While the Democrats did their feeble best to slow down the process, it looked like Brett Kavanaugh would sail through quickly and smoothly. Then an accusation by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford came to light. Blasey claimed that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were both teenagers. Kavanaugh has denied the accusation. While the incident is alleged to have taken place over thirty years ago, his recent denial makes the event immediately relevant. After all, if it did occur, then Kavanaugh’s denial would be a lie (assuming he remembered the incident; if he did not, then his denial would merely be untrue). As such, the fundamental question is whether the claim is true.
While it is common for such accusations to be met with attacks on the accuser, the Republicans have decided to focus on attacking the Democrats rather than Blasey. This is, of course, after some efforts to attack the alleged victim. From a pragmatic standpoint, this is a smart approach. After all, the #MeToo movement has (at least temporarily) made it so that attacking purported victims tends to be either ineffective or counterproductive. Once the #MeToo movement fades, this might change, and the old tactics might become the standard once again.
As would be expected, one of the main responses to the accusation by Blasey is that the Democrats are using her accusation as a political tool to slow down the process. As of this writing, Blasey has stated that she wants the FBI to investigate the matter before she testifies. This could be a reasonable request: Blasey does not want to go before congress in a mere “he said, she said” situation. An FBI investigation would provide much more in the way of facts, thus allowing the accusation to be supported or countered. Blasey’s supporters have claimed that this desire to have the FBI investigate is additional evidence that she is telling the truth. If she were lying, she would not want the FBI to investigate the matter and show that her claim is untrue.
Those who are critical of Blasey can contend that she runs no risk by asking the FBI to investigate the incident even if they find nothing to support her claim (or even evidence against it). They can also point out that this investigation would delay the confirmation process and argue that the Democrats are trying to slow down matters until the upcoming election. While these points are relevant in terms of showing that the Democrats have an interest in the matter (which biases them), they obviously do not prove that Blasey is lying. After all, the accusation can both be true and be used by the Democrats to slow down the process. As such, the fact that the Democrats are benefiting from the accusation does not disprove the claim. What is needed is, of course, evidence for or against the claim.
While Blasey claims that Kavanaugh assaulted her, he denies it. Blasey also alleges that Mark Judge was present at the incident. Both men deny the event occurred and even deny being at the party. Since Blasey claims that only Kavanaugh and Judge were present, the only available evidence at this time is their assertions, thus making this a “he said, she said” scenario. However, since Judge and Kavanaugh deny attending the party, there would be witnesses for that claim. There is, however, the obvious problem that people would be asked to recall who attended a party over thirty years ago (assuming there is no other evidence, such as photos).
Supporters of Blasey do point to 2012 notes from a therapist in which Blasey mentions being attacked and that she told her husband one of the men was Kavanaugh. While this does provide some support for her claim, an objective analysis does reveal some problems. One point of concern is that the 2012 therapist notes are based on what she said—so if her claim is in doubt now, pointing out that she also made it earlier would not address that doubt. A second point of concern is that her husband is, one would infer, biased in her favor. This does not mean that he is not telling the truth, but it does impact his credibility. What the notes do, however, is provide evidence that she did not suddenly make up an incident in 2018 to use against Kavanaugh. However, this does not prove that her claim about Kavanaugh is true.
One point raised against Blasey is the fact that she waited until now to bring this matter to light. This does lend some apparent credence to the claim that the accusation is being made simply to slow down the process until the elections. However, there are some plausible replies to this delay. As has often been noted, women who bring forth such accusations against powerful men (or men in general) tend to be subject to doubt, abuse and attacks. Even when the accusations are credible, it is often the victim who is shamed and blamed. As such, it is not surprising that Blasey would have been reluctant to come forward in the past. In terms of being willing to do so now, her supporters could point to the fact that the #MeToo movement has made coming forward less awful (although Blasey claims she is getting death threats). There is also the fact that there is a great deal at stake, since Kavanaugh is being nominated for the Supreme Court. Naturally, her detractors will focus on the fact that so much is at stake that a person might be willing to lie to achieve a political end. While deceit has always been a political tactic, the Trump administration has made it an everyday tool—so it is natural that the Republicans would suspect deceit.
Unless additional evidence is forthcoming, the assessment of the claim comes down to a matter of assessing the plausibility of the claim itself and the relative credibility of the witnesses. That a drunk young man would assault a young woman at a party has considerable plausibility. However, the plausibility of this general claim does not prove that Kavanaugh engaged in the alleged assault. Assessing this is a matter of assessing the relative credibility of those allegedly involved. Naturally, people will tend to be influenced by their political views and values. Democrats, obviously enough, will tend to believe Blasey and Republicans will tend to favor Kavanaugh.
I agree with much of what you say in terms of our ability (or lack thereof) to assess the claim reasonably. Sometimes one just has to go with one’s gut.
My gut in this case tells me that Kavanaugh is innocent. It’s true that the Democrats have been doing everything in their power to delay these hearings; this is a stated objective of theirs and they are unabashedly pursuing that goal.
I am reminded of a friend of mine, Frank, who for part of his early career was a salesman for a paper company. The company had a pretty sizeable portfolio of products, and Frank’s market was industrial/corporate.
He told me once about his job – and with a good bit of humor he said that he’d start his sales pitch with the higher-end, high-commission products – and with each “no” he got, he’d pivot to something else, and something else, and something else … in each case trying to point out reasons why the company either needed or would benefit from his products.
He said that his last ditch effort, as he was being escorted to the door, was toilet paper. “Wait, wait!” he’d cry, “Everyone needs toilet paper!” He’s a pretty funny guy, and that’s a great story when he tells it.
So, as I’ve said before, “Sexual Misconduct” is the go-to accusation that ignites everyone’s outrage – and when all the other stall techniques (like burying them with paperwork or asking for all sorts of minutia) have failed, it doesn’t surprise me that this one is pulled out. In fact, when Kavanaugh was first nominated for the position, I began a countdown of when, not if, an accusation like this would surface. (“Racism” was another – has he ever called anyone “articulate”?)
While I do agree that this kind of behavior is pretty plausible in the case of a wild 16-year-old at a party, and that depending on the alcohol consumption it might have been forgotten, the details of this case have me leaning the opposite way. And I do blame the Democrats rather than Blasey – this is very clearly a “tactic”.
My reasoning is this –
We are in the midst of a HUGE movement in this country called “#MeToo”. Women are tremendously emboldened and encouraged to come forward in support of claims like this, and they do – and they have – in droves. The silence surrounding this accusation is deafening; it is hard for me to imagine that there wasn’t someone else at the party who would come forward and say they saw her come out of the room crying, or even to say that they were there and saw Kavanaugh and/or Judges. Within the context of the #MeToo movement and the anger and hatred that divides this country politically, it is very hard for me to reconcile the complete lack of support for this claim. Given the claims against people like Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, James Rosen, James Franco, Ben Vereen, Garrison Keillor, and countless others – it just seems implausible that there is nothing but silence on this one – especially for a position as important as a Supreme Court Justice.
But in fact there isn’t silence on this one – there are no fewer than 65 women who have come out publicly in support of Kavanaugh – women who knew him in high school, women who dated him, women who have worked with him over the last 35 years – all of whom speak to his character and talk about their own shock and disbelief that a charge like this would be levied against him.
And not one single person has come forward with even a “Yeah, I knew him back then. He definitely could have done something like this”.
It just seems odd to me. I cannot believe that one would need an FBI investigation to corroborate a story like this one – when women (and men) all over the country seemingly jump at the chance to add to the movement.
Chuck Schumer has vowed to do everything in his power to prevent confirmation, as has Dianne Feinstein – and the efforts are entirely about putting together a united strategy. I suspect that the same efforts are being made on the Republican side, but our House of Representatives and Senate are in the position of having to choose party over ideology. It’s “tribalism” at its worst.
I could be wrong, of course, and it will be interesting to see how this plays out. If he did do as she accuses, then so be it – but I think it would be a shame if an impeccable 35 year career were to be derailed by the actions of a 16 year old boy. The outrage is also selective – this kind of misconduct did not stop Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama’s unabashed discussion of his involvement with “The Choom Gang” only bolstered his support among young Democrats.
Of course, he is in a no-win situation. In politics, the watchword is “Deny, deny, deny”. If he did do this, were he to “confess” and offer his side of the story, well, that would be it for him. Even if she is “mostly lying”, and the encounter began as consensual and she changed her mind and ran out … he has no defense. We live in a society that the outrage over an act like this, even one 35 years ago and of the kind that most of the boys in high school were involved in in some way, would bring him down completely. There is no context where this would be deemed acceptable today.
Even if one believes Blasey, there is the problem that accepting an accusation without any other corroborating support would set a terrible precedent. All a political party would need to do is find someone willing to make an accusation. I am not claiming that Blasey is lying or a Democratic agent, just that accepting accusations without corroboration would be problematic. It is also inconsistent with the basic methods of critical thinking.
Agreed. We have a legal system in this country. If you make an accusation against another person, you take it to court, or you file a civil suit. There are constitutional protections in place for anyone who is accused of a crime or wrongdoing – it is against everything we stand for to allow an accusation to be made and just hang in midair while the ACCUSER dictates the terms by which she will agree to be heard.
If you make an accusation against someone, you will be subpoenaed to appear before the court at THEIR convenience, not yours. It is unheard of in any kind of case for someone to dictate the rules like Blasey is doing. It is up to those hearing the case to determine what kind of investigation, if any, is warranted – yet Blasey is telling the Senate when she might be willing to come to see them, under what circumstances, and demanding an FBI investigation before she does.
Has anyone ever heard of this kind of thing happening in any situation of this kind in the history of the judiciarry of this country?
Anita Hill, who had the advantage of having three women corroborate or at least support her story, had to be subpoenaed by the Senate, under which she appeard to testify on their terms, not hers. And it’s not because they were an all-male, all-white committee, as much as some would have us believe.
Blasey may not be an agent of the Democrats, but try telling them that. The fact that this story was held by Dianne Feinstein for months and then released at the last minute is most definitely political orchestration, timed for maximum political impact and pressure. I would like to hear Feinstein testify before a committee as to her motivations for this release.
Had this story been released when it first came to her attention, as it should have been (before all the hearings took place, not after), it would have been part of every meeting, every interrogation, every questioning.
It is a mockery of our judicial system. Based on the protections guaranteed to the accused in the United States, and regardless of whether anyone believes Kavanaugh or Blasey, and regardless of whether either one of them is telling the truth or lying, Kavanaugh is a victim. Kavanaugh’s wife is a victm. Kavanaugh’s children are victims.
It’s not the way things are supposed to happen in this country, and it’s a disgrace.
I think the behavior of the Democrats here is all the explanation we need of why Trump was elected.
With regard to having the FBI conduct an investigation – well, if the FBI were a trustworthy, nonpartisan organization that could be counted on to get to the bottom of this issue fairly and evenly, I might think that was a good idea.
Aside from the fact that an investigation would take time and provide the Democrats the way to their stall tactic, I don’t think that at this point the FBI or the entire justice department can be trusted to do anything. They have shown their colors with the FISA warrants, and as more of the warrants, memos, and emails are unredacted and made public, we will see who the agency and the department really work for, and exactly how politically motivated they are.
I would not trust the FBI or the DOJ to conduct a nonpartisan investigation into Blasey’s claim. They are sure to turn up some kind of corroborating story – but it would be very, very suspicious information based on what they’ve been up to lately, and the partisan games they’ve been playing.
It would seem logical to me to have Blasey and her attorney meet with Kavanaugh and his, in a moderated hearing in front of some Senate committee. True, it would be a “he said, she said” meeting – but the questions posed and the answers given would be less about determining the truth, and more about deciding whether or not an investigation is warranted. Kind of like a grand jury – the court impanels one to see if the prosecution has enough evidence to go to trial – not to determine who is guilty or innocent.
The fact that Blasey is so willing to make her accusation but unwilling to take it further without the politically motivated FBI on her side is very suspicious to me indeed.
A far more likely scenario, sadly, is that the dirtiest of the dirty politicians who will stop at nothing to block Kavanaugh and get rid of Trump, have dossiers on several high level FBI and DOJ officials, and have them doing their bidding on threat of exposure of some heinous activity or another. I wouldn’t be surprised if one of them actually said that some African American was articulate. (Have I used that one before? I think so – but it’s juicy, and I just wanted to say it again!)
The Democrats don’t seem to consider that this stuff increases the chances that a “blue wave” never occurs. Trump did not get elected for policy. He got elected because many see the Democrats as the win-at-all-costs, quasi Stalinist, patronage politics group they are. They are willing to set the entire nation at its own throat to gain some votes, to make someone look bad. Time and again they have done so.
Let us for a moment consider some possibilities, possibilities that are not without some evidence:
1) Russiagate is a construct to discredit Trump, originating in the minds of John Brennan, Peter Strzok, and Sally Yates in the wake of the Hillary email scandal. Its goal, under the auspices of investigating of investigating Carter Page ( a man never charged with a crime) was to listen in on the Trump campaign, and should he win, create an atmosphere of perpetual chaos around his presidency which would demoralize his supporters and energize the cat ladies…errr other Democrats.
2) Even supposing Ford is telling the Truth, Feinstein’s actions are clearly a political game that further damages the American pysche, creates more cynicism and distrust of the system and sets men and women against each other. Holding on to Ford’s letter for months until the last day of the confirmation hearing was unethical. So, who is arguing that this was not done to influence an outcome in politics? But consider a darker scenario, which if one assumes my first scenario is true, is not at all implausible. Upon hearing that the president would nominate Kavanaugh, the Dems set their army of opposition research zombies loose upon the world, scouring the wasteland known as DC for someone–anyone–who would whisper a bad thing against Kavanaugh. As with the “Trump dossier”, there was and is little concern by the Dems for the veracity or provability of negative claims made against political enemies. They are willing to damage national morale and cohesion knowing they won’t be able to prove a thing. Maybe they’ll win an additional district somewhere after all…
Assuming these two scenarios are at least possible given the evidence, what else are Dems capable of?
In my mind, when I consider that the party of Jefferson Davis now claims to be the party of racial equality and justice, there’s simply nothing they aren’t willing to do if they think they can pull it off. They have commenced Hybrid Warfare against their own country, something that should be reserved for enemies of America.
This is telling. Ford’s high school yearbook was “disappeared” from the school’s website. I mean we have to remember that this group of people was convinced that even Mitt Romney was a right-wing theocrat ready to destroy their neo-liberal utopia. Thus they were able to find stunning evidence that Romney was a bully in high school oh nos…..
Did Romney’s yearbook disappear? Kavanaugh’s?
https://cultofthe1st.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-christine-blasey-fords-high-school_19.html
Bringing logic and reason to a philosophical discussion is like…well kinda like this:
https://youtu.be/VqomZQMZQCQ
Evidence? We don’t need no stinkin’ evidence…
Since internet sleuthing is fun:
A man named Jim Gensheimer has come forward for interviews saying Ford told him of the assault last year; he has been interviewed by CNN on the matter.
In 2017, The Mercury News republished a story by the Washington Post that Larry Flynt was offering $10 million to anyone who could give him info that led to Trump’s impeachment. Note the name of the photographer who took the photograph of Flynt for the article.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/14/have-dirt-that-could-impeach-trump-larry-flynt-will-pay-you-10-million/
Also, note that Flynt employed Stormy Daniels. I think we found our money source folks.
It is very simple. Anything that helps the Dems gain power is “good,” and anything that works agains the Dems is “bad.”
Republicans are bad, but the Dems are worse.
Just look at Harry Reid:
Harry Reid, D-Nev. has no regrets about his 2012 claims that then presidential candidate Mitt Romney paid no taxes for 10 years.
The outgoing Senate Minority Leader even bragged to CNN that the comments, which had been described as McCarthyism, helped keep Romney from winning the election.
“They can call it whatever they want. Romney didn’t win did he?” Reid said during a wide-ranging interview.
So, in Reid’s world, it is perfectly acceptable to make a defamatory charge against an opponent to damage his campaign.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/harry-reid-is-proud-he-lied-about-mitt-romneys-taxes
It was OK because Romney didn’t win. Likewise, it doesn’t matter if Kavanaugh is smeared as long as they can say “he wasn’t confirmed, was he?”