It sounds like you're changing your tune now.
No idea why you'd think that. I supported the nomination before the hearing. During the hearing I noted that her testimony was consistent with what I'd expect from someone telling the truth and that I found his testimony on the point as good as could be proffered. In short, isolated that way I didn't see how a call could be made, and that would have worked in Kavanaugh's favor. Because if you can't tell what the truth is then you have to go with the truth you know and we're back to qualification.
But the judge went beyond that response and those remarks. It was in doing that where he lost my belief in and support for his nomination. Though I've also said that in making statements I found less than frank and credible outside of the question that sponsored the hearing it would be reasonable to apply a Latin maxim from school that was noted during the hearing, translated roughly as, to be false in one thing is to bring reasonable question as to the rest. If you apply it you might reduce the balance between the parties testimony and find for Dr. Ford, but I didn't alter my support on that principle.
So, do you think Kavanaugh should sue Ford?
No, because of the standard for public figures. He'd have to prove the testimony of Ford was willfully malicious. And he'd have his own testimony working against him, where he essentially fails to evidence any belief that that is the case, instead placing the blame elsewhere and inferring a serious mistake driven by trauma when it comes to Ford.
That would be hard for him to change now without looking like a calculating political operative, which might then throw the larger question into play.
Among the questions Dr. Ford's lawyer would ask (or more likely file in a successful motion to dismiss):
L: Justice Kavanaugh, and please limit your response to a yes or no, you're aware the standard for your suit would require either a knowing falsity on the part of Dr. Ford or a reckless disregard for the truth?
L: And referring back to the hearing where you offered testimony under oath, and again limiting your testimony to a yes or no, did you at any time level that accusation at Dr. Ford?
L: Again, limiting your response to a yes or no, didn't you, in fact, proffer something closer to that charge at others, at a larger conspiracy outside of Dr. Ford's person and control?
L: And again, limiting your answer to a yes or no, did you, in point of fact, testify and characterize Dr. Ford's testimony as mistaken and stemming from a trauma you found credible if misplaced?
L: And, limiting your answer to yes or no, is it your testimony now that you believe something differently about Dr. Ford's testimony?
L: And which time should we find you credible?
L: Now, Justice Kavanaugh, let's talk about your credibility, which is at the heart of your altered position before us today. Let's begin with your drinking...
Just not in his best interest to do it. Beyond the above Dr. Ford's team would be able to have witnesses subpoenaed and testimony and cross as a part of the public record. No, the Justice will leave this one alone and he should. There's little chance of gaining anything and a great deal to lose. He's going to look to rehabilitate his reputation from the bench, where he has control, and not from some court docket where he's again in a subordinate position, an environment he doesn't appear to exactly thrive in.
lain:
