Flake’s Version: Yep, It Was Coons

Filed in National by on September 29, 2018

From an article in The Atlantic by Mary Coppins, who asked Jeff Flake if the impassioned lecture he got from a rape survivor spurred his compromise call for a limited FBI investigation (emphasis mine):

I don’t know if there was any one thing, but I was just unsettled. You know, when I got back to the committee, I saw the food fight again between the parties – the Democrats saying they’re going to walk out, the Republicans blaming everything on the Democrats.

And then there was Chris Coons making an impassioned plea for a one-week extension to have an FBI investigation. And you know, if it was anybody else I wouldn’t have taken it as seriously. But I know Chris. We’ve traveled together a lot. We’ve sat down with Robert Mugabe. We’ve been chased by elephants, literally, in Mozambique. We trust each other. And I thought, if we could actually get something like what he was asking for—an investigation limited in time, limited in scope—we could maybe bring a little unity.

We can’t just have the committee acting like this. The majority and minority parties and their staffs just don’t work well together. There’s no trust. In the investigation, they can’t issue subpoenas like they should. It’s just falling apart.

So yeah, it was Bipartisan Man employing his secret weapon, friendship, that opened the door to, at least potentially, finding out how much of a creep and liar Brett Kavanaugh actually is. Strong evidence that Coons’ approach has its rewards.

About the Author ()

Who wants to know?

Comments (40)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. puck says:

    The figurative jury is still out on the rewards. By forcing a crippled investigation, Flake may have neutralized Democrats’ strongest argument. Flake may yet end up a conservative hero on this vote.

    • Alby says:

      A few conservatives see it that way as well, that this negates the Democrats’ best argument. I don’t see that happening. No serious investigation is going to exonerate him; all it can do is reach no conclusion. And the Democrats’ actual best argument is that whatever actually happened in 1982, his lying about all sorts of little things in defending himself ought to be disqualifying for any sort of judge.

      As for Flake being a hero, the GOP base doesn’t care about the fig leaf he’s providing. They view this as a delay, pure and simple.

  2. jason330 says:

    The every GOP member of congress has to go on an adventure to trip Africa with Coons in order to not be partisan a-holes?

  3. Ben says:

    It works on repukes like Flake…. Who won’t exist in congress anymore after he leaves.

  4. SussexAnon says:

    Flake is no profile in courage. He could have simply voted NO in committee and be done with it.

    • Alby says:

      He’s a doctrinaire conservative. He wants Kavanaugh confirmed, and from his (and his party’s) standpoint this helps. They’re seeking to give the appearance of legitimacy to their actions.

  5. Dave says:

    It matters not about the investigation. It is simply allowing more time for things to happen. Kavanaugh appears to be damaged goods with his emotional testimony, blatant partisanship and even the Clinton revenge meme. In order for SCOTUS to be effective, there must be at least the appearance of neutrality (lifetime appointment unhindered by petty politics). Additionally, Trump found the Ford and her testimony to be credible. The FBI investigation provides time for the death spiral. It’s the same result as jumping off a cliff. It just takes longer to hit the ground. I don’t normally predict things, because I hate being wrong, but I think Kavanaugh will decide not to put himself and his family through any more turmoil and exit stage left. Dinner discussions at the Kavanaugh house will be interesting.

  6. When is an investigation NOT an investigation? When the Rapist-In-Chief limits the scope of said investigation:

    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/29/1800065/-Trump-crippling-FBI-investigation-into-Kavanaugh-Drinking-witnesses-and-Swetnick-off-the-table

    WWCS? What will Chris say?

  7. bamboozer says:

    The Republican goal was not to be seen as beating up on a woman, the victim. That failed magnificently when Graham went ballistic and he was followed by all the rest in full attack mode, they blew the game and showed their true inner ugly. The attempt at a well managed show failed quickly, with Kavanaugh giving a bravura performance on what not to do at a hearing. The crying, the anger, that total lack of cool should have been enough to kill the nomination. But that’s only in the real world, not congress.

  8. jason330 says:

    https://youtu.be/VRJecfRxbr8

    SNL cold open was very funny last night. No Coons depiction though.

    • Paula says:

      A lot of that skit was lifted right out of the transcripts, down to Graham’s “southern single white man” (Kate McKinnon is brilliant!). I hope someone comes up with an annotated version of that.

  9. RE Vanella says:

    Please note: Senator Chris Coons’ one day reprieve has expired. Fuck Chris Coons.

    If Kavanaugh is confirmed, which is still likely, it’ll be the perfect example of bipartisanship©. Everyone licks ass and we lose again.

    I hope this doesn’t happen course, but let’s see.

    My thoughts will be with all my brothers and sisters back in the street tomorrow. Work hard, stay safe & fuck the police.

    Solidarity.

    • jason330 says:

      “If Kavanaugh is confirmed, which is still likely, it’ll be the perfect example of bipartisanship©. Everyone licks ass and we lose again.”

      ^Yep^

    • Alby says:

      C’mon now. Democrats have already gotten more out of this than anyone had any right to expect.

      Seating Kavanaugh will give Democrats enough ammunition to carry them through November 2020 and beyond. Every time the GOP rams something through against popular support it turns more independents against them. An awful lot of people consider themselves independents because they don’t want someone telling them what to do, and Republicans keep demonstrating that their idea of “small government” is one that wants to regulate your sex life, but not theirs.

      And I strongly doubt whether any male Republican will ever get 53% of white women’s vote again in my lifetime.

      • Rufus Y. Kneedog says:

        I think they’ve gotten more out of it than they expected because there was more there than anyone expected. If Feinstein had known Ford’s allegation was credible, I think she would have handled it differently.

        • Alby says:

          I’m still flabbergasted that so few people care about the lying. You can be a piggishly entitled man and sit on the court — we know because one already does — but I don’t think I’m setting the bar too high when I ask for honest people on the bench, at every level. Being caught lying should be grounds for immediate termination, at every level.

  10. Kelly says:

    I don’t know why the Democrat are making a big deal about having an investigation they all said they don’t plan on voting for his confirmation anyway. The remarks about old white men is going to come back and bit the Democrats is n the ASS. Chris Coons will never get my vote against.

    • Alby says:

      What remarks about old white men? How will it hurt Democrats when most of the old white men are Republicans?

      Investigation is the way you try to determine truth. If you’re against it, you must not be interested in finding the truth. I think I know why. The guy’s a lying pig, and almost certainly has done these things and probably worse.

  11. Dave says:

    “but I don’t think I’m setting the bar too high ”

    This is the Supreme Court of the United States of America, emphasis on Supreme. Thus prefacing your statement, “too high” is a non-sequitur.

    The question should always be asked, “Have we set the bar high enough?” I have no qualms about the height of bar disqualifying all but very very few people, who make such life altering far reaching decisions.

  12. Kelly says:

    Alby

    I definitely want the truth. I don’t thing he is a pig. I hope he gets confirmed because he deserves it. I just don’t like all the bull shit he has to go through to get there.

    • RE Vanella says:

      Kelly, very poor take.

      You’re better when gossiping about petty feuds in Forty Acres

    • Alby says:

      He deserves it? On what grounds? He was a partisan political operative. I don’t want that sort of person on the bench, no matter what party’s dirty work they did.

      In what way do you want the truth? I’ve heard enough from enough different people to conclude he lied his ass off about what a swell guy he is. He drinks too much, apparently has some sort of financial problems that, given his confirmed sports fandom probably has something to do with gambling, and he’s a sanctimonious, misogynistic asshole, something I saw with my own eyes.

      Every recovering alcoholic I know has let me know they saw an aggressive drunkard at that hearing.

      Now what have you got other than your prejudices to back up your position?

      • Rufus Y. Kneedog says:

        I think its possible to outgrow a high school / college drinking problem. People who knew me at that time would have told you I drank to excess with regularity – it was the cool thing to do back then and I was immature enough that being cool was important to me. To me, that’s not a disqualifier. But lying about it and saying he had no recollection of the incident with Dr. Ford….all I can say is we as a country can do better.

    • Dave says:

      deserves (third person present) – to something or have or show qualities worthy of reward or punishment.

      A justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is not a reward. No one deserves it. It is a position that resolves critical legal issues of the nation. It requires a sound legal mind, intimate knowledge of the Constitution, significant experience in law, reasoned thought, AND the ability to hew to Constitutional legal principles without emotion, bias, or partisanship throughout the entire spectrum of political thought.

      Kavanaugh’s outburst at the hearing displayed all those things after the “AND” and thus is disqualified, even if nothing happened in his past. If there is one thing the hearings (including Ford’s testimony) achieved it was to surface those shortcomings.

  13. RE Vanella says:

    “all of the bull shit he has to go through” is called politics. That’s just how it goes.

    Al handled the “deserves it” part. That’s just nonsense.

  14. Kelly says:

    Vanella
    I live in forty acres.!!!!!!

  15. RE Vanella says:

    Of course you do. That’s why I said it.

    Plus, who else would post shit about Bud Freel’s personal life. The only people who care about esoteric gossip like that live west of DuPont, east of Union, north of Delaware Ave and south of Lovering.

    I also live in Forty Acres.

  16. Kelly says:

    Vanella
    For your information I was born and raised in Little Italy. As for Bud Freel he deserves everything I say about him, because he fucked a lot of people in his life time. It’s whatever he wants and he will do anything to get it. Isn’t Velda Jones Potter our Treasurer. I rest my case.

  17. Alby says:

    @Kelly: Brett Kavanaugh also fucked a lot of people in his life time. You just don’t know them personally so you don’t care.

  18. Kelly says:

    I am sad to say I do know him personally. Why do you think he didn’t run for council at large again, because he knew he couldn’t win city wide because he stabbed so many people in the back, so he run for the 8th district because he felt more secure. Actually Tracy Scofield should be in that seat but he talked her out of running for it which was not fair since she got the job after Gerry Brady left it. Nice guy Mr. Freel.

  19. Dana Garrett says:

    I don’t see any virtue in Coons negotiating an ill-defined limit in the scope of the investigation. Trump gets to define the scope and he can limit it in a way that Republicans can claim is exculpatory for Kavanaugh. When the Dems complain about the half-assed investigation, the Repubs will retort that the Dems can’t be satisfied. Coons just gave the Repubs another arrow in their quiver.

  20. RE Vanella says:

    Only dummies see Coons’ move as virtuous. It’s politics. We got a week delay at minimum. Let’s see what happens.

    As far as the claim regarding Democrats inability to be satisfied. Who cares. They didn’t give Garland a hearing so I could care less what Republicans retort. Republicans do dirty underhanded shit on the regular. It’s never an arrow in the opposition’s quiver. It’s very usually one through their chest plate.

    You guys have to toughen up. Some of you are ill-prepared.

    • Dana Garrett says:

      You may not care. That’s hardly a strength. Every decent Democrat doesn’t care what the Repubs think. But do the voters in the middle care? Will they care this November or in 2020? I’m not one to weigh every consideration with how it plays politically, but I see no benefit in pretending that occasional tactical moves have no political consequences. That’s la la land thinking.

  21. RE Vanella says:

    Sure there are consequences for some political moves.

    I’m talking about this situation. If you’re worried about how the Democrats will be smeared if the continue to delay or get the nomination pulled that’s fine. I’m not.

    Fuck ’em. Fight everywhere and use every tactic. Not doing so hasn’t really be successful. The idea that the voters “in the middle” will care how the win was achieved is obsolete thinking. Absolutely zero evidence to believe this.