THE RED FLAG ASKS: WHAT'S ONE MORE SEX OFFENDER ON THE SUPREME COURT MATTER?

Bruce Lowell Braley (born October 30, 1957) is a retired American politician and attorney who served as the U.S. Representative for Iowa's 1st congressional district from 2007 to 2015. A member of the Democratic Party, he was defeated in his attempt to win Tom Harkin's open seat in the 2014 United States Senate election in Iowa.[1]

Chuck Grassley's Jarring Presence at the Kavanaugh-Ford Hearing

Updated on September 27 at 2:34 p.m. ET

Wary of having a group of mostly older men interrogating Christine Blasey Ford, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee opted to hire Rachel Mitchell, a sex-crimes prosecutor, to question the woman who has accused the Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of attempting to rape her in high school.

But the GOP plan had one hiccup: It still meant that one member, Chairman Chuck Grassley, would speak. Through the first few hours of the hearing Thursday, the Iowa Republican has been a prominent, and often jarring, presence. Grassley struck a combative tone in his opening statement, promptly tangled with ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein, and has interrupted to comment on the proceedings.

Grassley kicked the hearing off with a feisty set of remarks. He began with an apology to both Kavanaugh and Ford for the treatment they and their families have received. “I intend hopefully for today’s hearing to be safe, comfortable, and dignified for both of our witnesses,” he said. “I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort of a show of civility.”

Grassley then proceeded to criticize Feinstein for not making Ford’s account public sooner (“The ranking member didn’t ask Judge Kavanaugh about the allegations when she met with him privately in August”); Democrats for not speaking to Kavanaugh after the allegations first became public (“Democratic staff was invited to participate and could have asked any questions they wanted to, but they declined. Which leads me, then, to wonder, if true, why wouldn’t you want to talk to the accused?”); Democrats for their behavior in a previous hearing on Kavanaugh (“This will be a stark contrast to the grandstanding and chaos that we saw from the other side during the previous four days in this hearing process”); and Ford, for her reluctance to testify (“My staff made repeated requests to interview Dr. Ford during the past 11 days, even volunteering to fly to California to take her testimony, but her attorneys refused to present her allegations to Congress. I nevertheless honored her request for a public hearing so Dr. Ford today has the opportunity to present her allegations under oath”).

Then the floor came to Feinstein, who addressed Ford directly and tartly chastised Grassley.

“Good morning, Dr. Ford,” she said. “Thank you for coming forward and being willing to share your story with us. I know this wasn’t easy for you. But before you get to your testimony, and the chairman chose not to do this, I think it’s important to make sure you’re properly introduced.”

Grassley immediately interrupted Feinstein, as perhaps she expected he might. “By the way, I was going to introduce her, but if you want to introduce her, I would be glad,” he said. “I didn’t forget to do that, because I would do that just as she was about to speak.”

That clash between 85-year-olds set the tone for the hearing to come. Something that someone said—whether it was a Democratic member, Ford herself, or Mitchell—would get Grassley’s goat, and he’d insist on jumping in. And when he did, he came across as crotchety and cranky, just what Mitchell’s insertion was meant to prevent.

One of the problems was procedural. According to the rules of the hearing, each side gets five minutes, in turns, to question the witness. Democratic senators are doing that themselves, while each Republican is yielding to Mitchell. Mitchell, a seasoned prosecutor, is used to working without such strict limits, and has proceeded with careful, incremental questions. As Mitchell worked through her first round, Grassley had to interrupt her and cut her off to keep to time.

At another moment, Grassley cut in when Ford said she’d concluded that asking to be questioned in California was “unrealistic”; he said his staff would have been willing to question her where she lives. (Ford said she gets anxious about flying.)

As the committee prepared to take its first break, Grassley testily replied to Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, who’d just concluded his questioning.

“I can’t let what Durbin, Senator Durbin said [stand],” he said. “Between July 30 and September 13, there were 45 days this committee could have been investigating this situation, and her privacy would have been protected. So something happened here in between on your side that the whole country—not the whole country should have known about it, no, not know about. We should have investigated it.”

Grassley intended to criticize Democrats for not bringing the allegations forward, but his point undercut itself: His statement that the matter warranted investigation seems at odds with his haste in scheduling a vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination.

As a matter of the chairman’s privilege to speak, Grassley is well within his rights. But as a matter of appearance, he is not acquitting himself especially well. Grassley seems peevish, cranky, and stentorian, and keeps finding himself correcting or interrupting women. Such images were exactly what Republicans hoped to avoid in the hearing.

Yet the nature of Grassley’s interruptions is perhaps telling. Consistently, he has cut in to defend the process by which he has shepherded the nomination through the Judiciary Committee. If the goal of Thursday’s hearing is to vindicate Kavanaugh, the initial conventional wisdom is that the Ford session was a failure. Ford came across as credible, sincere, and earnest; Mitchell, if she was trying to do so, didn’t land a blow; and Democrats played up Ford’s sympathy, with Feinstein memorably declaring, “This is not a trial of Dr. Ford. It’s a job interview for Judge Kavanaugh.” Fox News’ Chris Wallace declared it a “disaster,” and people close to Trump reportedly agreed.

If the goal, however, was for Grassley to vindicate his own approach to the nomination—or to inoculate himself from blowback if Kavanaugh’s nomination is pulled—then the pattern of Grassley’s interruptions starts to make a great deal of sense. It may not play well with the nation as a whole, but that might not be the goal.

As Ford’s testimony was closing around 2 p.m., her lawyers asked that she be dismissed. Grassley asked that she wait for a moment while he wrapped up, then told his colleagues, “Let’s just be nice to her.” It was an unusual statement to make after her questioning by the prosecutor, and after his hours of interjections.  https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/chuck-grassley...

Charles Ernest Grassley (born September 17, 1933) is an American politician serving as the senior United States Senator from Iowa, a seat he was first elected to in 1980. A member of the Republican Party, he previously was a member of the Iowa House of Representatives (1959–1975) and of the United States House of Representatives (1975–1981). He chaired the Senate Finance Committee from January to June 2001, as well as from January 2003 to December 2006, and is now the current Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the 115th Congress. In January 2019, Grassley will become the most senior Republican serving in the United States Senate due to the retirement of Orrin Hatch[1] and the resignation of Thad Cochran.[2]

A Timeline Of Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill Controversy As Kavanaugh To Face Accuser

Activists chant during a protest outside the office of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa.  Alex Wong/Getty Images

Updated at 3:00 p.m. ET

It is still unclear exactly how and under what conditions Christine Blasey Ford will testify Thursday on Capitol Hill. Ford has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of a sexual assault when they were in high school.

But how all this is handled will have consequences, as it did 27 years ago when the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings dealing with sexual harassment allegations against Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.

Late in the summer of 1991, Democratic committee staffers began to hear rumors about Thomas sexually harassing one or more women who had worked with him. Anita Hill, who had worked with Thomas at the Department of Education and at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, eventually publicly accused him.

Here's a look back at how it all went down:

Sept. 6: Anita Hill, after twice refusing to discuss the matter with staffers, says she wants to think about it. Over that weekend, she mulls her options, torn between what she saw as her duty to provide information to the committee and her desire not to be publicly identified.

Sept. 10: The previously scheduled Thomas confirmation hearings begin. They last 10 days and focus entirely on Thomas' legal views, as expressed in his speeches and writings, including the decisions he wrote in his brief 18 months as a federal appeals court judge.

Sept. 20: The hearings end.

Away from the cameras, Democratic senators begin to worry about ignoring Hill's charges. A small group led by Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts urge committee Chairman Joseph Biden to take action. Biden, following standard practice, asks the George H.W. Bush White House to authorize a further FBI investigation, this time focused on Hill's charges.

Sept. 23: FBI agents interview Hill in Oklahoma. Hill also sends an affidavit to the committee.

Sept 25: FBI agents interview Thomas at his home in Virginia.

Sept. 27: The Judiciary Committee meets to vote on the nomination. While the Hill charges are still not public, Biden has kept the Republicans in the loop. And he makes this rather peculiar statement about Thomas, and his colleagues:

"I believe there are certain things that are not at issue at all. ... And that is his character. ... This is about what he believes." Speaking in warning tones, Biden added, "I know my colleagues, and I urge everyone else to refrain from personalizing this battle."

Up to that time, there had been no public suggestion that Thomas in any way lacked good character. That made this reporter, sitting in the press box, curious.

Oct. 6: NPR airs this reporter's story, laying out Hill's charges, including an interview with her — and information from a corroborating witness.

Oct. 7: Hill holds a press conference and says she is willing to testify.

Oct. 8: This is the day the final vote on the Thomas nomination had been scheduled. But Republicans realize they do not have enough certain votes for confirmation. Republican leader Bob Dole and the Democratic leader George Mitchell huddle. With the Democrats in control of the Senate, Democrats have the upper hand, but they agree to a second round of hearings to begin just three days later.

Oct. 11: Biden opens the hearings. "Professor Hill made two requests to this committee," he says. First, that the committee investigate the charges and, second, that the charges remain confidential. "I believe we have honored both her requests," he says, but "the landscape has changed, and we are thus here today, free from the restrictions, which had previously limited our work."

All the witnesses who would appear before the committee were subpoenaed and sworn. That included four corroborating witnesses who testified about their contemporaneous conversations with Hill during the time she said she was harassed.

But the main event was Hill versus Thomas: sex and lies, set to the tune of American racial stereotypes.

Two African-American Yale law school graduates from poor rural backgrounds.

She spoke with a quiet dignity, reciting the indignities she testified were visited upon her. "He talked about pornographic materials depicting individuals with large penises or large breasts, involved in various sex acts," she said. "On several occasions, Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess. "


And he, denying the charges in a fury, called the hearing "a national disgrace ... a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves."

Republicans went after Hill with vengeance. Sen. Arlen Specter accused Hill of "flat-out perjury" at one point. At another, he suggested her testimony was the "product of fantasy."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, who is still on the committee, suggested that she got the idea for some of her charges from the movie The Exorcist.

Democrats were sometimes flat-footed in their attempts to show that Hill had no motive to lie. "Are you a scorned woman. ... Are you a zealoting civil rights believer. ... Do you have a martyr complex?" asked Democratic Sen. Howell Heflin of Alabama.

Back then, Republicans like Hatch supported the FBI returning to its investigation and praised the committee's bipartisan leadership. "They immediately ordered this FBI investigation, which was the very right thing to do," Hatch said, noting that Biden and the committee's ranking Republican Strom Thurmond "did what every other chairman and ranking member have done in the past."

But having the FBI involved also frightened off some witnesses who were afraid that Thomas' supporters on the committee would use raw data from the files to harm their reputations.

Oct. 14 at 2:03 a.m.: The hearing ends.

Oct. 15 at 6:03 p.m.: Thomas is confirmed 52-48, the narrowest margin in more than a century.

But female voters rebelled, ushering in what came to be known as "The Year of The Woman" in 1992. Elected were four new female — and Democratic — members of the Senate, including Dianne Feinstein of California, now the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.

Republicans, and privately some Democrats, now blame her for keeping Ford's charges a secret since July. Feinstein says she was honoring Ford's decision to remain confidential.

Views: 39

Comment by mary gravitt on September 28, 2018 at 2:36pm

Writers are prophets--calling them Right and Left.  How do you like that Farmer in Charge?  He never went to Law Schools; knows very little about law, but has the power to appoint a sex offender as to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.  Does it make any difference?

Comment by J.P. Hart on September 28, 2018 at 5:42pm

Interesting~no clamor for Kavanaugh's LSAT score...nor Commander in Chief's tax file. & no, you don't have to be an attorney for either office nor a CPA; forevermore sober as a judge maybe obsolete

Yes gruff Senator Grassley seemed non-empathetic~partisan madness
Comment by marshall bjohnson on October 1, 2018 at 1:23pm

grassley is all about ethanol subsidies- other than that he's clueless. he's chairmanship of this committee is like an honorarium given to the oldest fart around willing to do it, a perk of being around forever, in the party in power and essentially a partisan hack. A true rooster (brn in '33) he struts and pecks and crows to keep everyone on time on schedule and inline but a leader he ain't...

Comment

You need to be a member of Our Salon to add comments!

Join Our Salon

NEW BLOG POSTS

1/1,024th

Posted by alsoknownas on October 16, 2018 at 7:30am 4 Comments

Trump is afraid of Elizabeth Warren

Posted by Dicky Neely on October 15, 2018 at 8:45pm 3 Comments

OS Lament.

Posted by Robert B. James on October 15, 2018 at 4:47pm 8 Comments

Why Benghazi Should not be Forgotten

Posted by Doc Vega on October 14, 2018 at 1:30pm 0 Comments

Enemy of the people!

Posted by Dicky Neely on October 14, 2018 at 11:43am 0 Comments

God's Punishment

Posted by Robert Young on October 13, 2018 at 6:00pm 3 Comments

© 2018   Created by lorianne.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service