Wednesday, 03 October 2018 20:28

The Sen. John Kennedy--Brett Kavanaugh testimony, 100% missed opportunity

Written by
Rate this item
(0 votes)

john brett

The nation’s eyes were on US Senator John Kennedy, Republican from Louisiana.  In his high-pitched, southern drawl, now institutionalized on cable news interviews, Kennedy asked Judge Brett Kavanaugh, if he believed in God. The other questions were carefully positioned so that Judge Kavanaugh  would realize the solemity of the moment and tell the Senator and the world that everything he said, he meant, under the risk of perjury. 


Kennedy was the last US Senator to question Kavenaugh. He did not ask any questions of Dr. Ford and left that up to the hired-gun prosecutor from Arizona.

The impression, of course, that Kennedy was able to project is that he asked the witness, under oath, whether he believed in the Lord and since the likely-future US Supreme Court Justice said he did and he was telling the truth, oddly-100% truth, then, Kennedy could say that he looked the Judge in the eye and Kavanugh revealed his soul.

But, what if Senator Kennedy had taken off his Republican garb for a few moments and truly probed for the truth.  What if just one of the Republican Senators would have removed bias.

Here is the testimony, whether by Senator Kennedy or by any of the other men who I wish would have probed even, perhaps, 1% a little deeper, last week: 

KENNEDY: Judge Kavanaugh, you just testified that you believe in God and you are telling the truth 100%, is that right?

KAVANAUGH: Yes. 100%, Senator Kennedy.

KENNEDY: Well, that is the exact same figure used by Dr. Ford when she testified earlier today. Didn’t you say that you did not hear any of the hearing from earlier this morning.

KAVANAUGH: Yes, that is what I said.

KENNEDY: So, 100%, is that a term you all used in high school, just wondering how you both came up with that number, especially since you testified that you had not heard her testimony.

KAVANAUGH: Well, you have to ask her, Senator.

KENNEDY: Ok, so let me change course for a second. You agree that a US Supreme Court Justice must be a symbol of truth, at all times, totally separated from politics, is that correct?

KAVANAUGH: indeed, I do, sir.

KENNEDY: You agree that what you say here today reflects upon your credibility as a future Judge, right?

KAVANAUGH: Of course.

KENNEDY: And, is it fair to say that if a Supreme Court nominee were to fudge or spin an answer under oath, that nominee just might not be believed, should he or she be appointed to this life-time job?

KAVANAUGH: Absolutely. You must believe the court. Truth is our lifeblood. Without it, there is no constitution.

KENNEDY: So, let us go back a little bit during your testimony. You were asked a number of times whether you would agree to a FBI investigation, right?

KAVANAUGH: Yes, I was.

KENNEDY: And your testimony has been that you don’t see any reason for an investigation because you claim there is no corroborated evidence to support Dr. Ford’s claim, correct?


KENNEDY: in fact, you have stated that the witnesses so far corroborate your version of the facts. You have stated that the very witnesses that Dr. Ford have cited so far in her testimony and letter, have said, in your own words, said the incident “never happened”. Is that correct?

KAVANAUGH: Yes sir. They said it didn’t happen.

KENNEDY: In fact, you stated, by my count about nine times that the witnesses all said that it did not happen, true?


KENNEDY: So, your testimony right now, as it has been before is this, I don’t think we need an FBI investigation because the so-called corroborating witnesses have said under oath by letter to the committee, that the incident did not happen?

KAVANAUGH: Exactly. Their sworn statements said it did not happen, therefore, there should be no further investigation, my family and I have gone through enough.

KENNEDY: When you made those statements that the witnesses, all three of them, swore under oath that it never happened, “you were positive that what you said was accurate and honest, under the threat of perjury, Judge Kavanaugh?

KAVANAUGH: Absolutely.

KENNEDY: You, as a federal judge know that a witness’s testimony must be accurate and without any ambiguity, right?

KAVANAUGH That’s right.

KENNEDY: And it is your testimony today, in front of the US Congress, that your statements are fact?


KENNEDY: That witnesses in all trials, anywhere in this country, must testify to fact and if they are uncertain, they should say they are uncertain?


KENNEDY: And of all people who would have a burden to testify to fact, it would be the person nominated to be US Supreme Court justice, for life?

KAVANAUGH: Absolutely, if the highest court in the land cannot stand up to the crucible of scrutiny for truth-telling, for veracity, for stating the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, under God, it can not adjudge any other lower court’s findings.

KENNEDY: Thank you Judge Kavanaugh. So, prior to the hearing today, had you reviewed the letters sent by these witnesses to the Senate Committee?

KAVANAUGH: Yes, I did. I am quite familiar with the testimony, just like I have been very familiar with all of the statements and documents so far today.

KENNEDY: So, let me read you the sworn statement of one Mark Judge, who wrote a letter through his attorney. That letter states, “"I did not ask to be involved in this matter nor did anyone ask me to be involved. The only reason I am involved is because Dr. Christine Blasey Ford remembers me as the other person in the room during the alleged assault

In fact. I have no memory of this alleged incident Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr Ford’s letter More to the point. I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr Ford describes

I have no more information to offer the Committee and I do not wish to speak publicly regarding the incidents described in Dr Ford's letter.'

Judge Kavanaugh, your testimony today repeatedly has been that Mark Judge said the event described by Dr. Ford, “didn’t happen”. Did he specifically and expressly state in the letter, that it did not happen?

KAVANAUGH: No, technically, he did not use those words. He said he has no memory of the alleged incident, does not recall the party and he never saw me act in this manner that Dr. Ford describes.

KENNEDY: So, he did not state the words, it did not happen. Those are your words that you used here repeatedly, correct:

KAVANAUGH: Well, you’re twisting things. Anybody reading what Ford wrote can only come to the conclusion that he is saying it did not happen.

KENNEDY: Perhaps, you can draw that inference, but he never said it, right?

KAVANAUGH: Well, not technically, but

KENNEDY: In fact, it is possible that it did happen, that Mark Judge does not recall the party and not recall the incident, right?


KENNEDY: And, Mark Judge also said, “ I never saw you act in the middle Dr. Ford describes, am I right?

KAVANAUGH: Exactly. Which is why I am saying, it never happened, if he would have been in the room, he would have seen it, but he says he never saw it, so therefore, it never happened.

KENNEDY: But those are your words, not his, correct?

KAVANAUGH: Well, yes, but..

KENNEDY: And so, if Mark Judge does not recall the party, does not recall the incident and have never seen you act in this way, why didn’t he state that it did not happen?

KAVANAUGH: You would have to ask him

KENNEDY: You did not ask him, but instead, you are interpreting his words, right?


KENNEDY: You also said that Mark Judge testified under oath. Would you call a letter written by the attorney, not signed by the person alleged to have made the statement, to be under oath? Would you accept as evidence, a letter written by the attorney and not signed or attested under the thread of perjury?

KAVANAUGH: Well, you’re getting technical. This is not a trial, it is only a hearing for a US Supreme Court appointment.

KENNEDY: True. But, if somebody wrote a letter making statements that you thought were adverse to you, wouldn’t you want that person to come in and testify so you could cross examine him or her, Judge?


KENNEDY: Moving on. Another potential witness, Ingrid Ingrahm Keyser said, through her counsel, “
"Simply put," Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford."

KAVANUGH: Exactly, you see, she says it did not happen.

KENNEDY: Well, where did she say that? Do you see those words, Judge?

KAVANAUGH: Well, no, but she is saying she does not know me, doesn’t recall me present at any party she attended.

KENNEDY: True. But, she specifically did not state in the letter that the incident did not happen, right?

KAVANAUGH: True, technically.

KENNEDY: In fact, you are aware that she later told one of the news media networks that she believes her friend. So, if she says it did not happen, how can she say, sir, that despite that, she believes her friend.

KAVANAUGH: Well, again, you’d have to ask her.

KENNEDY: So, you think we should have the FBI ask both Mark Judge and she if they will testify under oath that it never happened? You think we should therefore open the investigation?

KAVANAUGH: I did not say that.

KENNEDY: Ok, last witness, sir. Patrick J. Smyth issued this statement. "I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as 'PJ' who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post," I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh”

KAVANAUGH: Yes, that is what he wrote.

KENNEDY: Again, do you see anywhere in that statement where the witness said that the incident did not happen?

KAVANAUGH: No, but he’s saying that he has no knowledge of the party nor any knowledge of allegations of improper conduct, so if he has no knowledge of either, then..

KENNEDY: Then he has no knowledge, right? It does not mean, it does not happen, am I correct?

KAVANAUGH: Well, they are essentially the same.

KENNEDY: But they are not the same sir. You testified under oath, under the threat of perjury that your testimony today was 100 percent accurate. But, now, you are saying that you were summarizing what you thought the witnesses were saying, even though you had no conversation with them, isn’t that right?

KAVANAUGH: Well, sir, you are twisting my words

KENNEDY: Sir. Aren’t you twisting these witnesses words?

KAVANAUGH: NO. Not at all.

KENNEDY: In fact, on nine occasions, nine occasions, in this hearing, under oath, looking us in the eye, knowing you want to be the next Supreme Court Justice of these United States, you testified that the witnesses said it did not happen, when, you knew that is not what they said at all, correct?

KAVANAUGH: No sir. I did not think that the witnesses thought or considered anything else except what I said they said, that is, it didn’t happen.

KENNEDY: Judge Kavanaugh. On nine times, when asked whether you thought there should be an FBI investigation, you, in trying to support your position that there should not be one, said under oath, that these witnesses all said the incident did not happen. You not once said that they didn’t say it didn’t happen, they said, they did not recall. Not one time did you qualify your statements, out of nine occasions, to imply that maybe, they just did not know what happened?

KAVANAUGH: I was just trying to tell the truth.

KENNEDY: It is your testimony today, that you did not try to let this committee and America think that you did not need an FBI investigation because all of the evidence was soundly and totally uncontroverted, that Dr. Ford had her three witnesses all essentially saying she was either totally wrong, or lying?

KAVANAUGH: Oh, no. that never crossed my mind.

Read 2086 times Last modified on Wednesday, 03 October 2018 21:22

Dead Pelican

Optimized-DeadPelican2 1 1