Friday, September 28, 2018

Lindsey Graham and Orrin Hatch are staunch Brett Kavanaugh supporters, probably because they want to keep gay accusers from their own pasts underground

Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh

Two Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are closeted gays who likely are staunch supporters of Brett Kavanaugh -- and doubters of his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford -- because they want to ensure that ugly incidents from their own pasts never surface, according to a report from a D.C.-based investigative journalist.

Wayne Madsen reports that Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) are well known among Washington insiders as closeted homosexuals with histories of having inappropriate physical contact with men -- not unlike the conduct Ford spelled out against Kavanaugh in yesterday's contentious Senate hearing.

Hatch blasted the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings as "worse than [those involving] Robert Bork -- I didn't think it could get worse than that." Graham essentially pitched a fit in the hearing room, claiming Democrats were trying to destroy the nominee's life.

Lindsey Graham
Why were Graham and Hatch so adamant in arguing that Kavanaugh was the "victim" of an unjust process? Wayne Madsen Report (WMR) provides clues about that:

Two Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee have had good reason to attack women who have come forward with allegations that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted them while they were teens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Orrin Hatch of Utah fear that if any credence is given to Kavanaugh's accusers, men who they have accosted in the past may be emboldened to reveal their stories.

Graham and Hatch, according to our well-informed sources on Capitol Hill and in the state capitals of Columbia, South Carolina and Salt Lake City, Utah, are two of the most closeted gay men in the U.S. Senate. Graham is a never-married bachelor, while Hatch, a Mormon, is married with six children. WMR was informed about Graham by two journalists with South Carolina's leading newspaper of record, The State, in Columbia. An opposition research official working for Hatch's 2004 Democratic opponent in the U.S. Senate race provided information on Hatch's closeted nature. Hatch was a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1991 and he took part in the grilling of Clarence Thomas's sexual harassment accuser, Anita Hill.

Madsen has written before about "lifestyle issues" surrounding Hatch and Graham. From a November 2017 WMR article:

It’s not just by Utah Mormon standards that Hatch is weird. In 2006, this editor was contacted by someone doing opposition research for Hatch’s Democratic opponent. I was asked, “Did you know Hatch is gay?” I knew Larry Craig from Idaho was gay, but I’d never heard about Hatch. It turns out that Hatch’s closet door was wide open in Utah, because just about everyone in Utah politics had heard about Hatch’s alternate life style.
Orrin Hatch
 An example of Hatch’s hypocrisy was on display in 1977, when Hatch said of gay school teachers, “I wouldn't want to see homosexuals teaching school anymore than I'd want to see members of the American Nazi Party teaching school.” Hatch now seems to be fine with the president of the United States being the son of a suspected member of the American Nazi Party in the 1920s and 30s. Hatch’s bifurcated personality on gay rights was evident when he opined that gay marriage will be legal across the country in time, though he doesn't agree with it. The U.S. Supreme Court later ruled that gay marriage is legal in the United States.

Madsen's reporting on whispers surrounding Lindsey Graham date at least to 2010:

WMR was recently told by South Carolina-based journalists that they are amazed that South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham's homosexuality has not been reported in Washington. Graham is also one of the beneficiaries of President Obama's overturning of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that now permits gays and lesbians to openly serve on active duty. Graham is a Judge Advocate General Colonel in the U.S. Air Force. In 2004, Graham voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which prohibited gay marriages. Graham has recently received a zero rating from the gay rights Human Rights Campaign for his opposition to gay rights legislation.

Bottom line: Orin Hatch and Lindsey Graham are two of Brett Kavanaugh's staunchest defenders, and it might have nothing to do with the nominee's qualifications. It likely has everything to do with the desires of Hatch and Graham to ensure that no gay accusers from their pasts are emboldened to come forward.


Anonymous said...

No surprise about Lindsey Graham; definitely a surprise about Orrin Hatch and not sure I believe that one.

Anonymous said...

Why was Kavanaugh sniffing so much yesterday, just like Trump in the presidential debates with HRC?

Anonymous said...

Looks like the Senate is a dysfunctional mess, just like our courts and the White Houwse.

God help us.

Anonymous said...

Never seen someone whine like Kavanaugh, never seen a politico rant like Graham.

Anonymous said...

I never had any respect for Kavanaugh to begin with, but I don't see how anyone could respect him yesterday.

legalschnauzer said...

One of the most insightful articles I've seen on Kavanaugh hearings:

Anonymous said...

Has any federal nominee ever been so disrespectful to U.S. senators?

legalschnauzer said...

Magazine of Jesuits urges withdrawal of Kavanaugh nomination:

legalschnauzer said...

Republicans push their own prosecutor to the sidelines after she poses uncomfortable questions re: July 1 calendar entry. From WaPo:

The moment Rachel Mitchell squeezed Kavanaugh to admit that "skis" was an oblique reference to beer, and seeing the name "Judge" in that July 1 entry, Lindsay Graham immediately realized that Mitchell was doing her job too well; that's when Graham and his majority agreed to breach their own procedure of supposedly having Mitchell examine BOTH WITNESSES. Prior to the hearing, the majority did not announce that Mitchell was retained only to question Ford. The majority announced that Mitchell was to question BOTH witnesses. It's only when the majority realized that things weren't going well for them that, during the lunch break, the majority hatched a tactical plan to renege and breach their own procedure and went into full attack mode by majority senators reclaiming their 5 minutes each. And it's for certain that Lindsay Graham made a full commitment to that plan when Rachel Mitchell busted Judge Kavanaugh's balls by compelling him to admit that the July 1 calendar reference to "skis" meant that on July 1 Kavanaugh had beers with Mark Judge and others, including the boy who Ford says she was hanging out with that summer and who introduced her to Kavanaugh and Judge.

legalschnauzer said...

Compelling analysis of Kavanaugh July 1 calendar entry from

Anonymous said...

Amazed that Kavanaugh -- with all kinds of evidence that he was a teen-aged drunk -- admitted that he still likes beer and still drinks beer.

legalschnauzer said...

From Jonathan Chait of New York magainze:

Why do I believe Kavanaugh is lying? The charges are credible, and his accusers are willing to put themselves at risk, with no apparent gain to bring them to the public. Kavanaugh has said too many things that strain credulity for all them to be plausibly true. He almost certainly lied about having had access to files stolen by Senate Republicans back when he was handling judicial nominations in the Bush administration. His explanation that the “Renate Alumni” was not a sexual reference is difficult to square with a fellow Renate Alumnus’s poem ( “You need a date / and it’s getting late / so don’t hesitate / to call Renate”) portraying her as a cheap date. His insistence “boof” and “devil’s triangle” from his yearbook were references to flatulence and a drinking game drew incredulous responses from people his age who have heard these terms. His claim that the “Beach Week Ralph Club” was a reference to a weak stomach seems highly unlikely.

The accretion of curious details ultimately overwhelms the small possibility that he is a man wronged. The conviction he summoned is the righteous belief of an adult who feels he should not be denied the career reward due to him by the errors of his youth, and who decided from the outset to close the door to that period in his life. Perhaps he believes he has made amends for his cruelty. I see a liar who has the chance to prove his good faith innocence, and has conspicuously refused.