Naturally, it being an opinion that wasn't favorable for a woman I find to be duplicitous, weak-minded, and a third-rate show-boater but that is the Liberal Darling du Jour, it didn't go over well.
So, I wrote a response because I was asked why I said it. But you know me, never one to use 11 words to say what requires 1580 or so, and believing it disrespectful to take up that much space on someone's FB turf, I created a blog post and linked to it.
So then, any of you that have arrived here, my response - in large print. Isn't that nice?
Watch the YouTube video, and here’s how it goes . . .
“Judge, have you ever discussed Special Counselor Mueller or his investigation with anyone?”
“Judge, have you ever discussed Special Counselor Mueller or his investigation with anyone?”
At this point, Kavanaugh did what any normal person would
when faced with a question that, given the setting, was insanely stupid – he paused,
furrowed his brow at the, shall I say it, inanity of the question. Allowing himself a few moments to leave the
train he was on – where he was intended to be part of process that ostensibly
serves to fulfill the U.S. Constitutional requirement found in Article II,
Section 2, paragraph 2 of the document and move to the train that carried a questioner
who appeared to be auditioning for a skit on “Saturday Night Live” - he then responded
by saying, “Well, it's in the news every day, I …”
At which point the questioner interrupts him and, evidently not satisfied with the level of absurdity she has achieved, repeats “Have you discussed it with anyone?”
Harris’ objectives here were faulty and transparent in asking so duplicitous a question.
First, it was to use an ambulance-chasing lawyer trick that is intended to create a bias in the minds of a jury that the defendant did something illegal or unethical without first establishing whether the thing that might have been done is illegal or unethical. Harris would have the listeners, completely absent any evidence, start out with the ridiculous idea that if Kavanaugh, at any point since May 17, 2017, had had the most casual of conversations about Mueller or the investigation with anyone, even before July 9, 2018, that it would constitute something illegal or unethical. Second, it was to fire her first salvo as a presidential candidate at the taxpayer’s expense when she was supposed to be carrying out one of her duties as a U.S. Senator. (It should be said that she’s hardly alone in this corrupt behavior, and to her credit she blew away Booker and Klobuchar. If you want someone with a boxcar full of hate and self-aggrandizing vitriol ready to be dispensed as soon as the nearest handy Pavlov rings a bell, Harris is all you’ve ever dreamed of and more.)
As I said, staggering inanity.
At which point the questioner interrupts him and, evidently not satisfied with the level of absurdity she has achieved, repeats “Have you discussed it with anyone?”
Harris’ objectives here were faulty and transparent in asking so duplicitous a question.
First, it was to use an ambulance-chasing lawyer trick that is intended to create a bias in the minds of a jury that the defendant did something illegal or unethical without first establishing whether the thing that might have been done is illegal or unethical. Harris would have the listeners, completely absent any evidence, start out with the ridiculous idea that if Kavanaugh, at any point since May 17, 2017, had had the most casual of conversations about Mueller or the investigation with anyone, even before July 9, 2018, that it would constitute something illegal or unethical. Second, it was to fire her first salvo as a presidential candidate at the taxpayer’s expense when she was supposed to be carrying out one of her duties as a U.S. Senator. (It should be said that she’s hardly alone in this corrupt behavior, and to her credit she blew away Booker and Klobuchar. If you want someone with a boxcar full of hate and self-aggrandizing vitriol ready to be dispensed as soon as the nearest handy Pavlov rings a bell, Harris is all you’ve ever dreamed of and more.)
As I said, staggering inanity.
Get this: these hearings, which are never anything other
than a chance for unnoteworthy people to do their best Fonzarelli-in-the-mirror
routines, are unnecessary to the purpose and a waste of time and money. The overwhelming majority of Senators will
have already made up their minds about how they’re going to vote based on party
affiliation, personal feelings and agendas, and reelection considerations
within seconds of hearing the nominee’s name. (But all it takes to campaign is a TV camera, and there were TV cameras, so let the games begin.) If you think any of these people have any real interest in having an
impartial judge who won’t violate his oath to support and defend the Constitution, you haven't been on the field long enough.
Harris having repeated her disingenuous query, Kavanaugh realizes
his hopes of the SNL routine to have come to an end are dashed and, in an underserved
show of respect, he offers an answer that is in keeping with the silliness of
the question and says, “Ah, with other judges I know . . . “
Imagine that – a judge talking with other judges about a legal proceeding in which none of them are involved. The horror . . .
Imagine that – a judge talking with other judges about a legal proceeding in which none of them are involved. The horror . . .
At this point, the Senator deserves credit – she carries on
as if nothing about what she is doing is out of the ordinary, absurdity thus
far be damned. She then asks her second
question, which is actually her first question.
The reason for the fake, stupid first one was to have two questions that
were intended to have the same corrupt influence in creating an assumption in
the gullible. She's a lawyer, after all. She knows the value of theater, she knows most of the citizenry to be incapable of the kind of critical thinking that would expose her deceitful behavior, and she knows if one is good, two is better. What you have here is a
dramatic example of why decent people have such a low opinion of lawyers – the ease
with which they misrepresent information.
“Have you discussed Mueller or his investigation with anyone
at Kasowitz Benson Torres, the law firm founded by Marc Kasowitz, President
Trump’s personal lawyer?”
Once again, we’re supposed to slurp the spoon that holds the
implication that had he done so, it would have been illegal, or unethical, or a
disqualifier for the Court.
Or tantamount to a confession that he leaves the empty toilet paper roll on the dispenser. Or something.
Glaringly conspicuous by its absence, of course, was any evidence that this alleged conversation took place. We, as useful idiots, are just supposed assume it did for convenience sake.
Or tantamount to a confession that he leaves the empty toilet paper roll on the dispenser. Or something.
Glaringly conspicuous by its absence, of course, was any evidence that this alleged conversation took place. We, as useful idiots, are just supposed assume it did for convenience sake.
She repeats and rephrases the question while Kavanaugh tries to make sense of what he’s being asked, a question that would be impossible to factually answer as asked in a legal setting as it would require the complete knowledge of the entire employee roster in a major D.C. law firm. This is, after all, a legal setting, although it wasn’t a trial in spite of Harris’ attempt to make it look like one. I guess it’s true what they say – you can take the lawyer out of the mediocrity of a career as a DA, but you can’t take the mediocrity out of the lawyer.
The game here is so obvious that I wonder how the Senator wasn’t flattened by embarrassment with her nauseating coyness. The idea was, and will continue to be, to create a pre-determined assumption that if an issue involving the breathtakingly expensive investigation that has so far turned up nothing
for which it was created should wind up at 1st Street NE that Kavanaugh, having had a conversation with someone at the aforesaid law firm, would taint the proceedings.
From here, it dragged on a bit too far, as you can hear the tremolo effect of stress in Harris’ voice creep in as she realizes her sophomoric dog and pony show isn’t bringing down the house. I wouldn’t be surprised if she had a bass violin section recorded and ready to play when her hoped-for gotcha’ had the cameras zooming in on Republican faces like those pre-Jackie Chan Kung-Fu movies.
She needn’t have worried though. It wasn’t long before a couple of paid performers started screaming like banshees, so we did at least get some genuine theater for our quarter.
The shame of all this is that the concern is actually
valid. If Kavanaugh can be shown to have
had a conversation with someone outside the mailroom at Kasowitz, it could
create realistic ethics concerns when the Keystone Kops finally get the
fictitious Russian collusion malarkey into the Court. Too bad Harris didn’t jump off the campaign
trail long enough to just come out and say that.
Did this woman ever audition for “Law and Order”?
What Harris is doing that is so depraved is to use a very serious matter that should have been dealt with by an adult as a springboard for her candidacy in 2020. But she doesn’t care – her performance, as empty-headed a thing as the public has seen since Hillary’s last excuse tour – wherever it was, whatever she said - has energized the low-information, I-don’t-know-why-I’m-here base to which she appeals. (This is not to say everyone who likes/supports her fits this description. It is to say they are the kind of people to which she has attached herself because you can tell them literally anything if you’re a liberal woman and they will believe it and cast their vote in your favor.)
Now then, for the record: If I were a Senator, I would not vote in favor of Kavanaugh.
Why not? He has too much baggage. It need not be anymore involved than that, although I’ll throw in he came across as oily when he wouldn’t look the dim bulb in the eye and say outright yes or no, or better yet to shut up until she could come up with an intelligent question, though that might cause the hearings to be on hold for eternity. I hate that about these D.C. people, constantly hedging their bets.
Did this woman ever audition for “Law and Order”?
What Harris is doing that is so depraved is to use a very serious matter that should have been dealt with by an adult as a springboard for her candidacy in 2020. But she doesn’t care – her performance, as empty-headed a thing as the public has seen since Hillary’s last excuse tour – wherever it was, whatever she said - has energized the low-information, I-don’t-know-why-I’m-here base to which she appeals. (This is not to say everyone who likes/supports her fits this description. It is to say they are the kind of people to which she has attached herself because you can tell them literally anything if you’re a liberal woman and they will believe it and cast their vote in your favor.)
Now then, for the record: If I were a Senator, I would not vote in favor of Kavanaugh.
Why not? He has too much baggage. It need not be anymore involved than that, although I’ll throw in he came across as oily when he wouldn’t look the dim bulb in the eye and say outright yes or no, or better yet to shut up until she could come up with an intelligent question, though that might cause the hearings to be on hold for eternity. I hate that about these D.C. people, constantly hedging their bets.
So let’s suppose Harris was sick that day and I was called
to stand in for her. Here’s how it might
have gone:
“Judge Kavanaugh, it is thought by some, myself included, that given your associations they may have led to a conversation regarding Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation with one or more of the principals at Kasowitz Benson Torres. Don't misunderstand me, Judge Kavanaugh; no one at this hearing has evidence this has occurred. But we would both be naive to ignore the influence of whispers and innuendo in this town. As I’m sure you know, Marc Kasowitz is President Trump’s lawyer. I think you can easily see how this would create uncertainty should any facet of this investigation reach the Court on which you may find yourself serving. What can you tell us that would allay such concerns?”
“Judge Kavanaugh, I’d like to hear your thoughts regarding the legal concepts of incorporation as well as judicial review. How do reconcile these practices with the role of the Court as it is specified in the Constitution?”
“Judge Kavanaugh, it is thought by some, myself included, that given your associations they may have led to a conversation regarding Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation with one or more of the principals at Kasowitz Benson Torres. Don't misunderstand me, Judge Kavanaugh; no one at this hearing has evidence this has occurred. But we would both be naive to ignore the influence of whispers and innuendo in this town. As I’m sure you know, Marc Kasowitz is President Trump’s lawyer. I think you can easily see how this would create uncertainty should any facet of this investigation reach the Court on which you may find yourself serving. What can you tell us that would allay such concerns?”
“Judge Kavanaugh, I’d like to hear your thoughts regarding the legal concepts of incorporation as well as judicial review. How do reconcile these practices with the role of the Court as it is specified in the Constitution?”
Okay, the last one has nothing to do with the subject, but
it’s one I wish one of those numbskulls would ask.
Anyway, the woman is an actor, and not a very good one. She should take some lessons from Barbara Boxer. At least she managed to keep a marginal presence in the public’s awareness, something very unlikely Harris will pull off.
Anyway, the woman is an actor, and not a very good one. She should take some lessons from Barbara Boxer. At least she managed to keep a marginal presence in the public’s awareness, something very unlikely Harris will pull off.
