimonio de su acusadora. Estaba demasiado ocupado preparando el suyo, dijo. Una mala decisión. Podría haber aprendido algo valioso sobre decoro, humanidad y aplomo bajo la presión del dolor, del interrogatorio y de los recuerdos de dos amigos que la emboscaban y se reían a costa de la joven de 15 años a la que estaban atacando.

    En contraste con las respuestas mesuradas de Blasey Ford y la manera cuidadosa con la que trató de ceñirse a los hechos, Kavanaugh fue combativo, partidista, defensivo y excesivamente emocional. Lo que transmitió fuerte y claramente fue su sentir de que él tenía derecho al máximo cargo de la justicia, para el cual, según nos recordó, trabajó toda su vida.

    La frase tácita: ¿cómo se atreve ella a atacarme? ¿Cómo se atreven los senadores a preguntarme sobre mi consumo de cerveza, una broma del anuario que menospreciaba a otra mujer, y sobre las otras dos mujeres que han presentado más acusaciones de que era abusivo cuando estaba borracho?

    No hubo momentos gloriosos para Kavanaugh, aunque sentimos inmensa pena por sus hijas, su esposa y sus padres. Su angustia por someterlos a esta experiencia fue real, sin duda.

    Pero, ¿quién tiene el mayor incentivo para mentir?

    No es la mujer que ha sido vilipendiada por los conservadores y cuya familia ha tenido que mudarse dos veces por razones de seguridad. No es la mujer que pasó la prueba del detector de mentiras que los senadores republicanos y el fiscal asignado para interrogarla desmenuzaron, pero no pudieron invalidar. No es la mujer que estaba tan dispuesta a tener en cuenta a la gente que la interrogaba y humildemente confesaba: “Estoy aterrorizada”.

    Si ella hubiera callado, la vida de Ford aún estaría llena de las mismas ansiedades de los sobrevivientes de trauma que ella describió tan bien, pero el bien habría permanecido inalterado, ajeno a esta agitación nacional.

    El hombre que compite con todo lo que tiene para el cargo más codiciado entre los juristas, sin embargo, es otra historia.

    Con sus respuestas, Kavanaugh demostró lo irrespetuoso que puede ser con las mujeres.

    Cuando la senadora Amy Klobuchar, demócrata de Minnesota, quien lo trató con el mayor respeto, le preguntó si alguna vez había bebido tanto como para perder el conocimiento, Kavanaugh respondió: “¿Y usted lo ha hecho?” No lo hizo una, sino dos veces, olvidando que no es ella quien está siendo acusada de actos criminales.

    También fue combativo con el senador Sheldon Whitehouse, demócrata de Rhode Island, quien igualmente cuestionó a Kavanaugh sobre su consumo de cerveza.

    “Senador, ¿a usted qué le gusta beber?” le dijo.

    No es exactamente el comportamiento que se espera de un juez de la Corte Suprema. ¿Y se está quejando de esta investigación? Necesita mucho más escudriñamiento por parte del FBI.

    En sus comentarios, Kavanaugh calificó su proceso de confirmación como “una vergüenza nacional” que ha llevado a su familia al infierno.

    Pero la desgracia nacional es que los republicanos avancen para confirmarlo a pesar de las acusaciones no investigadas de que abusó de las mujeres en la escuela secundaria y la universidad.

    El testimonio de Blasey Ford debería haber frenado la rápida carrera de Kavanaugh hacia el tribunal más alto de la nación.

    FABIOLA SANTIAGO

    https://www.elnuevoherald.com/opinion-es/opin-col-blogs/fabiola-santiago-es/article219313085.html

    Reply
  14. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 3 October 2018 at 4:09 pm Permalink

    The White House is fighting to regain control of the confirmation of Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh, as a controversy is widening over its role in an FBI investigation into allegations against the nominee of sexual assault and misconduct.

    https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-oct-18/index.html

    Reply
  15. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 3 October 2018 at 4:10 pm Permalink

    Brett Kavanaugh says “We’re loud, obnoxious drunks” in 1983 letter

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-beach-week-letter_us_5bb412a5e4b01470d04c9ed9

    Reply
  16. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 3 October 2018 at 4:11 pm Permalink

    Kavanaugh misled Congress on his drinking habits.
    There’s no problem in drinking beer in college, the problem is lying about it

    Professor Chad Ludington: Kavanaugh misled Congress on his drinking habits. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Kavanaugh denied that he had ever drunk alcohol to the point of blacking out. But North Carolina State University professor Chad Ludington has joined a handful of other former classmates of Brett Kavanaugh in contradicting the Supreme Court nominee’s claims about his past drinking habits.

    Ludington told the New York Times in a statement Sunday that Kavanaugh played down “the degree and frequency” of his drinking to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. He said he often saw Kavanaugh “staggering from alcohol consumption.”

    Kavanaugh, who has been accused of sexual misconduct by three different women, denied in his testimony that there was any possibility he ever drank so much alcohol that he may have lapses in his memory.

    Ludington called Kavanaugh’s answers about drinking a “blatant mischaracterization” based on his experiences around the judge when they attended Yale University together. Ludington claimed he often saw Kavanaugh “belligerent and aggressive” while drunk.

    “It is truth that is at stake, and I believe that the ability to speak the truth, even when it does not reflect well upon oneself, is a paramount quality we seek in our nation’s most powerful judges,” Ludington said in a statement to the Times. Ludington told the Times he wants to take his “information to the FBI.”

    And Ludington’s not the only one countering parts of Kavanaugh’s testimony.

    Former Yale classmates Liz Swisher, James Roche, and Lynne Brookes have also made public statements about Kavanaugh’s excessive drinking during their youth. Swisher told CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Friday that though she never saw Kavanaugh be sexually aggressive, the judge was a “sloppy drunk.”

    “There’s no problem in drinking beer in college, the problem is lying about it,” Swisher told CNN. “He drank heavily, he was a partier, he liked to do beer bongs, he played drinking games, he was sloppy drunk.”

    Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who goes by Christine Blasey professionally, claims Kavanaugh forced himself on her at a high school party more than 35 years ago. Blasey testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday that she was certain Kavanaugh was the one to pin her down, force himself on her, attempt to take off her clothes and then hold a hand over her mouth when she tried to scream when they were teenagers.

    Deborah Ramirez alleges Kavanaugh took off his pants and thrust his penis at her face at Yale party during their freshman year. Julie Swetnick wrote in a sworn declaration that Kavanaugh was present at high school parties where boys engaged in raping girls. Swetnick claims she saw Kavanaugh drink excessively at these parties, “press girls against him without their consent” and attempt to remove or shift their clothing.

    Roche, a roommate of Kavanaugh’s during freshman year, told the New Yorker he found Ramirez’s claims to be credible. Roche added that he saw Kavanaugh “frequently, incoherently drunk.” Another unnamed classmate told the New Yorker Kavanaugh could be “aggressive and even belligerent” when he drank.

    Brookes, who also attended Yale, told CNN Thursday that Kavanaugh was “lying” to the Senate Judiciary Committee about his drinking. “There is no doubt in my mind that while at Yale, he was a big partier, often drank to excess and there had to be a number of nights where he does not remember,” Brookes told CNN.

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) asked that the FBI investigate Kavanaugh’s old drinking habits, as well as several other statements by the Judge Sander’s believes may have been lies. Lying to Congress under oath is a federal crime.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-classmates_us_5bb157bce4b027da00d46d72

    Reply
  17. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 3 October 2018 at 4:12 pm Permalink

    Ex-Senate Aide: Judge Brett Kavanaugh has lied every time he has testified under oath

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/judge-brett-kavanaugh-should-be-impeached-for-lying-during-his-confirmation-hearings.html

    Reply
  18. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 3 October 2018 at 4:13 pm Permalink

    Chris Dudley and Brett Kavanaugh accused of assaulting man.
    Chris Dudley’s college relationship with Brett Kavanaugh included an alleged bar fight that left a man hospitalized after being hit in the head with a beer glass, according to a police report published by the New York Times Monday. Dudley, an NBA veteran who retired in 2003, came to the defense last week of Brett Kavanaugh. Dudley refuted reports about his drinking habits,telling the New York Times last week that he “never ever saw him blacked out.” “That’s just not Brett,” Dudley said. “That’s not his character.”

    https://www.yahoo.com/sports/report-chris-dudley-allegedly-threw-glass-man-college-bar-fight-brett-kavanaugh-010709078.html

    Reply
  19. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 3 October 2018 at 4:13 pm Permalink

    New York Times: Police questioned Kavanaugh after bar fight in 1985
    Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was involved in an altercation at a bar when he was an undergraduate student at Yale and was accused of throwing ice on another patron, according to a police report obtained by The New York Times.
    Kavanaugh was frequently “belligerent and aggressive” after drinking and had lied to senators about his experience with alcohol, Ludington said in a statement released to the news media Sunday.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/kavanaugh-college-visit-to-bar-erupted-in-fight-classmate-says-jmqwga1s

    Reply
  20. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 3 October 2018 at 4:14 pm Permalink

    The confusing start of the FBI’s investigation into Brett Kavanaugh. New memos showing Kavanaugh may have anticipated the Ramirez allegation.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UItAXm10klc

    Reply
  21. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 3 October 2018 at 4:14 pm Permalink

    NBC News is reporting Kavanaugh and his team worked behind the scenes to refute claims of sexual misconduct by his former Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez —before her claims went public. This contradicts Kavanaugh’s sworn testimony to Republican Orrin Hatch at Thursday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that he only learned about Ramirez’s allegations from The New Yorker article.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/mutual-friend-ramirez-kavanaugh-anxious-come-forward-evidence-n915566

    Reply
  22. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 3 October 2018 at 4:15 pm Permalink

    Kavanaugh classmates rescind names from statement rejecting second accuser’s allegation
    Those classmates were named in a joint statement released by Kavanaugh’s attorneys, along with the wife of another male student allegedly involved and another classmate, insisting that they would have seen or heard about the event “and we did not.”
    Louisa Garry and Dino Ewing signed that statement, but later contacted The New Yorker following publication of the article and requested their names be removed from the statement.
    “I never saw or heard anything like this,” Garry said. “But I cannot dispute Ramirez’s allegations, as I was not present.”
    “I also was not present and therefore am not in a position to directly dispute Ramirez’s account,” Ewing said.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/kavanaugh-classmates-rescind-names-from-statement-rejecting-second-accusers-allegation

    Reply
  23. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 3 October 2018 at 4:15 pm Permalink

    Kavanaugh in 2015: “What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep”

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/18/kavanaugh-what-happens-geogetown-prep-828420

    Reply
  24. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 3 October 2018 at 4:16 pm Permalink

    The issue is potential lying. CNN’s Anderson Cooper discusses the testimony of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and the multiple classmates who have spoken out about his drinking habit in college.

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/10/02/cooper-kavanaugh-truth-beer-trump-kth-ac-vpx.cnn

    Reply
  25. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 3 October 2018 at 4:16 pm Permalink

    Kavanaugh’s classmate gives details of 1985 bar fight

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L00vrguUwA

    Reply
  26. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 3 October 2018 at 4:17 pm Permalink

    More Yale classmates come forward claiming Brett Kavanaugh has been lying

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-yale-classmates-come-forward-153941633.html

    Reply
  27. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 3 October 2018 at 4:18 pm Permalink

    Jesuits urge withdrawal of Kavanaugh nomination
    Magazine of Jesuits urges withdrawal of Kavanaugh nomination
    The Editors: It is time for the Kavanaugh nomination to be withdrawn

    https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/09/27/editors-it-time-kavanaugh-nomination-be-withdrawn

    Reply
  28. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 3 October 2018 at 4:40 pm Permalink

    Incongruencias entre el relato de Kavanaugh y la realidad. Mentir al Congreso, sea o no bajo juramento, constituye un delito.

    https://elpais.com/internacional/2018/10/02/estados_unidos/1538497250_819337.html

    Reply
  29. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 3 October 2018 at 4:44 pm Permalink

    El oscuro pasado de Kavanaugh se vuelve en su contra
    La juventud de Kavanaugh, como él mismo la describía, era la de un joven ambicioso, estudiante aplicado y amante del deporte. También puritano hasta el punto de que se ha visto obligado a sostener en una entrevista en televisión que perdió tarde la virginidad. Sin embargo, las acusaciones de las cuatro mujeres, el relato de excompañeros suyos y sus propias descripciones en el libro escolar lo dibujan como un joven amante del alcohol y la diversión, que en ocasiones bebía demasiado en la burbuja elitista en la que se movía y en la que parecía tolerarse la misoginia. Todas las presuntas víctimas aseguran que las agresiones sexuales ocurrieron cuando Kavanaugh estaba muy embriagado.

    https://elpais.com/internacional/2018/09/27/estados_unidos/1538007429_768385.html

    Reply
  30. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 7 October 2018 at 2:19 pm Permalink

    The Presumption of Innocence

    In her speech on the Senate floor announcing her support, Sen. Collins mentioned her belief in the “presumption of innocence” for Kavanaugh, despite numerous accusations of assault and harassment against him. Nevertheless, “the FBI’s supplemental investigation into the sexual assault allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh was limited in scope from the beginning.”

    The meaning of “presumption of innocence” has evolved, due in part to decades of effort by American conservatism

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has defended Kavanaugh on the principle that he is innocent until proven guilty, while Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has made the point that the hearings are not a lawsuit and thus the legal presumed innocence rule is basically irrelevant. The two senators, despite working within the same system, are able to find very different guidance from the same concept. But that gap isn’t what’s surprising, says François Quintard-Morénas, a lawyer and the author of a 2010 article on the history of the presumption of innocence in The American Journal of Comparative Law.

    What he does find “ironic” is which senator is on which side, as the narrowing of the concept is due in part to decades of effort by American conservatism.

    “Schumer is not technically wrong,” Quintard-Morénas tells TIME. “Over time, the principle in the United States has been weakened considerably, for various reasons and mostly by conservative justices who didn’t want to expand the principle beyond the court of law.”

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/fbi-investigation-parameters-kavanaugh/index.html

    Reply
  31. Manuel Castro Rodríguez 7 October 2018 at 2:20 pm Permalink

    Kavanaugh reminds us the presumption of innocence is not for everyone

    Boyhood is a precious commodity. With it comes innocence, boundlessness and permission to explore. But in America, some people are granted the benefits of boyhood well into their adult years, while others never receive these benefits ― a fact made stark once again by the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.

    In the two weeks since Christine Blasey Ford went public with her claim that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while they were in high school, two other women have come forward with detailed allegations of sexual misconduct by him.

    At the same time, many supporters of the conservative nominee have leaped to his defense, suggesting that the assault, if true, was in keeping with the benign traditions of boyhood. According to these supporters, groping a woman without consent is simply “no big deal.”

    Many more have claimed that Kavanaugh’s accusers and any corroborating witnesses are remembering incorrectly or lying outright, and there are already signs that these beliefs, espoused by no less than the president, may be tipping the investigation in Kavanaugh’s favor. Shortly after Republicans in the Senate begrudgingly urged the White House to open an FBI investigation into assault allegations against Kavanaugh, reports revealed the White House was working to limit the investigation’s scope (and by consequence, its findings).

    On the whole, Kavanaugh has been granted a considerable amount of deference and goodwill for someone accused of a violent crime, and it is difficult not to notice the contrast between his defense and others less fortunate, like Kalief Browder.

    At 16 years old, Browder was incarcerated in New York City’s Rikers Island correctional facility for three years awaiting a trial that would never come. Accused of stealing a backpack containing money and entertainment devices, he pleaded not guilty and repeatedly maintained his innocence. In 2013, after spending significant time in solitary confinement, he finally saw his case thrown out for lack of evidence. But two years later, in an act that many attribute to the traumas he experienced while jailed, Browder killed himself.

    Browder’s death was widely lamented in progressive media, yet his experience while alive was representative of what tens of thousands of Americans without Kavanaugh’s advantages go through every day. There has been a great deal of study supporting the notion that people of color don’t benefit from this presumption of innocence. And anecdotally, it is hard to imagine a black person awash in the sympathy has Kavanaugh received.

    Unlike black and brown people accused of a crime, Kavanaugh has a cadre of powerful people affording him tenderness and the presumption of innocence.

    At one point during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Kavanaugh bemoaned how the assault allegation would affect his role as a youth basketball coach. At another, he boasted of his acceptance into Yale, as if academic achievement precluded him from misbehaving in the ways alleged by witnesses. And in one exchange during Thursday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) likened Kavanaugh’s experience answering questions to hell:

    Graham: Do you consider what you’ve been through a job interview?

    Kavanaugh: I’ve been through a process of advice and consent under the Constitution, which —

    Graham: Would you say you’ve been through hell?

    Kavanaugh: I ― I’ve been through hell and then some.

    Graham: This is not a job interview.

    Kavanaugh: Yes.

    Graham: This is hell.

    Before a scheduled procedural vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination the next day, Graham blasted his Democratic colleagues for wanting to silence single white men.

    “I know I’m a single white male from South Carolina, and I’m told I should shut up, but I will not shut up,” Graham said.

    In channeling the trope of the forgotten white man, he projected his angst onto Kavanaugh. It was a travesty, according to Graham, that a Supreme Court nominee would have to answer a customary inquiry ― not even a criminal one ― into his past, even if that past might have included a sexual assault.

    For privileged white men, inconveniences can seem like oppression.

    There was no conservative movement protesting on Browder’s behalf — no throngs of Republican policymakers and pundits speaking of the injustice that spelled his death. Nor was there any such movement for Tamir Rice or Rekia Boyd, who were fatally shot by police officers, or for Dajerria Becton, who suffered under literally the full weight of the law.

    The message in this selective outrage is clear: If you are not a white male, you will forever be tasked ― at your own peril ― with policing your body and defending others from the threats it’s thought to pose.

    But if you are white and male, childhood and the presumption of innocence is your right for eternity. You, not your victims, will be believed. You will be permitted to harm, holler, cry, berate and offend with impunity because adulthood and its responsibilities are not your burden.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-presumption-of-innocence-not-universal_us_5bb393efe4b00fe9f4fafa8b

    Reply

Leave a Reply