David Brock I knew Brett Kavanaugh during his years as a Republican operative. Don't let him sit on the Supreme Court.

We were part of a close circle of cynical hard-right operatives being groomed for much bigger things.

Sep.07.2018 / 12:25 PM CDT

I used to know Brett Kavanaugh pretty well. And, when I think of Brett now, in the midst of his hearings for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, all I can think of is the old "Aesop's Fables" adage: "A man is known by the company he keeps."

And that's why I want to tell any senator who cares about our democracy: Vote no.

Twenty years ago, when I was a conservative movement stalwart, I got to know Brett Kavanaugh both professionally and personally.




Brett Kavanaugh proves the Supreme Court swing vote is dead
SEP.04.201802:34

Brett actually makes a cameo appearance in my memoir of my time in the GOP, "Blinded By The Right." I describe him at a party full of zealous young conservatives gathered to watch President Bill Clinton's 1998 State of the Union address — just weeks after the story of his affair with a White House intern had broken. When the TV camera panned to Hillary Clinton, I saw Brett — at the time a key lieutenant of Ken Starr, the independent counsel investigating various Clinton scandals — mouth the word "bitch."

But there's a lot more to know about Kavanaugh than just his Pavlovian response to Hillary's image. Brett and I were part of a close circle of cold, cynical and ambitious hard-right operatives being groomed by GOP elders for much bigger roles in politics, government and media. And it’s those controversial associations that should give members of the Senate and the American public serious pause.

Related

OPINION
GOP's maneuvering during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings will seriously damage the Supreme Court's legitimacy

Call it Kavanaugh's cabal: There was his colleague on the Starr investigation, Alex Azar, now the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mark Paoletta is now chief counsel to Vice President Mike Pence; House anti-Clinton gumshoe Barbara Comstock is now a Republican member of Congress. Future Fox News personalities Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson were there with Ann Coulter, now a best-selling author, and internet provocateur Matt Drudge.

At one time or another, each of them partied at my Georgetown townhouse amid much booze and a thick air of cigar smoke.

In a rough division of labor, Kavanaugh played the role of lawyer — one of the sharp young minds recruited by the Federalist Society to infiltrate the federal judiciary with true believers. Through that network, Kavanaugh was mentored by D.C. Appeals Court Judge Laurence Silberman, known among his colleagues for planting leaks in the press for partisan advantage.

Related

OPINION
Tom Steyer and Ron Fein: Stop Kavanaugh's confirmation until Mueller's investigation is done

When, as I came to know, Kavanaugh took on the role of designated leaker to the press of sensitive information from Starr's operation, we all laughed that Larry had taught him well. (Of course, that sort of political opportunism by a prosecutor is at best unethical, if not illegal.)

Another compatriot was George Conway (now Kellyanne's husband), who led a secretive group of right-wing lawyers — we called them "the elves" — who worked behind the scenes directing the litigation team of Paula Jones, who had sued Clinton for sexual harassment. I knew then that information was flowing quietly from the Jones team via Conway to Starr's office — and also that Conway's go-to man was none other than Brett Kavanaugh.

Recommended

Kavanaugh's accuser should unfortunately expect the Anita Hill treatment from Republicans

The allegations against Brett Kavanaugh are not simply a 'he said, she said' situation

That critical flow of inside information allowed Starr, in effect, to set a perjury trap for Clinton, laying the foundation for a crazed national political crisis and an unjust impeachment over a consensual affair.

But the cabal's godfather was Ted Olson, the then-future solicitor general for George W. Bush and now a sainted figure of the GOP establishment (and of some liberals for his role in legalizing same-sex marriage). Olson had a largely hidden role as a consigliere to the "Arkansas Project" — a multi-million dollar dirt-digging operation on the Clintons, funded by the eccentric right-wing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife and run through The American Spectator magazine, where I worked at the time.

Both Ted and Brett had what one could only be called an unhealthy obsession with the Clintons — especially Hillary. While Ted was pushing through the Arkansas Project conspiracy theories claiming that Clinton White House lawyer and Hillary friend Vincent Foster was murdered (he committed suicide), Brett was costing taxpayers millions by pedaling the same garbage at Starr's office.

A detailed analysis of Kavanaugh's own notes from the Starr Investigation reveals he was cherry-picking random bits of information from the Starr investigation — as well as the multiple previous investigations — attempting vainly to legitimize wild right-wing conspiracies. For years he chased down each one of them without regard to the emotional cost to Foster’s family and friends, or even common decency.

Related

OPINION
Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination is the result of years of unopposed conservative organizing

Kavanaugh was not a dispassionate finder of fact but rather an engineer of a political smear campaign. And after decades of that, he expects people to believe he's changed his stripes.

Like millions of Americans this week, I tuned into Kavanaugh's hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee with great interest. In his opening statement and subsequent testimony, Kavanaugh presented himself as a "neutral and impartial arbiter" of the law. Judges, he said, were not players but akin to umpires — objectively calling balls and strikes. Again and again, he stressed his "independence" from partisan political influences.

But I don't need to see any documents to tell you who Kavanaugh is — because I've known him for years. And I'll leave it to all the lawyers to parse Kavanaugh's views on everything from privacy rights to gun rights. But I can promise you that any pretense of simply being a fair arbiter of the constitutionality of any policy regardless of politics is simply a pretense. He made up his mind nearly a generation ago — and, if he's confirmed, he'll have nearly two generations to impose it upon the rest of us.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/i-knew-brett-kavanaugh-during-his-years-republican-operative-don-ncna907391

*********************************

A high school groping forty years ago is not relevant. It would not be relevant in a court of law, and it is not relevant to this hearing. I say take three weeks and do all the investigations you want, but in the end this desperate and futile attempt to derail this nomination is shameful and will not be successful. Now if he lies during this testimony, that is relevant. Sorry this is going to be one piszed off jurist who will make Thomas look like a moderate. I really think democrats have terminal naive disease. They lack courage and principles. The election was lost. This whole confirmation process has been a sad circus because as much as I do not agree with many of his decisions, this man is a highly qualified moral man with NO facts contrary to the same. A high school kid acting stupid and drunk and oblivious to his inappropriate behavior has had forty years to clearly show his character and his competency on the courts where he has served. Democrats have turned into wussies and whiners. Trump kicked their asz and they want a do over like spoiled children to change the election results.......sorry........will somebody with common sense in the democratic party please step forward, or we are going to have sic more years of evil insanity with Trump.

Floridatexan wrote:
all I can think of is the old "Aesop's Fables" adage: "A man is known by the company he keeps."

I didn't know that was from Aesop's Fables.  I've only ever heard of if from the spanish "dime con quién andas, y te diré quién eres"

Here's another not-so-old adage:  "Elections have consequences"

Wonder how ole Dingy Harry is feeling today about his decision to exercise that nuclear-option a few years ago?  Demos can't say they weren't warned when they chose to go down that road.

A little over three years ago, Senator Mitch McConnell stood on the Senate floor and issued a warning to the Democrats who then controlled the majority.

“I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you’ll regret this,” McConnell, then the minority leader, told them. “And you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.”  https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/democrats-trump-cabinet-senate/513782/  

Kinda looking to me like some partisan chickens done come home to roost!  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  What comes around goes around.  Hey ... I'm just chock full of adages today!  

EmeraldGhost wrote: Hey ... I'm just chock full of adages today!  

Obviously, it's not adages you're chock full of.

Deus X wrote:

EmeraldGhost wrote: Hey ... I'm just chock full of adages today!  

Obviously, it's not adages you're chock full of.

  Yeah, I thought of that when I wrote it ... but then decided I'd leave it there just for you in particular to get some jollies, 'Deucie'

I don't want to be the only one having fun on here

2seaoat wrote:A high school groping forty years ago is not relevant.  It would not be relevant in a court of law, and it is not relevant to this hearing.  I say take three weeks and do all the investigations you want, but in the end this desperate and futile attempt to derail this nomination is shameful and will not be successful.  Now if he lies during this testimony, that is relevant.  Sorry this is going to be one piszed off jurist who will make Thomas look like a moderate.  I really think democrats have terminal naive disease.  They lack courage and principles.  The election was lost.  This whole confirmation process has been a sad circus because as much as I do not agree with many of his decisions, this man is a highly qualified moral man with NO facts contrary to the same.   A high school kid acting stupid and drunk and oblivious to his inappropriate behavior has had forty years to clearly show his character and his competency on the courts where he has served.  Democrats have turned into wussies and whiners.  Trump kicked their asz and they want a do over like spoiled children to change the election results.......sorry........will somebody with common sense in the democratic party please step forward, or we are going to have sic more years of evil insanity with Trump.

Yes, please blame the Democrats for the POS in the White House. Despite all the other reasons to disqualify Kavanaugh...his finances; his probable gambling; his extreme partisanship; his about face on whether the president can be prosecuted; his prior decisions; etc., you continue to focus on this one issue, which has unfortunately come to the forefront. It's not the only reason to disqualify him. How did you reach the conclusion that he's moral? Did you read the questions he wrote for Bill Clinton to answer?

And attempted rape is not "a high school kid acting stupid and drunk"?

And attempted rape is not "a high school kid acting stupid and drunk"?


Please show me where the victim ever said this man was trying to rape her. Hysteria. It is the Rachel Maddow syndrome that the Democrats will work themselves into a hissy fit, and then boneheaded and hateful dixiecrats will win the elections. The man has lived a straight and narrow life and this goofy hysteria is exactly why democrats will never win and Trump will continue to let stupid bulldoze ivory tower. Give her a full hearing. She will be telling the truth. Just has about as much relevancy as to which magazine he whacked off to.....penthouse or hustler.

2seaoat wrote:Give her a full hearing.  She will be telling the truth.  Just has about as much relevancy as to which magazine he whacked off to.....penthouse or hustler.

How about the "relevancy" -- if you indeed find Ford's story credible -- of Cavanaugh's then obviously having BLATANTLY LIED BY VEHEMENTLY DENYING THE INCIDENT OUTRIGHT.  Hm??

If her account is true, then wouldn't it have behooved an honest man to admit it, and then to apologize, and then to indicate, just as you have, that it has nothing to do with who he is today?

But no, apparently he wants the Supreme judgeship so desperately that he'll flat out lie to the American people.  Is that who you want on the court?  Someone who'll sell his soul for his ambition?

WE DON'T NEED LIARS IN THE JUDICIARY.  ALREADY ENOUGH IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO KEEP US SICKENED FOR A LIFETIME.

It's bunk... not only if it actually happened. It's still valid if she felt threatened. Given her version... it's still highly unproven. Unless this is expedited it has only political purposes. The conditions are already being tilted.

This is going to be a vacuous political bukkake theater.

The thing that pisses me off the most about this drunken, high-school, grab-ass bullshit is that no one even mentions what it's like for 17 year-old boys.

Let me tell ya: Most 17 year-old males are almost insane with testosterone poisoning.

You wake up at 2:30 am, squirting jizz in your boxers. You get up, shuck your knickers, throw 'em in the laundry basket your mom has conveniently placed in your room because she doesn't want to talk about it either, and you put on a clean pair and go back to sleep.

When your mom wakes you up for school, you have another throbbing stiffy and you hurry into the shower so you can stroke one off before breakfast.

Sometime in the middle of the afternoon, maybe in Physics class or homeroom, Sportin' Life wakes up once again and you have to adjust your clothing and hold your books in front of you so you don't get mocked by your friends. Then you hurry into the shower as soon as you get home and stroke another one off.

Later, after dinner, when you're watching TV with your parents: Holy Shit! He's ba-a-a-ack! So you tell your parents "Well, I think I'll take a shower and go to bed" and stroke another one off.

A late adolescent male is a virtual perpetual semen factory and this provokes urges even they don't understand--fundamental, organic urges. Why on earth do you think they take so many showers, you dumb bitches!

Now, let's examine the motives of the girl. She was 15 and, at that age, a lot of young females are just beginning to discover the power they have over the male gaze.

Could her motive have been to attract the boys attention? She was wearing a bathing suit--could she have been, unconsciously, signaling "availability" instead of "check me out, I'm hot" and had her intentions mistaken by the stumbling-drunk guys?

There's one other thing: both sexes went to single-sex schools. In either case, the kids don't benefit from the experience of older students who can tell them when their behavior is inappropriate. In coed schools, often some older kid will tell you when you've crossed a line. Not so, in single-sex schools BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW.

In coed schools you learn appropriate behavior because the older kids tell you "Hey Tommy, you can't just grab a girl's boob like that! Do it again and we're gonna kick your ass!"

Which brings me to another point: Describing this as "attempted rape" is complete horseshit! More likely than not, all Kavanaugh wanted to do was touch her boobs. Does no one understand the fascination tits have for young males? Holy Shit! They even have a name for it: First Base! Seventeen year-old males can ejaculate just from getting a handful of bare-naked boob!

Calling this "attempted rape" is feminist bullshit. This was nothing more than drunken high-school grab-ass groping.

If anyone wants to nail Kavanaugh for something--and someone should because he's a real piece-of-shit--it's his finances. FT posted a link about it but it didn't get much play so I'm gonna post it again:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/the-many-mysteries-of-brett-kavanaughs-finances/

Sadly, this probably won't get much play in the general media because stupid bitches like Nancy Pelosi think the sex angle will be more productive.

PkrBum wrote: Given her version... it's still highly  unproven.

Well it likely can't be "proven."   This is a matter of credibility and what is more likely than not.  

Personally, I'd say the story is more likely to be true than not.   How relevant the incident is as to whether Kavanaugh is suitable for the Supreme Court today is another matter. I've heard several (in my off-line life) say it's not ... and some who say it is. I'm actually kind of on the fence about it.

I will say this though .... I was a 17 year old boy, and I've also been the father of a 15 year old girl.  I did my share of running around, parties, drinking, and chasing girls when I was a teen, but I can tell you this ... I have never, and would never, even in my most drunken moment have even thought of shutting a girl in a room against her will, forcibly pinning her down, groping her, and putting my hand over her mouth to stifle her crying out against it.   It's just not how I was raised and would have not been considered to be "okay" among any guys I can recall in my immediate peer group.  When/where I was raised there was a certain idea taught to most young men about "honorable" behavior toward women. A kind of "chivalry" if you will. I guess that's just an old-fashioned out-of-date thing nowadays though?

One of the things I don't like about Kavanaugh are some of his views on the unitary executive.   For example he once wrote: “If the President has a constitutional objection to a statutory mandate or prohibition, the President may decline to follow the law unless and until a final Court order dictates otherwise,”    This would include laws passed by previous Congresses and Presidents, regardless of how many years ago they might have been passed.  Personally, I think Republicans ought to think twice about how far they want to take this whole "unitary executive" idea .... they might not care for the idea of it so much when some Democrat is in power and decides to go down that road.

I tried an exercise in memory. I tried to remember three high school drinking parties. Sitting in a basement behind the couch making out and trying to pull a sweater off with giggles and pure adolescent celebration. I remembered one party and I remembered the girls name, and I remember the words NO which I respected, but boys at that age want to get to the point, and have not gained the experience or poise which allows exchanges to be mutual and fun.

Now to answer the questions about lying forty years later. I could not remember any of the other parties with much detail or memory. I remember feeling breasts as I tried to remove clothing as we rolled around behind a couch in Bob Rehak's basement as other couples got drunk and were making out. I actually remember one other couple who was with us in the basement. Now if the girl told a story that I had put my hand over her mouth and sat on top of her with all my weight as I tried to remove her sweater.......I have NO recollection of that happening that way. To suggest that I was raping someone or the Judge was raping someone is fricking hysteria. The truth is both parties can be telling the truth in this situation, and in balance Dr. Ford's memory is different because his behavior was abnormal to her, and party boy probably was being aggressive and drunk all through high school.....but did he remember grouping a girl at a party when he was 17.....it is entirely credible that he forgot this and in fact has no recollection and does not believe this happened.

2seaoat wrote:..it is entirely credible that he forgot this and in fact has no recollection and does not believe this happened.

I guess I have a better memory than Kavanaugh and his wingman then (and perhaps you are a little senile )... I'm older than Kavanaugh and I have little doubt I would remember shutting a girl in a room against her will, forcibly pinning her down, and putting my hand over her mouth to shut her up as I "went for it"  Even in my most drunken moments.

Now I will grant him this ... perhaps this kind of behavior was so common for him at that age he doesn't remember this particular incident? Because, well ... there were so many!  

So perhaps he should not be confirmed based upon the fact he has a piss-poor memory?  Who knows what else he's forgotten?  

The effects of alcohol on memory are well documented. However, I will grant all things true in Dr. Ford's account. What relevancy does this have to the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice? None whatsoever. Why do you think there are statutes of limitation?

The purpose and effect of statutes of limitations are to protect defendants. There are three reasons for their enactment: A plaintiff with a valid cause of action should pursue it with reasonable diligence. By the time a stale claim is litigated, a defendant might have lost evidence necessary to disprove the claim.

2seaoat wrote:The effects of alcohol on memory are well documented.  However, I will grant all things true in Dr. Ford's account.  What relevancy does this have to the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice?  None whatsoever.  

I have had this discussion with a number of people off-line (some who are relatively apolitical), and I can tell you there are some who do consider it relevant. By reason of either the incident itself or by reason of Kavanaugh's denial.

2seaoat wrote:
Why do you think there are statutes of limitation?

The "statutes of limitation" are irrelevent. Again, as I tried to express in a previous post ... this is not a court of criminal law. This is, in fact, a court of public opinion. That's why we have a confirmation process. It's about "suitability." IMO, a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court nominee needs to be acceptable to just a bit more than 50.1% of the people. I'd be fine actually if they brought back the 60% confirmation rule the Demos threw out the window ... codified it in legislation or the Constitution even.

Okay, when you know your base are a bunch of idiots who will believe anything, it tends to make one cynical. I know this from watching years of the way Republicans treat their bovine herd of voters... but THIS is something I didn't suspect they'd even try!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/defense-kavanaugh-turns-theory-evil-lookalike-collapsing-ridicule-154852188.html

"Maybe it wasn't Kavanaugh... maybe it was his EVIL TWIN!"



Lawdy-lawd, they done hit the end of their chain and now they're just barkin'. Apparently there is no bridge too far with 'em.

The next defense of Judge Kav will be: So what if it did happen, she's 'mixed up' and besides she asked for it.

EmeraldGhost wrote:

2seaoat wrote:..it is entirely credible that he forgot this and in fact has no recollection and does not believe this happened.

I guess I have a better memory than Kavanaugh and his wingman then (and perhaps you are a little senile   )... I'm older than Kavanaugh and I have little doubt I would remember shutting a girl in a room against her will, forcibly pinning her down, and putting my hand over her mouth to shut her up as I "went for it"  Even in my most drunken moments.

Now I will grant him this ... perhaps this kind of behavior was so common for him at that age he doesn't remember this particular incident? Because, well ... there were so many!  

So perhaps he should not be confirmed based upon the fact he has a piss-poor memory?  Who knows what else he's forgotten?  

zsomething wrote:   I know this from watching years of the way Republicans treat their bovine herd of voters....

You say that as though the Demos don't have a herd of bovine voters themselves

Who you tryin' to kid, 'Z' ?  

Uh oh...

EmeraldGhost wrote:

zsomething wrote:   I know this from watching years of the way Republicans treat their bovine herd of voters....

You say that as though the Demos don't have a herd of bovine voters themselves

Who you tryin' to kid, 'Z' ?  

Another bovine voter herd from

EmeraldGhost wrote:

zsomething wrote:   I know this from watching years of the way Republicans treat their bovine herd of voters....

You say that as though the Demos don't have a herd of bovine voters themselves

Who you tryin' to kid, 'Z' ?  

Oh, there are some stupid Dems, but the idiocy gap between the Dems and the Repubs ain't even close. Dems are like "well, maybe $15 an hour minimum wage is feasible nationwide," stupid while Repubs are like "we need legislation that says we can teach that the world is 6000 years old in school because a bearded man in a nightgown who lives in the sky said so!" stupid. Dems can be a bit naive at times, while Repubs are like playing-with-their-own-shit-in-the-parking-lot-of-Seven-Eleven stupid.

Hell, dude, I just got through listening to a Republican co-worker who thinks pouring melted aluminum into ant beds is probably a really good method of killing ants. (She didn't know the guy she saw on YouTube was making sculptures). I mean, yeah, it'll kill ants, sure, but I figure it's pretty inefficient to raze the mountains to get the bauxite when boiling water would do the same trick, if that's the goal.

I deal with these people every day... their moronism is colossal. It's why talk radio is so huge on the right but never really catches on on the left... there's something in conservative brains that want to be fooled, taking things on blind idiot faith, while libs drive each other crazy analyzing the hell out of everything, questioning, verifying, and nuancing things to death. Both sides have their flaws, but the gobsmacking-dumbass factor is far more a conservative thing than a liberal one.

zsomething wrote:

EmeraldGhost wrote:

zsomething wrote:   I know this from watching years of the way Republicans treat their bovine herd of voters....

You say that as though the Demos don't have a herd of bovine voters themselves

Who you tryin' to kid, 'Z' ?  

Oh, there are some stupid Dems, but the idiocy gap between the Dems and the Repubs ain't even close.   Dems are like "well, maybe $15 an hour minimum wage is feasible nationwide," stupid while Repubs are like  "we need legislation that says we can teach that the world is 6000 years old in school because a bearded man in a nightgown who lives in the sky said so!" stupid.   Dems can be a bit naive at times, while Repubs are like playing-with-their-own-shit-in-the-parking-lot-of-Seven-Eleven stupid.  

Hell, dude, I just got through listening to a Republican co-worker who thinks pouring melted aluminum into ant beds is probably a really good method of killing ants.   (She didn't know the guy she saw on YouTube was making sculptures).   I mean, yeah, it'll kill ants, sure, but I figure it's pretty inefficient to raze the mountains to get the bauxite when boiling water would do the same trick, if that's the goal.  

   I deal with these people every day... their moronism is colossal.   It's why talk radio is so huge on the right but never really catches on on the left... there's something in conservative brains that want to be fooled, taking things on blind idiot faith, while libs drive each other crazy analyzing the hell out of everything, questioning, verifying, and nuancing things to death.   Both sides have their flaws, but the gobsmacking-dumbass factor is far more a conservative thing than a liberal one.  

Thinking hurts conservative brains. That's why some of them smoke a lot of pot and become glibturds.