Like most of America, I find myself riveted by the situation surrounding Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. More than anything else, it should be the latest and perhaps most striking example of a point I’m fond of making – that is there is a real fight going on, and at stake is the essence of the United States of America. Even the most Principled, Decorum-Obsessed, Tone Policing conservative has to see it now, and if not he or she has no business commenting on these matters ever again. Kavanaugh, remember, isn’t some John Birch Society type of conservative, but a standard Bush GOP man. That the situation is happening to his sort highlights the fact that there is a real street fight going on in the political realm that threatens to further consume the social realm.
As of this writing, the allegation brought forth by Christine Blasey Ford of sexual assault at the hands of Kavanaugh, some 36 years ago, has been subjected to further investigation by the FBI. This process has been completed, and a report returned to the US Senate for analysis. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is poised to take a full vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation by the end of the week. Whatever the result, this confirmation process will have a lasting impact on our society.
In truth, much more than even a Supreme Court seat hangs in the balance here. This is a matter of whether due process, the rule of law and common decency will succumb to the politics of personal destruction, the female driven anarcho-tyranny that is now gender relations, and the death of Heritage America by any means necessary.
The New York Times is a standard bearer for the latter set. So naturally its Editorial Board viewed the pivotal Kavanaugh-Ford Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, called last week to discuss the allegations, as totally damning for the Judge. Its analysis provides a distillation of the “intellectual” forces arrayed against such seemingly basic values like due process, so it is worth going through. The Editors write of the spectacle:
What a study in contrasts: Where Christine Blasey Ford was calm and dignified, Brett Kavanaugh was volatile and belligerent; where she was eager to respond fully to every questioner, and kept worrying whether she was being “helpful” enough, he was openly contemptuous of several senators; most important, where she was credible and unshakable at every point in her testimony, he was at some points evasive, and some of his answers strained credulity.
Christine Blasey Ford made an allegation that Judge Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a party some 36 years ago, when they were both in high school. However, she cannot narrow when the alleged assault occurred down to the month, let alone any sort of date. The best she can do is say it was in the summer of 1982. She cannot pinpoint where this occurred, apart from saying it took place a few miles away from a country club she swam at. She cannot pinpoint how she got there, or who exactly was there. In fact, there is no one who has stated that this gathering occurred as described by Ford. At least 3 of the people Ford claims were attendants, as well as Kavanaugh, have stated the gathering did not happen.
Ford describes the alleged assault in detail. She seemingly knows the precise floor plan of the alleged house, but after making her escape from the assault which she claims nearly killed her, indeed describing in detail her escape route, her memory suddenly stops. She seemingly cannot remember what happened after she emerged into the fresh air of that summer night. She does not know where she went to next, how or when she eventually got home, or who brought her home.
The aforementioned is essentially the sum of the sworn testimony, under penalty of perjury, of all of the parties involved.
Not one piece of Ford’s allegation is corroborated by anything other than Ford’s own account. Rachel Mitchell, the independent prosecutor drafted by the Republicans to question Ford, stated in her summary that the case was even weaker than a “he said, she said” case which itself is near impossible to prove. Yet this is what passes for “credible” according to the New York Times editorial board, a proxy for the views of polite society.
This artificial inflation of Ford’s charge extended to the vast majority of the press, as well as the majority of lawmakers, who constantly ascribed to Ford herself and/or her allegation a veneer of legitimacy it does not deserve. She was constantly described as “compelling,” “believable,” and of course “credible,” even by Republicans.
This in turn made Kavanaugh “credibly accused.” The mere existence of Ford’s allegation, as well as others from Debora Ramirez and Julie Swetnick which have proven to be equally baseless, allowed the Kavanaugh’s political enemies to repeatedly smear him as a sexual assaulter at the very least. At worst, Kavanaugh was a serial gang rapist. For the better part of two weeks these are the sort of terms that were attached to Kavanuagh’s name by press chatterboxes, their 24 hour, 7 day conviction- by-media loudly dwarfing the standard terse denial statements Kavanaugh offered in response.
To step back a bit, generally when these sort of sexual crimes are alleged with no tangible evidence, and none forthcoming due to substantial time having passed, the man is faced with an unduly high bar to breach to successfully clear his name. In practice, the mere accusation is enough to harm the man’s standing in many eyes. Should he be cleared of the charge legally, many will still view him as a guilty man who simply had the fortune of the evidence being destroyed by time.
The man’s reputation is irreparably harmed by the ordeal, and many will never view him in the same light again. Opportunities in business and employment, public service and community participation may be closed off to him. A lot of this is a consequence of biology, in that female sexual and reproductive value is intrinsic to the furthering of a given society, and as such society is extremely sensitive to sexual violations perpetrated against females, considering it among the worst of crimes.
This is what Kavanaugh faces at the moment, and will continue to face for the rest of his life. Even if he is cleared of these charges in some official capacity, it will not be enough to undo the association of Kavanaugh and rape, which was seared into the pubic conscience by the media.
His family life will be altered forever, with his wife facing ostracism for supporting a ‘rapist,’ with his kids being hounded to view their father as evil, thereby themselves relegated to spawn of evil; with his community and social circle pressured to isolate the family as tainted. All of this, to be cemented in recorded history for posterity. Already we have seen this to some extent as the media views his coaching of girls basketball as problematic, implying predation of minors, while Harvard Law School has effectively frozen him out of his teaching duties.
The Times shows no empathy for Kavanaugh’s plight, writing:
Judge Kavanaugh’s defiant fury might be understandable coming from someone who believes himself innocent of the grotesque charges he’s facing. Yet it was also evidence of an unsettling temperament in a man trying to persuade the nation of his judicial demeanor.
There is no “might” here. Kavanaugh’s fury is completely understandable, and has multiple layers to it. As described, there is an special sort of disgust for sexual crimes against females that aggregates to a concentrated fury towards the perpetrators. The flip side of this is the concentrated fury of those falsely accused of such crimes, emanating from the prospect of facing the steepest of penalties with no justification.
The price Kavanaugh stands to pay here is potentially life and career ending, and certainly reputation-ending, all because someone made an allegation, with no basis, and thus no legitimacy. Well, no legitimacy apart from its potential ability to exact political damage. That Kavanaugh’s life has been turned upside down perhaps deliberately, with calculation, presents a second layer of justifiable fury. Then there are the kids. Imagine having to explain to your 10 year old what “gang rape” is.
And thus, with his life set to be wrested from him ultimately for the crime of his political inconvenience, he appeared before some of the very enablers of his predicament to defend his family, his name, his life.
And our ‘betters’ in the press act like it was a surprise that Kavanuagh showed some emotion, some fight. After all, it was only his life and his family on the line.
The fact is that when Kavanaugh was in front of the Committee in his capacity as a judge, answering questions about his judicial record as well as other questions pertaining to the Supreme Court, his temperament was fine. He was calm, engaging and respectful to all of the senators who asked him questions – including Democrats who attempted to malign him and his record.
It was only when he faced the same committee in his capacity as a Man, defending his name and his family from salacious charges that he was moved with a range of emotion.
Unmoved by this, Kavanaugh’s detractors in the NYT took the further step of using his humanity in defending his family against him, claiming that his ‘defiant fury’ was somehow evidence of a temperamental flaw which made him unfit for service on the bench.
This is textbook gaslighting. A bogus charge is levied, followed by days of constant smearing, then a declaration of mental instability when a justifiable anger is levied in response. It is indeed reminiscent of the lowest of low tactics perpetrated by totalitarians when trying to bring the hammer down on those it considers dissidents. The Editors carry on, in their role as Pravda:
On Thursday, he gave misleading answers to questions about seemingly small matters — sharpening doubts about his honesty about far more significant ones. He gave coy answers when pressed about what was clearly a sexual innuendo in his high-school yearbook.
Kavanaugh stated that “boofing” referred to flatulence, that the “devil’s triangle” referred to a drinking game, and that the “FFFFFFourth of July” referred to an inside joke about the way a friend spoke. They were fine answers on their face. However, even if you want to insist that these are actually evidence of a clear sexual innuendo, beyond having no proof of this, you are left arguing that teenage boys do not go around flaunting newly acquired knowledge about sex as much as possible, despite their vast inexperience. Above this, equating joking about sex or intimating sexual activity with ‘a tendency to sexually assault women,’ is insipid at best, irresponsible on the average, and defamatory at worst.
He insisted over and over that others Dr. Blasey named as attending the gathering had “said it didn’t happen,” when in fact at least two of them have said only that they don’t recall it — and one of them told a reporter that she believes Dr. Blasey.
In other words, no one corroborates Blasey Ford’s account. The closest she comes is “I believe her, but I can’t recall if what she is saying happened.” This allegation would get absolutely nowhere in the legal system, as Rachel Mitchell declared.
But, they tell us, this is not a criminal investigation! This is about assessing the character of a man we might be putting on the Supreme Court! And to this end,
Judge Kavanaugh clumsily dodged a number of times when senators asked him about his drinking habits. When Senator Amy Klobuchar gently pressed him about whether he’d ever blacked out from drinking, he at first wouldn’t reply directly. “I don’t know, have you?” he replied — a condescending and dismissive response to the legitimate exercise of a senator’s duty of advise and consent. (Later, after a break in the hearing, he apologized.)
Judge Kavanaugh gave categorical denials a number of times, including, at other points, that he’d ever blacked out from too much drinking. Given numerous reports now of his heavy drinking in college, such a blanket denial is hard to believe.
Indeed, the questions surrounding Kavanaugh’s drinking were the worst aspects of his testimony. However I suspect Kavanaugh was attempting to avoid being drawn into an obvious trap. The Democratic Senators were trying to establish that Kavanaugh at times drank in excess such that he forgot details of the previous night. Therefore, Ford’s account could have happened, but Kavanaugh might not have remembered it thanks to his drinking. This is indeed line of attack Kavanaugh’s enemies pursued as the various allegations started to unravel.
Spurious at best, but when you have absolutely no shred of concrete evidence, spinning fantastic theories is your best bet.
Furthermore, the ‘job interview’ argument is disingenuous. Kavanaugh’s character is now being examined in the context of an allegation of serious crime. Whether he actually committed that crime or not is thus incredibly important to assessing his character. The flimsy nature of the allegation combined with the presumption of innocence should not damage Kavanaugh’s character in theory.
What those who constantly harp on the fact that this is not a criminal investigation are trying to do is bypass that logical conclusion by intimating that that if you are of good character you will never be accused of anything in the first place. In so doing, they render mere allegations to be damning.
This is dangerous, to put it mildly. Indeed, the mask slipped when a protestor to Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation got in the face of Senator Cassidy of Louisiana. Consider the following exchange:
Protester: “I would fight. And I would make sure women are heard. Clearly you’re OK if a rapist goes on the Supreme Court.”
Cassidy: “No, I’m not. But then on the other hand, clearly you’re OK, the absence of evidence obviously means nothing to you.”
Protester: “No, there is evidence. Look at the standard. How many people are in jail for less?”
According to the protester, Kavanaugh’s lynching is justifiable because of the fact that other men have been destroyed on even less grounds than the ‘weaker than he said, she said’ case brought against him. She is no doubt voicing the id of the leftist establishment in the press, academia and politics, communist to the core, the thirst for blood palpable. Returning to the Times:
In contrast, Dr. Blasey bolstered her credibility not only by describing in harrowing detail what she did remember, but by being honest about what she didn’t — like the exact date of the gathering, or the address of the house where it occurred. As she pointed out, the precise details of a trauma get burned into the brain and stay there long after less relevant details fade away.
In other words, Ford provided no evidence, tangible or otherwise that this event occurred. Her precise description of the floor plan of the house yet no recollection of even the month when it occurred is waived away by psychology. Yet this is all seen as a bolstering of credibility.
She was also honest about her ambivalence in coming forward. “I am terrified,” she told the senators in her opening remarks. And then there’s the fact that she gains nothing by coming forward. She is in hiding now with her family in the face of death threats.
Where a man accused of sexual crime without evidence finds himself in an almost untenable situation, the female accuser in such scenarios rarely faces the same sort of potential lasting damage. Should her claim be shown to be false, or lacking evidence, the sympathetic position she garners by merely making the claim is bolstered by a further sympathy from some that The System failed her.
To the extent she faces any shorter term criticism for ruining a man’s life, this dissipates over time to the point where nothing may as well have happened. See Jackie Coakley, the infamous Rolling Stone UVA accuser, who faced no repercussions for cooking up a totally fake story about a rape in a fraternity house. Nothing happened to her outside of internet criticism. She even found some guy to look past her obvious mental issues and marry her.
It is ridiculous to assert that Ford has nothing to gain. For a start, Ford’s political aims would be realized if Kavanaugh is prevented from the bench over this. Beyond that, her name will forever be on the lips of social justice activists from now until the end of time. She will go down in history alongside the likes of Rosa Parks as women who changed the course of American history, in this instance by saving Roe v Wade.
Even if her claims are proven unequivocally as baseless, Ford will still have her defenders. No matter what, she will gain monetarily in the shape of book deals, high profile interviews and media appearances, and even corporate sponsorships. This, on top of the three quarters of a million dollars she has seen accrue to her Go Fund Me page, despite having spent nothing on her lawyers (who happen to be big players in the Democrat political machine – not cheap by any stretch), and nothing on the two-question polygraph test many have pointed to as part of her “credibility.”
The reported death threats sound routine, in that almost every public figure, particularly controversial ones, receive them regularly. I do not trivialize them, but only mention their regularity (Kavanaugh and his family have received death threats as well) so as to highlight the fact that the preponderance of evidence points to Ford having plenty to gain and relatively little to lose. Whether she meant it that way is irrelevant.
The Times finishes thusly:
There is no reason the committee needs to hold this vote before the F.B.I. can do a proper investigation, and Mr. Judge and possibly other witnesses can be called to testify under oath. The Senate, and the American people, need to know the truth, or as close an approximation as possible, before deciding whether Judge Kavanaugh should get a lifetime seat on the nation’s highest court. If the committee will not make a more serious effort, the only choice for senators seeking to protect the credibility of the Supreme Court will be to vote no.
Indeed, the committee made that more serious effort, with Senator Jeff Flake essentially demanding a further FBI investigation in exchange for a ‘yes’ vote. Interestingly enough, what led to Flake’s last second demand, apart from his natural propensity to waiver, was an exchange he had with two women who accosted him as he attempted to enter an elevator.
The women shouted Flake down, declaring that they were victims of sexual assault and that as a result Flake’s decision making on the matter, should he decide ‘incorrectly,’ would be validating and legitimizing their stated assaults. In a way, this was a microcosm of the entire Kavanaugh saga – a shrieking woman claiming abuse, and demanding that this claim inform the sober rationality of a Supreme Court nomination. Note too that one of the women accosting Flake was obviously foreign. She is a confirmed operative of a George Soros-funded activist group. This added a nice touch in highlighting the destruction of Heritage America by foreigners from within.
A lot of that destruction over the last 50 years or so has come at the hand of the Supreme Court, which has taken an increasingly activist role in that time. While the court had been nominally a 5-4 split in the favor of the more conservative view, in reality Justice Kennedy’s voting record showed that the split was effectively 4.5-4.5. With Kennedy’s retirement and Kavanaugh’s prospective ascension to the court, it would be a legitimate 5-4 split.
This is the real reason for the extra bit of dirtiness coming from the Kavanaugh opposition camp. It is because of the realization that the main vehicle for Marxist advancement will be closed off, and even reversed, for a generation. Kavanaugh thus represents existential damage and is worth stopping by any means necessary.
I suspect that the rank desperation the left has shown here will prove to have been a bridge too far. The United States still has within it the soul of Heritage America in large numbers, despite its declining vitality. They will be viscerally disgusted by the willingness to so easily destroy an innocent man and his family for the sake of political advancement. Kavanaugh is no Trump. He is not an apex alpha male celebrity with decades in the spotlight.
He is a normal guy who did normal things and dated normal women. John Q. Public looks at Kavanaugh and sees himself or perhaps his good buddy in high school. Huge swaths of women see Mrs. Kavanaugh struggling to keep it together and shudder at the thought of this happening to their family. I suspect they won’t cosign what the leftists have offered. If a descent to such moral lows is what is required, perhaps those aims sought aren’t worth it.
On a more somber note, the entire saga is quite depressing. That one has to write such a tome in the defense of concepts such as a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in today’s age speaks to the declining intelligence of the country as a whole. More generally, that we have a huge slice of the population that believes that allegations are convictions, or does not value freedom of speech, the rights of one to self-defense via firearm or concepts such as the Electoral College speaks to a decline in the essence of America.
That they all have voting power leads to the realization that country that so produced the glorious reputation the United States is on the way out absent change. It more generally speaks to the warnings against a pure democracy from throughout history. If we haven’t already reached a sort of ‘Post-America,’ we are fast reaching it. To save America, or indeed to sit by and let it go will both come with its own horrors. As such, these are potentially dark times.