The accusation against Brett Kavanaugh is evolving rapidly, but I have several comments on the situation. The accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, has been invited to testify on Monday, along with Kavanaugh. Three issues are involved, as I see it- evidence, process, and #MeToo.
Here are the events as best as I can put them together (errors are my fault only). Ford sent a letter to Diane Feinstein on July 30, 5 weeks before the start of the Kavanaugh hearings. Feinstein made other Democrats on the committee aware she had a letter, but did not disclose the letter or its contents until September 12. Other Democrats urged her to present the letter, and she declined. At first she insisted on complete confidentiality in not disclosing the letter's contents, but Ford came forward when a media outlet was going to publish a story anyway. In the ensuing media and political circus Chuck Grassley, committee chair, set a Monday hearing for both Kavanaugh and Ford to tell their sides of the story. Ford, through her attorney, wants an FBI investigation before she testifies.
Evidence is thin. Ford's letter states Kavanaugh and another teen assaulted her. She told the story of her encounter to a therapist 6 years ago. At that time, she described four attackers, not two. She does not recall where this happened, or how she got to or came home from the party. She does not recall where the party was. She made no police report. She was, by her own story, drunk at the time, and states her two (?four) attackers were also drunk. It is said (without presenting the results) that Ford passed a polygraph. Such a test, however, is of limited value as evidence and for accuracy.
I can see some basis for asking for an FBI investigation. Absent any other supporting evidence, the Monday hearing is a he said-she said argument. On the other hand, there is nothing to investigate. There cannot be witnesses from a party not even remembered. There is no physical evidence to be had, the complainant was intoxicated at the time, 36 years has passed since the event. I recommend that you go to your local police station and say 'Officer, 36 years ago, when I was drunk, at a place I don't recall, I was attacked by either two or four men. I don't remember how I got there or got home, but I am SURE that John Doe Smith III was ONE of them!' The police won't investigate that claim, and they should not. It is neither credible nor confirmable from a law enforcement perspective.
The process of the hearing is appalling, but that is, sadly, the new norm in our national 'government'. Everyone knows what the vote will be. No Democrat was going to vote for Kavanaugh no matter what he said. The hearings have been disrupted by organized 'protesters' and by grossly out of order interruptions by several Democratic senators, who have brought the tactics of street protests into a senate hearing room. When all that was finally out of the way, just days before the scheduled committee vote, a Democratic senator brings forward a private, secret letter like the deus ex machina ending of a Greek play.
Everyone knows why all the disruptions. Democrats either want to create enough social noise to convince a Republican senator to vote against Kavanaugh, or they want to prolong the hearings enough to prevent him being confirmed before the November elections. This is an obvious smash-mouth, power political response to the equally smash-mouth politics of the Republicans. There is cold, cynical political calculus here. Which party will suffer more in November- Republicans if they push through a SCOTUS justice with an unresolved accusation of assault, or Democrats for using a grossly uncredible process capped with a conveniently amnesiac 'victim'?
The entire affair is, finally, a defining moment for #MeToo. Once upon a time a woman claiming rape was harangued by the justice system, and a man's innocence was presumed beyond that guaranteed by our laws. #MeToo represents a complete inversion of that inappropriate paradigm. Now any woman making an accusation is immediately presumed to be righteous and the accused man is guilty unless he can prove most clearly he was somewhere else. The most damaging claims have been precisely those which cannot be verified or refuted- old events, teenage gropings, prior consensual relationships that broke up. In these situations there is usually no evidence, the statute of limitations has run, and the accusation smears the man whether he is innocent or not.
I don't think this is what #MeToo is supposed to be. Simply reversing the sexes, and accepting out of hand all unsupported and unsubstantiable claims is not justice and not reasonable. Most important, it is very damaging to women. Here I quote a Facebook comment. "I'm sick of this. All of it. There are actually people out there who have been raped and assaulted who have dealt with legitimate trauma. This diminishes everything they went through and continue to go through. Saying that catcalling is akin to assault and that drunken teenagers messing around is attempted rape just makes me sick."
In considering the evidence, the situation, and the social ramifications, the whole affair reeks. If the FBI finds some evidence, then Ford will speak. If they do not she will not, but the Democrats can then claim a biased and rushed investigation. A #MeToo accusation is a socio-political poison pill. It is deployed by a senator at the very last stages of a hearing whose outcome is obvious, after being held in camera for over a month. An FBI investigation is demanded on non-existent evidence, when prompt disclosure could have allowed proper time for said evaluation. The complainant, after making a highly damaging and prejudicial complaint, will not testify in the venue in which the complaint was made.
It seems to me that anyone sure enough of herself to write a letter to a senator ought to be ready to testify immediately. In Scott Turow's book Presumed Innocent, a prosecutor is accused by a political rival of murdering his mistress. When space unexpectedly clears on the court calendar for a trial the prosecution tries to delay, saying they are not ready. The judge erupts, saying "If you come into this courtroom charging a man with a crime, you better be ready to prove it. Right now."
No one should be accused of an act seen as so heinous by society using evidence deliberately withheld, accused by a person unwilling to speak publicly without pre-condition. What Kavanaugh is accused of is nowhere near as societally damaging as the perversions of process and justice being perpetrated by Senate Democrats. They are harming our government and the women they sanctimoniously claim to serve. Enough. If Ford does not show up Monday the vote on Kavanaugh should be held.
Ted
Here are the events as best as I can put them together (errors are my fault only). Ford sent a letter to Diane Feinstein on July 30, 5 weeks before the start of the Kavanaugh hearings. Feinstein made other Democrats on the committee aware she had a letter, but did not disclose the letter or its contents until September 12. Other Democrats urged her to present the letter, and she declined. At first she insisted on complete confidentiality in not disclosing the letter's contents, but Ford came forward when a media outlet was going to publish a story anyway. In the ensuing media and political circus Chuck Grassley, committee chair, set a Monday hearing for both Kavanaugh and Ford to tell their sides of the story. Ford, through her attorney, wants an FBI investigation before she testifies.
Evidence is thin. Ford's letter states Kavanaugh and another teen assaulted her. She told the story of her encounter to a therapist 6 years ago. At that time, she described four attackers, not two. She does not recall where this happened, or how she got to or came home from the party. She does not recall where the party was. She made no police report. She was, by her own story, drunk at the time, and states her two (?four) attackers were also drunk. It is said (without presenting the results) that Ford passed a polygraph. Such a test, however, is of limited value as evidence and for accuracy.
I can see some basis for asking for an FBI investigation. Absent any other supporting evidence, the Monday hearing is a he said-she said argument. On the other hand, there is nothing to investigate. There cannot be witnesses from a party not even remembered. There is no physical evidence to be had, the complainant was intoxicated at the time, 36 years has passed since the event. I recommend that you go to your local police station and say 'Officer, 36 years ago, when I was drunk, at a place I don't recall, I was attacked by either two or four men. I don't remember how I got there or got home, but I am SURE that John Doe Smith III was ONE of them!' The police won't investigate that claim, and they should not. It is neither credible nor confirmable from a law enforcement perspective.
The process of the hearing is appalling, but that is, sadly, the new norm in our national 'government'. Everyone knows what the vote will be. No Democrat was going to vote for Kavanaugh no matter what he said. The hearings have been disrupted by organized 'protesters' and by grossly out of order interruptions by several Democratic senators, who have brought the tactics of street protests into a senate hearing room. When all that was finally out of the way, just days before the scheduled committee vote, a Democratic senator brings forward a private, secret letter like the deus ex machina ending of a Greek play.
Everyone knows why all the disruptions. Democrats either want to create enough social noise to convince a Republican senator to vote against Kavanaugh, or they want to prolong the hearings enough to prevent him being confirmed before the November elections. This is an obvious smash-mouth, power political response to the equally smash-mouth politics of the Republicans. There is cold, cynical political calculus here. Which party will suffer more in November- Republicans if they push through a SCOTUS justice with an unresolved accusation of assault, or Democrats for using a grossly uncredible process capped with a conveniently amnesiac 'victim'?
The entire affair is, finally, a defining moment for #MeToo. Once upon a time a woman claiming rape was harangued by the justice system, and a man's innocence was presumed beyond that guaranteed by our laws. #MeToo represents a complete inversion of that inappropriate paradigm. Now any woman making an accusation is immediately presumed to be righteous and the accused man is guilty unless he can prove most clearly he was somewhere else. The most damaging claims have been precisely those which cannot be verified or refuted- old events, teenage gropings, prior consensual relationships that broke up. In these situations there is usually no evidence, the statute of limitations has run, and the accusation smears the man whether he is innocent or not.
I don't think this is what #MeToo is supposed to be. Simply reversing the sexes, and accepting out of hand all unsupported and unsubstantiable claims is not justice and not reasonable. Most important, it is very damaging to women. Here I quote a Facebook comment. "I'm sick of this. All of it. There are actually people out there who have been raped and assaulted who have dealt with legitimate trauma. This diminishes everything they went through and continue to go through. Saying that catcalling is akin to assault and that drunken teenagers messing around is attempted rape just makes me sick."
In considering the evidence, the situation, and the social ramifications, the whole affair reeks. If the FBI finds some evidence, then Ford will speak. If they do not she will not, but the Democrats can then claim a biased and rushed investigation. A #MeToo accusation is a socio-political poison pill. It is deployed by a senator at the very last stages of a hearing whose outcome is obvious, after being held in camera for over a month. An FBI investigation is demanded on non-existent evidence, when prompt disclosure could have allowed proper time for said evaluation. The complainant, after making a highly damaging and prejudicial complaint, will not testify in the venue in which the complaint was made.
It seems to me that anyone sure enough of herself to write a letter to a senator ought to be ready to testify immediately. In Scott Turow's book Presumed Innocent, a prosecutor is accused by a political rival of murdering his mistress. When space unexpectedly clears on the court calendar for a trial the prosecution tries to delay, saying they are not ready. The judge erupts, saying "If you come into this courtroom charging a man with a crime, you better be ready to prove it. Right now."
No one should be accused of an act seen as so heinous by society using evidence deliberately withheld, accused by a person unwilling to speak publicly without pre-condition. What Kavanaugh is accused of is nowhere near as societally damaging as the perversions of process and justice being perpetrated by Senate Democrats. They are harming our government and the women they sanctimoniously claim to serve. Enough. If Ford does not show up Monday the vote on Kavanaugh should be held.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment