Despite no evidence to back up the allegations of attempted sexual assault by Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the liberal media were eager to make them stick. Comparisons to Justice Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill were wildly thrown around along with suggestions those accusations were true. They were also hopeful for a better result this time. Disgraced journalist Dan Rather admitted as much during a Monday appearance on CNN’s Cuomo Prime Time.
Disguised under the illusion of seeking “truth”, Rather admitted that the character assassination of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork in the 1980s was what happened to Justice Thomas in the early '90s and Judge Kavanaugh now. “And what this is about, as was the case with the Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas time, as well as the Bork hearings in the mid-1980s, was all about,” he told Cuomo.
Clearly, Rather was not one to be interested in the truth. After being asked by Cuomo if he understood how the public approval of Thomas could increase after the hearings, Rather told him he was baffled. “I didn't understand it at the time, and I'm not sure I understand it now is the honest answer,” he lamented. He couldn’t wrap his head around the idea that people actually saw through the lies told about Thomas.
But Rather was holding out hope for a better outcome for Kavanaugh where he would not be confirmed by the Senate:
But Chris, we're not just in a different planet now, we're in a different cosmos. At the time of the Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas thing, there were two women in the United States Senate. Today, there are 23, maybe 24. The #MeToo movement didn't exist at the time. So while some comparisons can be made, don't make too many comparisons because a different time, different situation.
“Do we prioritize power, or do we prioritize justice,” he opined after declaring it a “watershed moment” for the country akin to the civil rights movement or women’s suffrage. “Now, that's not pre-judging anything in this Kavanaugh case,” Rather disingenuously said. “It is sort of emphasizing why we need the hearings, why the hearings need to be open hearings.”
Cuomo was deeply concerned for Kavanaugh’s accuser (who was going to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a week) because the Judge has “a lot of advantages. One, he's got a lot of people invested in making him look good on that panel.” “[T]his is going to be very difficult for her, whether or not she's telling the truth or not,” he added.
In response, Rather painted a picture of Republicans looking to brutalize the woman. “[S]he may be a very accomplished college professor, but she is walking into a room in which she's going to be roughed up. She's going to be -- attempts will be made to humiliate her,” he asserted.
Given that the accusations against Judge Kavanaugh included an allegation that he locked the accuser in a room to sexually assault her, that analogy by Rather was underhanded and disgusting.
According to Rather, Kavanaugh’s nomination was “hanging by a rope, and that rope can start to fray very, very quickly” and it was only a matter of time before someone convinced President Trump to pull the nomination entirely.
There is no search for “truth” being done here by Rather or the liberal media. They’re searching for a way to sink the Kavanaugh confirmation.
The transcript is below, click "expand" to read:
CNN
Cuomo Prime Time
September 17, 2018
10:18:16 p.m. EasternCHRIS CUOMO: The Kavanaugh curveball. The last time we saw something like this was way back in 1991. I know you keep being told and reminded about Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. It's not the fact that it happened. It's what it meant, how it was perceived, and what it lets us know about today. So joining us is someone who reported on the story back then, understands what it meant, why it was right and wrong, and what we need to remember right now. The one and only Dan Rather.
(…)
CUOMO: Instantly, by being here, you've made the show better.
DAN RATHER: I'm grateful for the opportunity.
CUOMO: So what we're playing with, with Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas is that despite the acrimony and what you could have argued was the cogency of Anita Hill during that testimony, the public approval for Thomas went up afterwards when he was, of course, confirmed. How did you understand that at the time?
RATHER: I didn't understand it at the time, and I'm not sure I understand it now is the honest answer. But once we go through the catharsis of this kind of public display, people able to make up their mind, I think what happened was the public attitude was, “Look, he's on the Supreme Court. We hold the Supreme Court in very high esteem. It's very important as part of our system with checks and balances. Give the guy the benefit of the doubt, and let's move on to the next thing.”
But Chris, we're not just in a different planet now, we're in a different cosmos. At the time of the Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas thing, there were two women in the United States Senate. Today, there are 23, maybe 24. The #MeToo movement didn't exist at the time. So while some comparisons can be made, don't make too many comparisons because a different time, different situation.
One of the things that came out of that hearing was that -- by the way, they were all primetime on regular television at the time. This consumed the country. It was a real education in the advise and consent role of the Senate, which I know you've emphasized tonight, and people came out of it smarter about how these nominations are happening.
CUOMO: One of the weak arguments, in my opinion -- you feel free to judge me as wrong. But for a Trump supporter to say this should happen behind closed doors, if we've learned anything in the current political environment, we need as many doors open and for it to be transparent as possible.
RATHER: Absolutely. Let the sunshine in. Sunshine is a disinfectant. And what this is about, as was the case with the Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas time, as well as the Bork hearings in the mid-1980s, was all about. What it's about is trying to get to the truth or as close to the truth as is humanly possible. Now, as a country, as a society, at the time of our founding fathers, we-- we the people of the United States, have been on a journey to deal with the question of whether power predominates everything or whether there is a role for justice to balance power.
We've seen this when the civil rights movement—when it first started. We've seen it during the women's movement, the early women's movement. We've seen it with gay rights. That’s what we’re on. We're still on this journey to resolve this question. And this is a watershed moment. I will say that. I think the future history books may have at least a line or two about this confirmation hearing because this is watershed for the question of what we do we prioritize.
Do we prioritize power, or do we prioritize justice? Now, that's not pre-judging anything in this Kavanaugh case. It is sort of emphasizing why we need the hearings, why the hearings need to be open hearings.
CUOMO: Right.
RATHER: Because what part of what we're dealing with here, look, whether this woman is speaking the truth or not, people will get a chance to judge for themselves. If she's not a credible witness --
CUOMO: True.
RATHER -- Then Kavanaugh is – he’s approved either way.
CUOMO: Although she is a college but obviously he has -- and, again, not to prejudice him at all, but he's got a lot of advantages. One, he's got a lot of people invested in making him look good on that panel. And, two, he is very savvy in terms of going through the process. And as far as we know, although college professor, this is going to be very difficult for her, whether or not she's telling the truth or not. As was said earlier, this is the klieg lights.
My concern is that, one, if you didn't give her the opportunity to testify, you're negating whatever progress we've made culturally in terms of letting people who say something was wrong happen. Not all accusations are the same. Allegations are called just that. They're not facts, you know, and dispositive proof for a reason within the justice system, within common sense.
But you have to hear it, and he can shoot it down. You know, if he has the basis to do that, the ammunition to do that, then everybody will see it for what it is.
RATHER: Back to the central question. Who is telling the truth? One of these two people is not telling the truth. People can have a different perception of things. But this will come clear. I do agree with you that she's at a tremendous disadvantage at these hearings next Monday.
So two points about these hearings. One, that she may be a very accomplished college professor, but she is walking into a room in which she's going to be roughed up. She's going to be -- attempts will be made to humiliate her. Whatever you think of the story, it takes a lot of guts to do that. It's a very brave thing for her to do. The second thing is, it's still a week before these hearings. So let's stop and kind of cut through the cyclone of coverage and say, as you and I both know, overnight is a long time in politics. A week is forever.
This is going to be a veritable eternity for both of these people because you can bet journalists all over the country are scrambling around. Is there somebody else? The White House will be looking around for all kinds of dirt on her. So just stay alert because a lot of things can change between now and next Monday.
CUOMO: That's 100 percent.
RATHER: But I do think -- and you've alluded to this earlier, that Kavanaugh's nomination, this has changed things dramatically. The center of gravity has changed, and to mix metaphors here, his nomination is hanging by a rope, and that rope can start to fray very, very quickly because you have to know that somewhere in the balance of the White House, someone is saying, “you know what? We may have to drop this nomination. Politically, whether we like Kavanaugh or believe him or not,” -- and they like him, and they do believe him -- there comes a time in politics when you just have to cut it. Now, we're not at that point, but no one should be surprised if we reach that point.
CUOMO: Well, we've seen the President cut it out of convenience and what he sees as his disruptive sense of loyalty. This would be a lose for him if he cuts it here. That would be new, but we'll see. As we get closer to the day of consequence, please come back and join us. Make us better.
