Brett Kavanaugh says he ‘might have been too emotional’ at hearing
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh acknowledged Thursday he “might have been too emotional” when testifying about sexual misconduct allegations as he made a final bid to win over wavering GOP senators on the eve of a crucial vote to advance his confirmation. Three GOP senators and one Democrat remain undecided about elevating Kavanaugh to the high court. Two of the Republicans signaled Thursday that they were satisfied with the findings of a confidential new FBI report into the assault allegations, boosting the hopes of GOP leaders. President Donald Trump rallied behind Kavanaugh during a campaign event in Minnesota Thursday night, telling supporters that the “rage-fueled resistance” to his nominee “is starting to backfire at a level nobody has ever seen before.” Still, Kavanaugh’s op-ed underscored that his performance at a Senate hearing last week opened new questions about his impartiality and judicial temperament. Democrats say Kavanaugh’s assertion that left-wing groups seeking “revenge on behalf of the Clintons” were behind the misconduct allegations suggests he would rule from the bench with a partisan bent. In an op-ed Thursday in The Wall Street Journal, Kavanaugh said there were “a few things I should not have said” during the hearing. “Going forward, you can count on me to be the same kind of judge and person I have been for my entire 28-year legal career: hardworking, even-keeled, open-minded, independent and dedicated to the Constitution and the public good,” he wrote. Senate leaders set a pivotal preliminary vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination for 10:30 a.m. Friday. If that succeeds, a final roll call was expected Saturday as the long, emotional battle over the conservative jurist drew toward its climax. Six days after Trump reluctantly ordered the FBI to scrutinize the accusations— which Kavanaugh has denied — leading GOP lawmakers briefed on the agency’s confidential document all reached the same conclusion: There was no verification of the women’s past claims and nothing new. Democrats complained that the investigation was shoddy, omitting interviews with numerous potential witnesses, and accused the White House of limiting the FBI’s leeway. Those not interviewed in the reopened background investigation included Kavanaugh himself and Christine Blasey Ford, who ignited the furor by alleging he’d molested her in a locked room at a 1982 high school gathering. A week after a televised Senate Judiciary Committee hearing at which Kavanaugh and Ford transfixed the nation, the Capitol campus remained a stew of tension as the election-season cliff-hanger neared its conclusion. A hefty police presence added an air of anxiety, as did thousands of noisy anti-Kavanaugh demonstrators who gathered outside the Supreme Court and in Senate office buildings. U.S. Capitol Police said 302 were arrested — among them comedian Amy Schumer, a distant relative of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. “What we know for sure is the FBI report did not corroborate any of the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters about the document, which was sent to Congress overnight. On the Senate floor, he witheringly called the accusations “uncorroborated mud.” Earlier, Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona, one of the publicly undecided Republicans, told reporters “we’ve seen no additional corroborating information” about the claims against the 53-year-old conservative jurist and said the investigation had been comprehensive. A second undeclared Republican, Susan Collins of Maine, also expressed satisfaction with the probe, calling it “a very thorough investigation.” She paid two visits to the off-limits room where the document was being displayed to lawmakers. She told reporters she would not announce her position until Friday. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, said she was “still reviewing” her decision. While GOP leaders were not saying they’d nailed down the support needed, backing from two of those three would ensure Kavanaugh’s confirmation because every other Republican was poised to back him. Republicans have a narrow 51-49 Senate majority, and Vice President Mike Pence will be available to cast a tie-breaking vote. The trio of GOP moderates, leery of three women’s claims of alcohol-fueled sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh, had refused to let his nomination proceed last week until Trump ordered the FBI probe. The three were briefed together on the investigation in the secure room senators were using to view the report. They skirted reporters for much of the day, sometimes shielded by Capitol Police. Underscoring the hardening partisan lines, one of the two undecided Democratic senators said she’d oppose Kavanaugh. North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, who faces a difficult re-election race next month, cited concerns about his “past conduct” and said she felt his heated attacks on Democrats during last week’s Judiciary Committee hearing raised questions about his “current temperament, honesty and impartiality.” West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, the other undeclared Democrat, spent time looking at the report and said he would resume reading it Friday. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat, said while her party had agreed to a week-long FBI probe with a finite scope, “We did not agree that the White House should tie the FBI’s hands.” Democrats also objected to a statement by committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who said the investigation “found no hint of misconduct.” The Judiciary panel’s 10 Democrats said in a statement that based on their briefing and study of the document, “That is not true.” Grassley also said the FBI could not “locate any third parties who can attest to any of the allegations,” and he said there is “no contemporaneous evidence.” Neither side specified what they were referring to. Under rules Congress and the White House have used for years, FBI background checks are considered confidential, and lawmakers and aides are not supposed to reveal details. White House spokesman Raj Shah rebuffed Democrats’ complaints, saying, “What critics want is a never-ending fishing expedition into high school drinking.” He said the FBI reached out to 10 people and interviewed nine, including “several individuals at the request of the Senate, and had a series of follow-up interviews … following certain leads.” Senators said the documents they examined totaled about 50 pages. Some
Shocker: Brett Kavanaugh showed his humanity (rescind his nomination now)
Today, I want to talk about the anger and frustration directed toward Brett Kavanaugh for showing emotion during the Senate hearing. Yes, I realize that judicial temperament is important especially when you’re talking about a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, but at the same time Kavanaugh didn’t lose his cool in an ordinary professional setting, he lost his cool as a result of a full-on character assassination attempt including accusations that, if true, would make him a monster. He was facing this playing out minute-by-minute across the nation. On Thursday, Kavanaugh did something unprecedented which is write an op-ed and acknowledge that he went too far in letting his feeling show at the hearing. While I applaud him for taking responsibility and for apologizing I have to wonder if anyone on the left will ever do the same for him and his family? Against that backdrop, I testified before the Judiciary Committee last Thursday to defend my family, my good name and my lifetime of public service. My hearing testimony was forceful and passionate. That is because I forcefully and passionately denied the allegation against me. …I was very emotional last Thursday, more so than I have ever been. I might have been too emotional at times. I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said. I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad. I testified with five people foremost in my mind: my mom, my dad, my wife, and most of all my daughters. The sexual assault accusations against him have ranged from questionable (did he or didn’t he) to delusional (no way in the world that’s true) with the FBI not being able to find a single witness or piece of evidence to back up any of the claims. That hasn’t stopped liberals in the U.S. Senate from their smear campaign or outside groups from rallying to oppose his nomination louder than ever (because the tone in which they were screaming about his experience and background wasn’t effective they are now grasping at straws). Here’s where I have to shake my head and wonder what people are thinking. The people saying he shouldn’t have lost his cool realize that he’s human and that this wasn’t an attack on his resume, his background, or his fairness on the bench? This was a full-on assault on who he is as a person and the kind of life he’s led to date. Can you name anyone who wouldn’t be emotional about this? I would have been more concerned for his character had he remained stoic and just regurgitated talking points and practiced lines while faced with accusations of a near rape and gang rapes. I frequently see progressives/liberals talk about how we should raise our boys and our children without gender roles allowing them to embrace who they are. It’s been said that we as a society should not raise or encourage our boys to be tough but instead should let encourage them to be in touch with their feelings in the same way girls are (genetics and hormones be damned); the ideas of “boys will be boys” and other traditional societal norms of men being the protectors is wrong and dated they say. “Gender conforming stereotypes” are wrong. But just let a man show his true feelings. Let him cry. Let him get angry. Let him be defensive when attacked and BAM he should be disqualified from consideration for a job he’s more than qualified for. In this case we’re not talking about just any man. We’re not talking about a man who maybe has a history of not being able to control his emotions. No, here we have a man with a reputation that’s been well documented for his entire adult life. Here we have a man who’s been under tremendous scrutiny before and has never shown a hint to cause concern. Here we have someone who has a history of being more than fair going out of his way to help women succeed and thrive. We’re talking about someone with hundreds of witnesses who have gone on record to talk about how much he respects women, whose career is exemplary and who was never given a moments fair shake once the allegations came out and when he gets on the stand and shows some frustration, hurt and disappointment at a process that’s been completely unfair to him he’s a monster. I will tell you, I would hope that any man in my life from friends to family would feel strongly about being attacked the way Kavanaugh has been. I’d hope anyone male or female faced with the way in which senate democrats and the media has portrayed accusations as being equal to a conviction would feel and express dismay. This isn’t something that was happening in a vacuum to Kavanaugh this circus played out on the worlds stage in front of his wife and children. Feminist who call for the end of gender stereotypes should be ashamed of themselves for mocking and criticizing his display of emotion because it was appropriate and measured. I would imagine most people would be far more upset, far more emotional and far more angry and frustrated if dealing with what Kavanaugh and his family has had to deal with understanding the long-term consequences of what’s happening. So in today’s episode “make up your darn minds” I once again call into question those who say we shouldn’t conform to gender norms and be able to express emotions, and then mock him for doing so. You need to take a look at your lives and realize that yes, conservative, Christian men should be able to display emotions. A nominee for the Supreme Court doesn’t stop being human, doesn’t stop being a father simply because of their nomination. It looks like we’re just a day or two away from the senate voting on Kavanaugh’s confirmation. I hope any senator
