Kavanaugh's 'hostile' defence won over Trump but likely put his Supreme Court hopes at greater risk

At the start of the month, BrettKavanaughcame across as a devout Catholic with an unblemished personal record and golly-gosh stories about coaching his daughters'basketball teams. He had a mild way about him, and a near-certain chance of sailing to a confirmation to the highest court in the land.

By the end of Thursday's Senate judiciary committee hearing, the U.S. Supreme Court nominee, who isfacing a handful ofallegations that include sexual assault,would be shown in cable news clipssnivelling, roughly flipping pages from his prepared statement, shouting during his opening testimony as he denied the allegations, and deflecting senators' questions about his alleged abuse of alcohol by challenging them about their own drinking habits.

His testimony came in stark contrast to thecomposed and consideredtestimony of ChristineBlaseyFord, the California research psychologist and professor who on Thursday alleged to senators with "100 per cent" certainty thatKavanaughtried to drunkenly rape her in the1980swhen they were both teens at a house party in Maryland.

"By everyone's account, she has been an outstanding witness she was not evasive. She seemed forthright," said Stacy Hawkins, a professor at Rutgers Law School in New Jersey."She was as credible as any witness could be, under the circumstances."

(Watch: Christine BlaseyFord says she's 100 per cent certain Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.)

Ford says shes 100% certain attacker was Kavanaugh

6 years ago

Duration 0:47

Senator Dick Durbin asks Christine Blasey Ford with what degree of certainty she believes it was Brett Kavanaugh who assaulted her in 1982.

Some in the gallery were reportedly brought to tears by Ford's testimony. On Fox News, host Chris Wallace commented that she sounded "extremely raw and extremely credible."

Hawkins noted Ford offered at times to answer questions even when she could have claimed attorney-client privilege.Kavanaugh, on the other hand, appeared to be "hostile" and "extraordinarily rattled" by persistent questioning asking if he would press for a full FBI investigation into Ford's claims.

'I like beer'

When Democratic Sen. AmyKlobucharasked the judge if he had ever drunk to the point of losing his memory, he shot back: "Have you?"

He later apologized, but a lineKavanaughkept falling back on probably didn't help.

"I like beer," he offered defensively.

He also said "I liked beer" and "We liked beer," and according to the transcript, declared"We drank beer" seven times.

"Do you like beer?" he asked a senator at one point.

(Watch: Kavanaugh gets combative when asked about his drinking)

Kavanaugh gets combative with senator when asked about excessive drinking

6 years ago

Duration 0:50

U.S. Supreme Court nominee testifies that he does not have a drinking problem.

MarkOsler, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minn.,who attended Yale Law School withKavanaughand socialized with him, said in a phone interview that after Thursday's hearing, he believes his old peer's promotion is in greater jeopardy.

"He might be withdrawn," he said. "That's where we are right now."

Oslerwas among dozens ofKavanaugh'sformer classmates who signed a letter of support for him after his nomination.Oslerhas since withdrawn his support in the wake of the allegations.

He did stress that although he did "go to parties and drink with"Kavanaugh, he never saw any behaviour matching the kindof accusations that have been made against him.

AmongKavanaugh'smistakes on Thursday,Oslersaid, were his sharply partisan attacks in his opening testimony. He accused Democrats of an "orchestrated political hit, fuelled with apparently pent-up anger about President Trump and revenge on behalf of theClintons."

Kavanaughworked on independent counselKen Starr's investigation of President Bill Clinton in the1990s, and was known to haveproposedthe most sexually graphic questions to be asked offormer White House intern Monica Lewinsky, with whomClinton admitted to having an "inappropriate relationship."

Kavanaughalluding to Clinton "revenge" didn't sound toOslerlike the impartial thoughts of a jurist deserving of a spot on the Supreme Court.

"More than anything, what he needs to do is establish himself as someone who's telling the truth,"Oslersaid. "If what he's saying is related to conspiracy theories, it's going to go the other way."

(Watch: Sen. Dick Durbinasks Kavanaughto insist onan FBI investigation.)

'You're prepared for an FBI investigation?'

6 years ago

Duration 5:30

Sen. Dick Durbin asks Kavanaugh repeatedly if he thinks an FBI investigation should be held.

A stream of Republican senators defendedKavanaughand ripped Democrats for what they portrayed as11th-hourtactics to derail the Supreme Court nomination of a respected conservative judge. DuringKavanaugh'stestimony, Republican Lindsey Graham slammed his Democratic colleagues for carrying out what he called "the most unethical sham" he's ever witnessed in his political career.

Kavanaugh'sangry indignation appeared to please U.S. President Donald Trump, who tweeted his support for the nominee and repeatedKavanaugh's"search and destroy strategy" line, calling the nomination process "disgraceful."Kavanaugh'scombative testimony might also resonate with Trump's base, and Republicans have learned it may not be politically wise to cross the president.

Democratic strategist KarlFrischsaidKavanaugh's performancewas an attemptto convince Trump not to pull his nomination.

"Seems clearKavanaughis testifying AT Trump and not the Senators in the room,"Frischwrote on Twitter. "His anger as an appeal to Trump. It is this type of outrage that really reaches Trump."

The hearing began with an unusual format that didn't seem to work very well for the Republicans.

Normally, the two parties would take five-minute turns asking a witness questions. But theRepublicansopted to cedetheir time to Rachel Mitchell, asex-crimes prosecutor they hired to ask questions on their behalf, apparently aware of thebad optics of an all-male, all-white group of Republicans grilling a female survivor of sexual assault.

The tactic"backfired," said Supreme Court expert Lisa Tucker, an associate law professor atDrexelUniversity in Philadelphia.

"Their strategy of using Mitchell was terrible. Any lawyer engaged in a line of questioning gets a rhythm going with the witness. Interrupting her and telling her she had to stop every five minutes was very unexpected to her, and you could see it."

It was difficult at times to grasp where Mitchell's questions were heading. During the morning session, she quizzed Ford about her fear of flying, apparently attempting tocast doubt on her credibility by pointing out she has flown to holiday destinationsdespite her claimed aversion to air travel.

By the late afternoon, midway throughKavanaugh'stestimony, Republicans abandoned the tactic of ceding their speaking time to Mitchell. Several of them took the opportunity to attack the behaviour of their committee rivals.

'Coming out screaming'

Kavanaughseemed to set the new tone with his angry opening statement that admonished the Democrats for "destroying" his family and reputation.

"It was not a good look to be coming out screaming," Tucker said. "I was shocked. I don't think that shows judicial temperament."

And certainly not, she said, given the portrayal ofKavanaughin press reports as a "sloppy drunk" who could be aggressive or belligerent when inebriated.

Republican senators LisaMurkowskiand Susan Collins might have the final say on whetherKavanaugh'sapproach was successful. Both are considered potential swing votes, but Republicans can only afford to lose one vote to confirmKavanaugh, given the party's51-49 edge in the upper chamber.

Tucker believes that even if Republicans feel they'll be able to scrape together enough votes to confirmKavanaugh, the judge's confidence has been shaken and his name tarnished.

"Whether or notKavanaughis confirmed," she said,"you'll never be able to Google his name without this coming up."