Kamala Harris Doesn't Sound All That Confident About Monday's Hearing

screengrab from https://twitter.com/CBSThisMorning/status/1042009972471734272

This morning, California Senator and wannabe-president Kamala Harris was on CBS’s This Morning to discuss the goat-rope the GOP has allowed the Democrats to make of the Kavanaugh hearing. Supreme Court nominee is in-credibly accused of groping a girl who was either 15-years-old or in her “late teens” at a party held sometime in the 1980s at a private home in an unknown location in Montgomery County, MD, involving either four or two boys and maybe two girls and alcohol. The allegations were first revealed during a marriage therapy session in 2012, some 30 years after the fact, though in the original story the complainant, PROFESSOR (or Frau Professor Doktor, if you want to add even more gravitas to her title) Christine Ford, says she was mauled by four boys and didn’t mention Kavanaugh’s name. She expressed anxiety to her husband about Kavanaugh being appointed to the Supreme Court about the time Kavanaugh was being touted as a SCOTUS nominee should Romney win:

Since you ask, yes, Kavanaugh was in the news in 2012 as a leading Supreme Court candidate if Romney (or any Republican) won.
March 2012 – Toobin
Oct 2012 – CNNhttps://t.co/vtBYCdxamD https://t.co/bcyiIbPo4R

— Tom Maguire (@Tom_Maguire) September 17, 2018

Now we have a ~~cage match~~ hearing lined up for Monday so that both parties can be ritually debased and humiliated after which it is even money that the GOP folds like a cheap suit and refuses to confirm Kavanaugh.

Even so, Harris seemed apprehensive about Ford’s upcoming appearance.

“I believe her… anybody who comes forward at this point to be prepared to testify in the U.S. Senate against someone who's being nominated to one of the most powerful positions in the U.S. government, that takes an extraordinary amount of courage.” — Sen. @KamalaHarris pic.twitter.com/2Zqp23S3UT

— CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) September 18, 2018

I believe her. Listen, first of all, anybody who comes forward at this point to be prepared to testify in the United States Senate against someone who’s being nominated to one of the most powerful positions in the united States government, that takes an extraordinary amount of courage.

…

She’s putting herself out there knowing that they’re going to try and excoriate her.

She’s doing it, I believe, because she knows that this is an important matter. It’s a serious matter. And she has the courage to come forward. She has nothing to gain. What does she have to gain?

As I pointed out yesterday, the whole “what does she have to gain” argument is bullsh**. Is Anita Hill’s life better or worse after she perjured herself during the Clarence Thomas hearing?

Harris admits that there is zero evidence here and it all comes down to who you believe.

"I believe that the FBI… should be compelled to do its job in terms of completing their background investigation and that's not being done." — Sen. @KamalaHarris on sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh pic.twitter.com/JPqQFxdFXf

— CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) September 18, 2018

She and others have been pushing this “let the FBI investigate” line for a simple reason. It takes years for the FBI to clear a jaywalking investigation. If the FBI did investigate, Kavanaugh might get on SCOTUS before he died of old age. Fortunately, that isn’t going to happen.

8:15 p.m.

The Justice Department says the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh “does not involve any potential federal crime” for the FBI to investigate.

The department said in a statement Monday night that the FBI’s role during background investigations is to evaluate whether the nominee could pose a national security risk and then provide that information “for the use of the decision makers.”

The department says it’s not the job of the FBI to judge the significance or the credibility of an accusation.

This has nothing to do with finding the truth and even determining Kavanaugh’s suitability for the court. (Let’s say a drunk Brett Kavanaugh did grope a drunk Christine Blasey 36 years ago, so what?) It is a fundraising vehicle. It is a way of providing the leeway so vulnerable Red State Democrat Senators can plausibly vote against Kavanaugh. It makes it easier to corral the votes of Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. It should also be a warning to every male SCOTUS nominee that this is what you have to look forward to. Or as Ben Domenech says in today’s Transom (sorry, behind a paywall so no link):

Should Kavanaugh fail to be confirmed, Democrats will have sent a definitive message about the level of accusation that will be tolerated. Even the hint of sexual assault, no matter the absence of an ability to determine its veracity, is enough to end a nomination. Should he be confirmed, Democrats will turn impeachment of Kavanaugh into a rallying cry. No matter that it is extremely unlikely – they will have accomplished their goal of undermining a previously esteemed judge with the words of a single accuser.

Brett Kavanaugh will never get a fair hearing. http://vlt.tc/3exw Caught in the maelstrom of judicial war, this allegation has now transformed the respected elite man of the law, with only the best pedigree, into the face of drunken teen sexual assault. The fact these allegations are uncorroborated do not matter. Kavanaugh says: “I will defend my integrity.” http://vlt.tc/3eyb So did Clarence Thomas. Still, 27 years later, the left still makes the claims, and Joe Biden still apologizes, and the damage is done.

Dianne Feinstein knows this. She knows she shouldn’t treat sexual assault like a political football. http://vlt.tc/3exx She knows these allegations are of a different kind than Anita Hill’s, but she also knows that Hill’s allegations if made today would be greeted with a much different attitude. So rather than air them earlier, she determined to wait til the point when the maximum political benefit could be achieved. She also knows, I suspect, that taking advantage of the MeToo moment in such a blatantly political way could backfire. But she has calculated that it’s worth the benefit. And she is probably right.