That there was an allegation of sexual assault against the Honorable Judge Kavanaugh was known when I sat down at the drawing board Sunday night. The credibility of the allegation was not, nor the identity of his accuser, the latter of which is immaterial.
Experience has taught me not to prejudge rape accusations, so I chose not to do so this week. Journalists have a responsibility to include caveats such as "allegedly" and "according to..." when reporting unproven criminal accusations; a good cartoon, on the other hand, would be cut off at the knees by including any element of "it might not be so." Where in Ed Hall's powerful cartoon could he have stuck in "allegedly"? Where should Matt Wuerker have included "if true"?
If I can't declare Kavanaugh guilty of sexual assault, I can still question his honesty. Former Senator Russ Feingold has done as much in a Huffington Post piece accusing Kavanaugh of lying under oath in 2006 when he denied involvement in the nomination of Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court three years earlier; contrary to judicial ethics, Pickering had solicited letters of support from lawyers who had appeared in Pickering's court, some of whom had pending cases in that court.
But newly released emails show that Kavanaugh appeared to be the primary person handling Pickering’s nomination, at least by 2003, and was heavily involved in pushing for his confirmation as early as March 2002. There are emails showing that Kavanaugh coordinated meetings with and about Pickering; that he drafted remarks, letters to people on the Hill and at least one op-ed for then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales about Pickering; that he advised Gonzales on Pickering strategy; and much more.In last week's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kavanaugh repeatedly evaded Democrats' questions. He couldn't remember writing this; he had no recollection of saying that.
For a guy who claims to know exactly what the Founding Fathers were thinking when the Constitution was written in 1789, Brett Kavanaugh sure seems to have a lot of difficulty figuring out what Brett Kavanaugh was thinking in 2003.
No comments:
Post a Comment