CMR and Kavanaugh
After I wrote this missive, Dr. Blasey Ford tentatively agreed to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week. We would do well to remember the details of what Anita Hill was put through in 1991 as we listen to the grilling by men who, by their own words, have already made up their minds, who view this hearing as barely necessary window-dressing to approving the nominee. Dear Group, Republican disappointment, even anger, at Dr. Christin Blasey Ford for coming forward now against the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is understandable. Kavanaugh's appointment would be the culmination of decades of ground work by corporate interests ignited, according to some, by reaction to Ralph Nader's 1960s consumer advocacy. [See Powell Memorandum] To have those decades of effort thwarted now, with victory in sight, must be frustrating, even more so since the problem arises from a woman. After all, Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans have cast aside both precedent and decency by stiff-arming Merrick Garland and then tossing out the traditional sixty vote majority requirement to confirm a Supreme Court nominee. Both were desperate acts, but they were just the prelude to the main goal: obtaining a Supreme Court majority that favors the oligarchy oner the individual. Now they face a conundrum: Rush the nomination to the floor, vote, grab the goal...and reap a backlash against a Supreme Court majority deemed illegitimate or slow down the process perhaps for weeks to properly gather evidence and avoid a repeat of nasty male Senators attacking a female accuser, a woman up to now without the time, resources, and preparation the Republicans have amassed behind Kavanaugh? Then last Saturday morning the daughter of Ronald Reagan, Patti Davis, weighed in on the side of Dr. Ford and for deliberate process by recounting her rape by a prominent music executive. It came out in an article entitled "Why I don’t recall all the details of my sexual assault." The article recounts the rape and her subsequent silence and confusion. Davis' story was widely covered, including the New York Times and published in the Spokesman and the Washington Post, probably among others. So where do Lisa Brown and McMorris Rodgers stand on all of this? We have some clues from last Wednesday's debate: Moderator: What should be the next steps on Capitol Hill in this [Kavanaugh’s] nomination process? Dr. Brown: Well, certainly there needs to be a full investigation of the allegation. And the woman who has come forward needs, deserves to have an investigation done in an independent way and be heard. And the rush to judgement…confirm as quickly as possible…is not the right thing for a lifetime appointment and it runs over the rights of women just like what happened in 1991 when Anita Hill came forward with her allegations. That inspired a whole generation of women to run for office. I ran for office in 1992 and I predict that woman in the United States want this to be thoroughly investigated without a quick confirmation. CMR: Well we’re working through the process. I think it’s important that we give every woman an opportunity to be heard. I think that that’s very important. In my understanding the Senate has scheduled a hearing for Monday where both Kavanaugh and the accuser will be in front of the Senate and given a chance to be heard and to answer questions and I just think we need to continue to allow this process to play out. "In my understanding." Could McMorris Rodgers be more disingenuous? She holds the fourth most powerful post in the Republican hierarchy. She knows exactly what the stakes are. She knows all the players and all the corporate donors. She has pushed for a Republican/Libertarian majority on the Supreme Court for years. Does she really imagine Dr. Ford could get a fair hearing today in front of a bunch of frustrated old white male Republican Senators bent on getting Kavanaugh seated? The next day McMorris Rodgers' "positive disruptor," Mr. Trump, came out on Twitter: 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,” the president tweeted. How can McMorris Rodgers support a man capable of such a statement? Does she really not understand the gross unfairness of the process McConnell and Grassley are offering? Does she not remember the Anita Hill grilling? (Perhaps she missed it. She was fresh out of the Pensacola Christian College and working in the office of a staunch Republican state legislator at the time. Has McMorris Rodgers ever been exposed to the degrading details of those hearings?) I copy below an article (with good links to the information quoted) that I found useful in putting this controversy in context. You can see it and a lot more at Popular Info written by Judd Legum. It provides a detailed comparison of the power dynamics in 1991 and the Republican efforts to use the same power against Dr. Ford. At the debate on Wednesday Lisa Brown got the right answer. McMorris Rodgers tried to distance herself from a process she supports and with which she is intimately involved. Don't let her get away with it. There is no reason not to use more time to have a full and fair hearing. Demanding Dr. Ford's appearance today (or anytime in the next couple weeks before a thorough investigation can be conducted) is a male Republican power play with the tacit approval of "our" Representative. Keep to the high ground, Jerry The Anita Hill playbook The Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled a hearing next Monday with Dr. Christine Ford, the woman who says that she was sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh, and did before speaking with her. Ford, through a lawyer, responded that she wanted to cooperate with the committee but requested that the FBI conduct an investigation of her allegation first, which is the process the committee used for Anita Hill in 1991. In a letter to Ford's lawyer sent Wednesday afternoon, Grassley refused and said he planned on proceeding with the hearing on Monday. What's the rush? First, Republicans are desperate to confirm Kavanaugh before the midterm election. To save time, they dispensed with the normal process for gathering records, which is run by the nonpartisan National Archives, and delegated the task to an old friend of Kavanaugh, Bill Burck. But there is another reason that Republicans are insisting Ford testify in just four days: They are seeking to maximize Kavanaugh's advantage over Ford in a public hearing. Kavanaugh has the full resources of the White House, the Republican Party and a phalanx of outside groups to prepare him for the hearing and reinforce his message. The White House counsel, communications director, and press secretary have reportedly been grilling Kavanaugh for hours to prepare him. White House officials engaged in a two-hour practice session, known as a murder board, in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building with Kavanaugh, where he answered questions on his past, his partying, his dating and the accuser’s account. Participants included McGahn, deputy chief of staff Bill Shine, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Raj Shah, who is leading communications. Ford, up until a few days ago, was not a public figure. She has no entourage of political professionals to prepare her for a public cross-examination by 11 Republican men. In recent days, she has been subjected to death threats, forced out of her home and into hiding. Republicans want to pressure her to testify as soon as possible -- before she can reasonably be expected to prepare and before more facts emerge that could bolster her account. They know this works because that's exactly what they did with Anita Hill. And that's not the only tactic Republicans are dusting off from 1991. The time pressure In 1991, Republicans and Democrats agreed that hearings were necessary to consider Anita Hill’s allegations. Some Democrats advocated for a few weeks to investigate and prepare for the hearing. But the Republicans pushed for an immediate hearing -- and their position prevailed. There was a break of just two days between the decision to hold a hearing and the hearing itself. Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson explain how it went down in their 1994 book, Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas: ...Republicans wanted to get the new hearings over with immediately. "The idea," [Republican Senator John] Danforth later conceded, "was to have them begin as quickly as possible and to last as briefly as possible." Appealing to [Democratic Senator Joe] Biden's constant desire to seem evenhanded, Danforth and [Republican Senator Bob] Dole argued that fairness dictated speed. Biden initially wanted an interval of two weeks, but now he agreed to constraints that all but sealed Hill's fate. The new hearings would begin that Friday, October 11… There would thus be only two days to investigate Hill's charge, find and interview other witnesses, and prepare for the new hearings, which would run through the weekend if necessary. If time ran out before important allegations were explored or witnesses heard, nothing could be done. "The schedule," commented another Democratic senator, "was insanity." The decision, Mayer and Abramson write, sealed the power dynamics: Three days before the hearings were to open, Thomas had the full weight of the White House and Senate Republicans behind him. But Hill was about to travel to Washington as an outsider with no connections, an ordinary citizen with strengths and weaknesses, pressured against her own instincts into challenging the most powerful institutions in American society largely by herself. Today, Republicans are seeking to put Ford in the same position. They demanded Ford commit to a hearing just two days after she first made her story public. Unlike Ford, Anita Hill at least had the benefit of an FBI investigation into her allegations. In his letter to Ford, Grassley not only rejected her call for a delay but moved the timeline up further. He said that, if Ford wished to appear, she would need to submit a prepared statement and biography by Friday at 10 AM. The insane woman Before the hearings began in 1991, allies of Thomas sought to portray Hill as mentally unstable. Mayer and Abramson tell the tale: Armstrong Williams, an equally loyal member of Thomas's circle, pitched in too, pronouncing Hill virtually mentally unstable with respect to Thomas. As he put it in an interview with the Wall Street Journal for a story that ran the day the hearings opened, "There is a thin line between her sanity and insanity." Later, in another interview, he said, referring to Hill, "Sister has emotional problems." On Tuesday, Joe DiGenova, a lawyer with close ties to the White House who reguarly consults with the president, declared Ford a "loon." She really doesn't want to testify. Because when she does, she's going to look like the loon that she is. She may very well believe everything she's saying, and that is one of the signs of lunacy, believing something that isn't real. Grassley offered a slightly toned down version of DiGenova's attack, saying he didn't "doubt that [Ford] believes what she says." Left unsaid is that Grassley believes she might be delusional. The polygraph Grassley's suggestion that Ford is imagining has another benefit: It explains how she passed a polygraph test. This was the same tack taken against Hill, who also passed a polygraph exam. Hill might not be a standard liar, as they had earlier implied, but, the Republicans now suggested in the open hearing room, she might be so delusional she believed her own lies. If so, she could pass a polygraph test and still be wrong about Thomas. The political pawn Republicans have sought to portray Ford as doing the political bidding of Democrats. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), for example, claimed Ford was requesting an FBI investigation only to delay a vote on Kavanaugh until after the midterm elections. Lindsey Graham@LindseyGrahamSC Requiring an FBI investigation of a 36 year old allegation (without specific references to time or location) before Professor Ford will appear before the Judiciary Committee is not about finding the truth, but delaying the process till after the midterm elections. September 19, 2018 A similar effort was made against Hill. During the hearing, Senator Hank Brown (R-CO), sought to portray Hill as a "radical, pro-choice feminist" who was attacking Thomas because "he was now in a position to threaten the Roeruling." The objective then, as it is now, is to establish a motive for the woman to lie. What Anita Hill says now In an interview on Wednesday evening with PBS Newshour, Hill urged that the hearing be delayed to make time for a professional investigation of Ford's allegations. When you get a professional involved, they will know the questions to ask, they will know the places to go, they will know the people to call on as witnesses to complete what is a thorough investigation. So there — there's a lot more than we can learn. I think, so often, we get — fall into this trap saying, oh, this is a he said/she said situation. And that rarely is the case. There is very often — and most often, I would say — ways that testimony can be corroborated, either through other individuals or other circumstances that are similar. "[W]e have senators who are deciding about who is going to sit on the highest court, but they can't really put partisanship aside long enough to put together a fair hearing to get to the truth about this situation," Hill concluded. Maybe, 27 years later, it's time to start listening to Anita Hill? The latest from Ford In a statement released Wednesday evening, Ford's attorney, Lisa Banks, renewed her request for a delay and a full investigation but suggested that Ford might appear if all relevant witnesses were included: [T]he Committee's stated plan to move forward with a hearing that has only two witnesses is not a fair or good faith investigation; there are multiple witnesses whose names have appeared publicly and should be included in any proceeding. (For more on other potential witnesses see yesterday's Popular Information.) Thanks for reading! Please send your feedback and hate mail to email@example.com. Popular Information comes out Monday through Thursday and will return on Monday, September 24.