It is a lovely early autumn Monday afternoon and a fresh week on the blog. The Candidate Forum had to shorten its week off because of two rapidly moving stories: Sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh and the controversy surrounding Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Where to begin? Why not start with DAG Rosenstein.
What is going on at the Department of Justice?
On September 21st, The New York Times reported that DG Rosenstein offered to secretly record the president, in the White House, in order to expose the turmoil engulfing he administration and discussed recruiting cabinet members to invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to remove Mr. Trump from office (nytimes.com; Sept. 21, 2018; date accessed Sept. 24, 2018). These suggestions were made in the spring of 2017, following the chaos in the wake of James Comey as F.B.I. director. In the days that followed, the president divulged classified information to the Russians, in the Oval Office, revelations came to light that the president demanded loyalty from Mr. Comey and end an investigation into a senior aide. Mr. Rosenstein was two weeks into his tenure and had just taken on the role of overseeing the Russia investigation and played a lead role in Mr. Comey's dismissal (Ibid).
Mr. Rosenstein has denied the story in The Times, issuing two statements, first,
The New York Times's story is inaccurate and factually incorrect. I will not further comment on on a story based on anonymous sources who are obviously biased against the Department and are advancing their own personal agenda.... But let me be clear about this: based on my personal dealings with the President, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment.... (cnn.com; date accessed Sept. 24, 2018)
Second,
I never pursued or authorized recording the President and any suggestion I have ever advocated for the removal of the President is absolutely false. (Ibid)
Regardless, DAG Rod Rosenstein's time in the Department of Justice may be short lived. His boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is already on thin ice. However Mr. Trump needs to tread very carefully because the specter of the special counsel looms in the background. If the President uses this as a pretext to fire Mr. Rosenstein, in order to fire the special counsel, it still may not save him because Robert Mueller would be required to turn over his documents to the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, who could decide how to proceed. The President and Mr. Rosenstein are meeting Thursday to discuss the future. Check out today's episode of the informative podcast The Daily (spotify.com; Sept. 24, 2018) for a brilliant explanation. The date coincides with the much anticipated testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Kavanaugh.
Just when you thought things were going smoothly...
...explosive allegations of sexual misconduct involving Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford splashed into the headlines.
Dr. Ford, a research psychologist at Palo Alto University, told The Washington Post (washingtonpost.com; Sept. 16, 2018; date accessed Sept. 24, 2018) that during a high school party in the early eighties, a drunken Judge Kavanaugh allegedly pinned her to a bed and began to grope her (nytimes.com; Sept. 16, 2018). Dr. Ford first disclosed this information to Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, in a letter sent to her in early July and requested confidentially. Senator Feinstein iniatially showed the letter to a select group of aides. However by late summer, the letter became an open secret. Interestingly, Sen. Feinstein chose to make it a back pocket item, to be taken out if necessary. Eventually, Dr. Ford chose to come forward and speak for the record. For an excellent explanation, check out last Tuesday's installment of The Daily (spotify.com; Sept. 18, 2018).
This set off a media firestorm, with self-proclaimed pundits offering their opinions on the matter. Friends, Yours Truly read some of the vitriol aimed at Dr. Ford and was not surprised about why sexual assault survivors do not come forward. No survivors comes forward simply for the attention. They come forward with the hope of receiving some measure of justice. Rather than be revictimized by the justice system and society at-large, the survivors stay silent. The trauma from that violent invasion so great that it obscures memories. In the meantime, other women came forward.
Yesterday, Ronan Farrow and Janet Mayer of The New Yorker (newyorker.com; Sept. 23, 2018; date accessed Sept. 24, 2018), reported a second allegation of sexual misconduct against Judge Kavanaugh. This incident is alleged to have taken place at a party at Yale University. Deborah Ramirez told Mr. Farrow and Ms. Mayer that a drunken Mr. Kavanaugh exposed himself and thrust is bare genitals in her face during a drinking game. For the record, Ms. Ramirez said that she was also drunk at the time. Also, Judge Kavanaugh has denied both allegations. Both Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez have requested an F.B.I. investigation but Dr. Ford has backed down from her request for an investigation in exchange for her testimony; the Senate has opened an investigation into the second allegation. Finally never one to miss an opportunity, Michael Avenetti, the verbose attorney for Stormy Daniels, tweeted about a third woman. All of this brings to mind a similar situation from he not too distant past: Anita Hill.
In 1991, then-President George H.W. Bush nominated then-Judge Clarence Thomas to fill the seat of retiring Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. In late summer 1991, Democratic committee staff members began hearing rumors that Judge Thomas sexually harassed one or more women who worked him. One of the women was Anita Hill, who worked with him at the Department of Education and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In early September, Ms. Hill decided to speak to the committee and asked for anonymity. Judge Thomas' confirmation hearings began on September 10 and ended ten days later. By the end of September, the F.B.I. interviews both Ms. Hill and Judge Thomas. In early October, Ms. Hill announced she would testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The members of the Committee excoriated Ms. Hill, at one point accusing her of lifting her story from The Exorcist. Eventually Judge Clarence Thomas was confirmed by the full Senate (npr.org; Sept. 23, 2018; date accessed Sept. 24, 2018). The question is has anyone learned anything from Anita Hill's truly terrible experience? Ms. Hill provides us with the solution.
In a recent Op-Ed in The New York Times, Ms. Hill offers very clear guidelines on how the Senate Judiciary Committee can get it right this time. The 2018 iteration of the Committee needs to demonstrate a clear understanding that sexual violence is a part of the social fabric that elected officials must respond to. Anita Hill, a professor of social policy and women's, gender and sexuality at Brandeis University, offers a few ground rules:
Refrain from pitting the public interest in confronting sexual harassment against the need for a fair confirmation hearing.... Select a neutral investigative body with experience in sexual misconduct cases that will investigate the incident in question and present its findings to the committee.... Do not rush these hearing. Doing so would not only signal hat sexual assault accusations are not important--.... Finally, refer to Christine Blasey Ford by name.... (nytimes.com; Sept. 18, 2018; date accessed Sept. 24, 2018)
Experience makes a person wiser.
The heightened awareness of sexual violence has made the public more sensitive to a survivors claims but in 1991, the situation was vastly different. No one believed Anita Hill. How was that possible? Justice Clarence Thomas' nomination was popular. A Gallup poll released in July of that year, not long after his nomination, showed that "52 percent of Americans supported his confirmation" (fivethirtyeight.com; Sept. 17, 2018; date accessed Sept. 24, 2018). Second, when Ms. Hill came forward to testify, Judge Thomas' support six percent. Although many Americans supported delaying the confirmation vote until Ms. Hill testified, her testimony did little to dissuade the public.."Forty-seven percent of Americans thought the accusations against Thomas were not true, while 21 percent thought they were..." (Ibid). Interestingly, perspectives began to shift a year after his confirmation, as more Americans began to believe Anita Hill. What changed? Women.
More to the point, how women perceived sexual harassment following Ms. Hill's testimony. Five years before Justice Thomas' confirmation, "...17 percent of Americans said sexual harassment was a 'big problem' for women in the workplace according to a Time/Yanklovich Clancy Shulman poll. The majority--67 percent--said it was 'somewhat of a problem" (Ibid). Once Ms. Hill's allegations surfaced, the polls presented numbers that suggested an increased sensitivity to sexual harassment. This increased months after the proceedings finished. The next question is how is Judge Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings being filtered through the #MeToo prism?
In a recent poll conducted by ABC News and The Washington Post, "72 percent of Americans said sexual harassment was a serious problem for women in the workplace--.... (Ibid)". This is a big jump from a similar poll conducted in 2011 in which "47 percent of Americans said that sexual harassment was a serious problem (Ibid)." Another difference, Judge Kavanaugh is not quite as popular as Justice Thomas.
Other difference include: Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation comes during a high,y polarized period in American politics. Ms. Hill worked for Justice Thomas while Judge Kavanaugh, Dr. Ford, and Ms. Ramirez were in their teens and there was alcohol involved. Finally, there is the issue of race. Both Justice Thomas and Ms. Hill are African Americans.
Given all the factors, it is hard to figure what the final outcome will be, confirmation or rejection. There are options: Delay Thursday's sure to be blockbuster hearings until a full investigation is completed or continue as planned and bring it to a vote before the full Senate. What if nomination is rejected? The President can nominate someone else. Now that would be the ultimate case of Karma biting hard if Mr. Trump nominated and the Senate confirmed Judge Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama's choice to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia's seat. However, complicating all of this is the upcoming midterm elections, which we will talk about on Wednesday.
No comments:
Post a Comment