The US Supreme Court deserves better.

You didn't have to watch the satirical show on Saturday night on US TV to guage how a lot of people are viewing the Kavanaugh/Blasey Ford battle. But it was a brilliant take-off of the angry, sniffing judge, over-emphasising for comical effect his aggressive, denial denial performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Did anyone come away from that extraordinary series of outbursts and actually think to themselves: "Yes this is a great guy and should be on the Supreme Court for his measured intellect and brilliant mind, never mind the sniffing." Well, the Republicans, except for Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, clearly thought he was a good guy, thus agreeing with President Trump's description of him. Now I realise that members of the Supreme Court don't have to be really really nice people. That's not part of the job requirements. But they do need to be seen as upright model citizens who have earned the right to sit in judgement on their fellow Americans. Whatever their politics they also need to be unbiased, balanced and thoughtful. After that deluge of hatred and anger and sniffing, does Brett Kavanaugh meet those basic requirements? Trump loved him for his outrage, and said so in a tweet, but I can't imagine there were many who would agree with him. He came across as an unpleasant in-your-face sort of bloke, not remotely calm or compassionate or understanding. He may well pass the FBI test - he has passed it six times already - and he may well end up sitting on the Supreme Court. But he will remain a wholly divisive figure and that cannot be good for justice in the United States.

Trump is going to win the Supreme Court battle

Listening to the Republican and Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee it's difficult to understand how an issue like sexual assault can be treated from such totally different viewpoints. The Democrats passionate for Christina Blasey Ford's position as the innocent and suffering victim and the Republicans determined to put her words to one side and to pursue with no more delay confirmation of Trump's nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court. What is odd in this whole thing is that the FBI who have to carry out background checks on all people offered key administration posts dredged up not a whisper of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. Now, ok, they didn't know about Christine Ford because she had kept her accusations against the judge to herself, her husband and her therapist. Her name only came out because someone who saw a confidential letter from her detailing her allegations leaked it. But did the FBI actually delve back to Kavanaugh's high school days or did they just start at, say, his time at Yale University, or perhaps even later? How comprehensive were they? Four women, one anonymous, have made accusations against Kavanaugh about bad or outrageous behaviour when he was younger. But if the FBI picked up on this, did they ignore it as youthful indiscretions? Did they, I wonder, ever have a chat with Mark Judge, the good friend of Kavanaugh who was allegedly "a witness" to the claimed sexual assault against Christine Ford? This man Judge could have been summoned to give evidence to the Judiciary Committee but after he had apparently said he had no recollection of any such incident, the Republicans on the committee ruled against him appearing before them. We can assume, however, that Judge would have maintained his position that he knows nothing. What about the Democratic members' appeal for the confirmation hearing to be delayed to allow a full investigation by the FBI? That would surely have been the fairest way forward. But somehow I doubt whether the mighty FBI would have got any further than anyone else. Professor Ford, convincing though her evidence was, could not remember where or exactly when the alleged incident took place. It would be difficult for the FBI to know where to start. Ok they would interview Mark Judge but if he stuck with his story that he has no recollection of any such assault, the FBI would have no one else to go to to try and corroborate Ford's accusation. I feel desperately sorry for her. By coming forward she was never going to win because whichever way the nomination went she would have been blamed.

Christine Blasey Ford gives rivetingly convincing evidence

This may be premature because, as I write, Professor Christine Blasey Ford is still answering questions about the assault she said she suffered at the hands of Judge Brett Kavanaugh when he was 17 and she was 15 at high school. She is giving very powerful evidence, it is dramatic and traumatic and wholly believable. It is difficult to imagine how Kavanaugh, nominee for the Supreme Court, can give an account that I assume will dispute her allegations. He has disputed everything up to this point. What is very disturbing and appalling is that since her name came into the public domain she has been subjected to a torrent of hatred and mysogeny, so much so that she and her family have had to move away for their own safety. It says a whole lot about the state of mind of certain people in the United States that they felt it was their right to attack and abuse a woman who had been brave enough to come forward about an alleged sex assault against her in the 1980s. Social media is fun when it's used for entertaining, pleasureable or informative reasons. But to use social media to spit out violence and hatred and prejudice should be criminally unlawful. This poor woman who has been speaking with tremendous dignity to the Senate Judiciary Committee and with the whole world able to watch on live stream on their mobiles, has already been trashed by the president of the United States. Perhaps it's no wonder that hate-filled bullyboys and maybe bullygirls too around the country have targeted Dr Ford as if she is some common street girl. From the evidence so far, this has been the most disturbing part of her testimony. Her friends advised her to make the alleged attack public, they advised her to go to the newspapers, they advised her to get a lawyer. But she knew, because she said so, that if she did she would run the risk of being villified by people who will never understand why a woman would keep secret such an incident for more three decades. Her fears were justified and now she will always be known as the woman who brought down President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court - if that is what happens. And it surely will.

Trump and his laughing audience

Donald Trump got a good laugh at the United Nations General Assembly but that was definitely not part of the script. A speech writer might often put a little note at the side in brackets after a paragraph containing something potentially funny: (pause for audience laughter). But the guffaws that erupted when Trump declared he had done more as a president in his first 18 months than any president in US history had clearly been written with a straight face. No laughter expected, so no bracketed advice. Trump didn't seem to mind, in fact it made him grin and he admitted he had not expected such a response. Either his skin is made of rhino hide or he just didn't get it. On the whole I think it was unfortunate that delegates burst out laughing but I guess they couldn't stop themselves. What is amazing is that the president's speechwriter included such a passage, or may he didn't and it was Trump who inserted it. Surely someone in the White House team must have feared that making such a claim would bring the wrong reaction from the UN delegates? But maybe they are all now so scared of the Apprentice King president that no one dares speak up. Sarah Huckabee Sanders MUST have considered this. She's the press secretary, she knows how reporters react when she makes outlandish claims on behalf of her boss. Laughing at the president of the United States of America might have some unpredictable consequences. Just look at John Bolton's speech in New York yesterday. The national security adviser threatened any European government with "terrible consequences" if they dared to continue trading with Iran after November 4 when the reimposed US sanctions against Iran come into force. Britain, France and Germany, co-signatories of the ill-famed 2015 Iran nuclear deal, along with some other members of the EU, have said they intend to carry on trading with Iran through a special conduit, ignoring US orders to honour the toughest-of-all economic sanctions against Tehran. Quite what the terrible consequences might be we don't know but if Bolton meant it and I assumed he did, then EU trade with the US is going to be hit hard. I have said before that I believe it is totally wrong for Europe to side with Iran against the US, and laughing at Trump during his major speech at the UN ain't going to help one jot.

What if Trump is proved wrong about Judge Brett Kavanaugh?

Donald Trump is sticking with Brett Kavanaugh as his nominee for the Supreme Court and dismisses the sex assault accusations against him, saying it's all a political stunt by the Democratic Party. He also insists Kavanaugh is an amazing bloke whose middle name is integrity. Although I guess the president has had little alternative but to support his nominee, what if it turns out that the judge is lying - or has serious memory loss - and the women who have come forward with their stories of his sexual misbehaviour can back them up with proof, and the Senate Judiciary Committee believes them? If Kavanaugh is not confirmed for the Supreme Court, it won't be just a matter of Trump shrugging his shoulders and nominating someone else. Kavanaugh is Trump's perfect candidate for the Supreme Court because at his age - only 53 - he will be around long enough to have a huge influence on judgement-making in the court - the sort of influence Trump will find to his personal and political taste. Losing Kavanaugh will also be a blow to Trump's judgement, prestige and leadership. It could give a huge boost to the Democrats in the midterm elections on November 6. In other words, if Kavanaugh is not confirmed by the Judiciary Committee or by the full Senate, as required, it will be disastrous for Trump. No wonder he is going out of his way to trash the women who have come forward and to bellow what a good bloke his nominee is. Kavanaugh appearing on Fox News with his wife to denounce the accusations against him was extraordinary. It was also desperate and could go against him on Thursday when Professor Christine Blasey Ford appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee and gives her alleged account of how she was assaulted when she was 15. It will be one of the most dramatic appearances of any confirmation hearing of this sort. I don't think Trump can win this one. If the Republican members of the committee and the Senate rough-ride over the Democrats and confirm Kavanaugh's nomination whatever Dr Ford says, the voters, even Trump supporters, might take their revenge on November 6. If Dr Ford fails to convince the committee members, Democrats as well as Republicans, it will still leave a very unpleasant taste in the mouth. The voters might take their revenge anyway.

Rosenstein for the high jump

Rod Rosenstein has three days of high suspense before he meets face to face with Donald Trump at the White House over the New York Times conspiracy story.The not-for-much-longer deputy attorney general is for the high jump. If he doesn't jump, Trump will jump on him. Thanks to the New York Times poor Rosenstein's apparent "joke" about wearing a wire to tape Trump and talking about the 25th Amendment is likely to get him the chop. Although Trump's favourite news presenter on Fox has advised him against firing Rosenstein someone like Donald J is not going to take lightly any hint of conspiracy against him. As I said in a previous blog I seriously doubt Rosenstein genuinely plotted to have Trump thrown out of the Oval Office. Who the hell is he after all? Just the deputy attorney general. He's not a big gun when you have bigger guns working closely with the president every day. But the New York Times claimed Rosenstein thought he could corral General Kelly and Jeff Sessions to slap a 25th Amendment onto Trump's back. Trump has two options when he meets Rosenstein on Thursday: fire him on the spot with or without evidence, or laugh it off. If he does the latter I'm guessing there will be a condition attached: "I won't fire you this time but I want this Mueller witchhunt wrapped up before the end of the year or both you and Mueller will be fired." Rosenstein is between a rock and a hard place. If he denies the New York Times story as an exaggerated piece of piffle, Trump may just accuse him of lying and sack him anyway. If he admits any of the story is true but he didn't really mean it, Trump will definitely sack him. If Trump does hold off from firing him but demands a quick end to the Mueller Russia collusion investigation, Rosenstein will probably say he has given free reign to the former FBI director and the law requires the process to continue at its own pace. So then Trump will fire him. I don't think Trump can ever trust Rosenstein again. He doesn't trust or like Sessions, the attorney general, either, so he might just sack them both and have a clean sweep at the Justice Department. He would argue that he now has just cause to do so because of the reported conspiracy. But if Trump were to remain true to his previous statements that everything appearing in the New York Times is fake news, why would he believe this particular story hahaha? So that has to be Rosenstein's argument when he sits or stands in front of Trump on Thursday: "But Mr President, as you know, these sort of stories are all made up for political reasons, just fake news." Trump could then be stymied, hoist with his own petard. I wonder if Trump knows that phrase from Hamlet.

The judge versus the professor

There is only decision to be made when Judge Brett Kavanaugh, nominee for the Supreme Court, and Professor Christine Blasey Ford, appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. Who is lying? From the outpouring of support for Professor Ford I can now fully appreciate why women who allege they were sexually assaulted many many years ago only come forward at a much later date. This can be no specific comment on this particular case but I totally understand why so many women keep these dark secrets to themselves. It's about being scared, terrified, shamed and desperately worried about being misunderstood, ridiculed, laughed at and disbelieved. A truly terrible situation for a woman of any age, and a despicable commentary on certain male attitudes towards women. I don't go along with the line that constantly comes up in newspapers, that in those days it was different, there were different standards and morals etc etc. That is rubbish. Just because there is so much emphasis today on men who have abused their positions to sexually assault women, that does not mean that 30, 40, 50 years ago this sort of behaviour was acceptable. Any woman facing an overbearing, drunk, demanding man determined to force himself on her deserves justice. Now back to the Kavanaugh/Ford case. Each will give their version of events to the Senate committee but it will be far greater an ordeal for the accuser than for the accused. Unless a witness comes forward to say he saw what happened more than 30 years ago, it's going to be almost impossible for the committee to know for sure exactly what happened or didn't happen and whether it was Kavanaugh or someone else involved. Kavanaugh, with the Supreme Court job in the melting pot, denies there was any such incident, which, as described by Ford, was pretty graphic and disgusting and scary. There are 21 members on the Senate committee, only four of whom are women. They are Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking minority member, and Senators Mazie Hirono, Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar. All the women are Democrats. The Republican members are solid males. If Ford makes a convincing appearance and points an accusing finger at Kavanaugh and explains why it was him and only him who attacked her, it's hard to believe that any of the women on the committee will doubt her story. They will also know within themselves why she said nothing all those years ago. Any woman going to the police/FBI to make a sexual assault accusation 30 years ago, and probably even today in this new allegedly inclusive era, would have been confronted by close questioning and examination and doubt. But will these four female senators have sway over the Republican male senators if their gut instinct tells them Christine Ford is telling the truth despite what is expected to be a statement of denial by the accused. It's not a court of law, she doesn't have to produce forensic evidence or photographs. It will come down to: who is the most believable? If the committee trust her account or even suspects the Trump nominee for the Supreme Court is lying, the president should start looking for someone else to nominate.