Dear Jeff Flake,
I was impressed that you were . . . finally . . . partially . . . prevailed upon to break the ranks of your party and require a week delay for an FBI investigation before the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh. This outraged both parties, something I generally think is a good sign, and when a vote is as completely partisan as this one is, there’s clearly some bad faith going on–both ways.
Here’s what I see as bad faith:
- The tactics surrounding Dr. Ford’s testimony being released to cause maximum damage (rather than quietly investigating it earlier on). I get it, she didn’t want her name to be made public, etc., etc. It just so happened to fit in with Democrats plans. Whatever.
- The behavior of the Republican senators in this process. Very unseemly, and quite clearly partisan. If they had watched Kavanaugh bite the head off a live chicken during the hearing, they would have defended it, dismissed it, or normalized it. It’s quite clear that he’s an insider to their little club, and apparently that’s good enough for them.
But Jeff Flake, you don’t have to be an insider any more. You’ve already distanced yourself from Trump (who not coincidentally is guilty of far worse than Brett Kavanaugh), you’re not seeking re-election, you’re not a doddering old benevolent sexist fool like Senator Hatch (telling Dr. Blasey Ford she’s attractive? Are you listening to yourself??), and yet, you still seem unwilling to see the harm in putting someone with Kavanaugh’s temperament on the Supreme Court simply because you agree with the way he will probably decide cases. But that’s a stupid reason to confirm him since not confirming him will just tee up another right wing judge, someone who isn’t plausibly accused of sexual assault and attempted rape.
Why did you do this is a question both sides were asking. Here’s what I heard:
- Left: Two versions–either you was moved by the impassioned women who confronted you in the elevator about the impacts of this decision on the women in this country who have survived sexual assault (and the rest of us, too), or more likely, you were simply doing lip service to that by asking for an FBI investigation because you already said you would vote “yes” unless an FBI investigation revealed something.
- Right: You’re a coward, a traitor, a disgrace! The names being hurled at you were alarming. I honestly wasn’t sure what the heck they were so upset about given that you said you would vote to confirm. So this was all about that caveat about an investigation and the one week delay. Boo freakin hoo.
Mormon Women for Ethical Government[1] sent a letter to you as one of the 4 Mormon senators involved in the Kavanaugh hearing (all Republicans) pleading for you to handle the Kavanaugh hearing with the care necessary given the serious nature of the allegations. You were the only one who did not vote to confirm unconditionally. This is the response from MWEG:
We are deeply grateful to Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) for his willingness to insist upon further investigation before confirming Judge Kavanaugh. We hope that such investigation will be embraced by Senate leadership in order to address the doubt Senator Flake spoke of yesterday. If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed without that additional process, that doubt will linger over both him and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court for the duration of his tenure. If he is innocent of these charges, then he, more than anyone, should want this investigation to take place so that his name can be cleared.
In the meantime, we continue to urge all senators to work diligently to ensure that any justice who sits on the Supreme Court of the United States meets standards of character, temperament, trustworthiness, and impartiality equal to the importance of the position.
As a group devoted to ethical and peaceful governance, we respectfully plead with all the members of the Senate to place the well-being of our country over that of either party.
Your one vote has the dubious honor of being a deciding vote in this confirmation. That’s why you are drawing so much fire from both sides, but hey, if you’ve already been branded a coward and a traitor, what more do you have to lose?
Some of the responses to this hearing that I’ve seen on social media have been really disturbing:
- Kavanaugh shouldn’t be disqualified for something he did when he was 17 or in college. We try 17 year olds as adults all the time in our legal system, something Brett Kavanaugh knows well. But in fairness, I would actually buy this argument somewhat if he was remorseful, or demonstrated that he had learned from his past mistakes. Instead we see a petulant fit in which he’s casting himself as the victim, and he has dodged, obfuscated and outright lied in the process. See footnote [2] for a list of these. He was downright Clintonian in his slipperiness, particularly given the fact that he and Mark Judge are literally accused of attempting a “Devil’s Triangle” with the unwilling 15-year old Dr. Blasey Ford, and no, it’s not a “drinking game” except that they were drunk and thought it was funny. How is it not obvious to everyone that this yearbook entry is clear evidence of him bragging of the very thing she has accused him of doing?
- Boys will be boys. Everyone acted this way in the 1980s. I was in the 80s, and I was around kids who drank, and I can say with certainty that not all boys acted this way, even when drunk, even when a girl was drunk or slutty. Those who did so were a minority, and none of them is up for a seat on the Supreme Court. Yes, we all watched the John Hughes movies, and we knew they joked about taking advantage of girls at parties, but this just wasn’t something every guy did. The ones who did this shouldn’t be on the Supreme Court.
- This is a war on men; next it will be your son! OK, settle the hell down with this one. I am not worried at all about my sons being falsely accused, and that’s because they understand consent and respect for others. If a man hasn’t sexually assaulted anyone, the odds are really good he won’t be accused of it. We should be teaching our children not to hurt other people, not clutching our pearls about false accusations. Only 2-8% of reports are false allegations according to the FBI. Most sexual assault is not reported, and what is reported usually doesn’t result in a conviction; only a third of campus rapes even result in expulsion! Which set of odds would you rather have to live with? 20-25% of women are sexually assaulted at some time in our lives (along with 6% of men). (Here are some updated stats). That’s over 25 million voters.
- There’s no proof or corroboration. There seldom is corroboration or proof of sexual assault because it’s almost never a public act; the current existence of cell phones with cameras and video recording is beginning to change this. But this isn’t a criminal trial; we don’t have to prove his guilt or innocence, just determine if he should be appointed to the Supreme Court for life to make decisions about issues that affect all Americans, 51% of whom are women.
- Why didn’t she come out with this sooner? His appointment is the only reason to bring it up. Sexual assault is very seldom taken seriously, even less back in the early 80s. Victims of sexual assault feel deep shame and embarrassment about what has happened to them. The one thing Dr. Blasey Ford can’t forget is them laughing at her as they terrorized her. She was a joke to them. That’s how victims of these acts feel. I know we are not a joke to you, Senator Flake. Don’t side with those who see women as a punchline.
- He doesn’t remember it, so maybe she’s got the wrong guy. Or maybe, just maybe, that’s because this was nothing to him, a joke, another sexual exploit, a fun prank with his friend, but to her (a terrified 15 year old girl fighting for her life) it was a life-altering event.
Right now, it seems that it doesn’t matter what Kavanaugh did then or says now; he’s your team’s guy, so whatever he does is gold. Don’t you fall for it! If ever there was a time to break ranks, this is it. I’m sure the right will tee up another right wing white guy, probably also from some Ivy League school. [3] Hopefully, the next guy will be able to answer questions directly and remain calm in the face of pressure. You know, the type of composure we expect from jurists and leaders.
You don’t owe the Republican party anything; heaven knows they didn’t have your back when you refused to back Trump. What do you owe the women in this country who are affected by your leadership? I hope you feel you owe us the respect Kavanaugh, his drinking buddies, and his current Senatorial supporters deny us.
Sincerely,
Hawkgrrrl
[1] Mormon Women for Ethical Government (MWEG) is a nonpartisan group of over 6,000 women dedicated to the ideals of decency, honor, accountability, transparency, and justice in governing. MWEG is not formally affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
[2] Here’s a starter list (click here for a great article on the contradictions in Kavanaugh’s testimony):
– He pretended he was ralphing during Beach Week from too many jalapeños (spicy food makes him throw up, LOL)
– He feigned ignorance about sex slang (particularly “Devil’s Triangle” which he boasts of in his yearbook and is the exact sexual act he & Mark Judge attempted with Dr. Blasey Ford).
– He deliberately misread his own meticulously-kept 1982 summer calendar (stating that the people Ford said were at the party didn’t party with him, when they did on July 1; stating that the party she mentioned must have been on a weekend, thereby improving his alibi, although she never claimed it was a weekend, and he did attend drinking parties during the week despite saying he was too focused on his studies).
– He replied to questions about his drinking habits by talking about church
– He suggested there are no alcoholics at Yale
– He denied knowing who “Bart O’Kavanaugh” could possibly be based on
– He declared things refuted that weren’t actually refuted
– He claimed witnesses said things they didn’t say (he said they all said “it didn’t happen” when all they said was that they didn’t remember the event–which they WOULDN’T if they weren’t the one who was sexually assaulted there)
– He failed to explain why nearly a dozen Yale classmates said he drank heavily (dodged the question)
– He invented an imaginary drinking game to avoid admitting he had the mind of a sports jock in high school (Devils Triangle = quarters with only 3 shot glasses? It’s not even a very inventive lie!)
– He said Ford had only accused him last week
– He responded to his roommate’s eyewitness statement with an incoherent story about furniture
– He pretended Bethesda wasn’t five miles wide
– He insisted Renate should be flattered by the ditty about how easy she was; she wasn’t.
– He declared that distinguished federal judges don’t commit sexual misconduct even though he had clerked for exactly such a judge.
– He stated he first learned about Ramirez’ complaint through the news, but texts show him asking friends to give him an alibi for that incident BEFORE the story broke.
[3] The elitism in the Supreme Court is also alarming, but not on par with confirming someone with Kavanaugh’s temperament. However, these two things are not separate. When George W. Bush attempted to put forward Harriet Miers, a conservative woman, the grounds for her not being confirmed were that she didn’t possess the Ivy League background we’ve come to expect for the Supreme Court. As we’ve seen in this confirmation process, though, that very Ivy League background is as much a bug as a feature, creating (mostly) male entitlement and privilege and barring those without it. It keeps the Members of the Club on the inside track.
Wheat & Tares 
I was believing Dr. Ford, but had a bit of your first point of, “if this was one incident way back, should that be a disqualifier?” But it just seems to keep snowballing and then Kavanaugh’s last outburst actually convinced me he does know he has issues and he is not willing to address them.
I worry I am watching my country unravel. The US has come through some tough times, but I keep thinking, “OK America, is this the point where we finally say we need to get back to placing America first and party second?” It has not happened yet.
I share your frustration. I feel utterly powerless about this whole thing. I keep telling my (male) friends, “Yes, in fact I am ok with nominations being derailed by accusations like this because there are a whole lot of candidates that don’t seem to have credible allegations against them, and some who might respond to (conceivably) false allegations with more grace than this guy. And if the allegations are true, which I think they are, he needs to go kick rocks forever. Using him as a bludgeon to silence women isn’t any kind of victory.” They still insist it’s a leftist plot and that he’s entirely innocent.
With 4 mormon Republicans on this committee, what might the consequences be for the church if they confirm him and he is proven to be a liar?
Great post. I, like the other commenters, share a sense of dismay and helplessness I haven’t felt since George W. Bush pushed us into an unnecessary war. A couple of things stand out to me:
1. As per your calling both parties out, there has been an astonishing lack of critical or nuanced thinking here and a great deal of ham-handed, over the top partisanship. As your post suggests, both things about the parties can be true: The dems (who have NOT distinguished themselves in this process) have manipulated the situation to their advantage in order to obstruct the confirmation AND the Republicans (the morality party? Really?) seem willing to sacrifice every scrap of decency and fairness in order to push this nomination through. Besides the astonishing rawness of Dr. Ford’s searing testimony, the way the partisan divide is ensuring a LACK of justice and fairness is the most disturbing thing to come out of this process so far.
2. I believe Dr. Ford and I don’t believe Kavanaugh. As you point out in your starter list, there are a number of contradictions and, IMO, outright lies in Kavanaugh’s testimony, esp. his incorrect definitions of sexual practices. My worry is that the faux naivete that conservatives (and Mormons) cultivate and display about sex might mean that they won’t press on this issue, but that section of the hearing is where Kavanaugh lost all credibility in my eyes. He was saying things that simply aren’t true, which means he lied under oath, which means he should automatically be disqualified. And to answer Geoff-Aus’s question about the consequences for the church, their won’t be any. I’m sure those Mormon Republicans will simply insist harder that Kavanaugh was telling the truth. That’s the standard Mormon tactic: If your claims are legitimately challenged and proven false, just insist harder that they’re true.
3. Even with all of Angela’s great points about Kavanaugh’s contradictions and lies, what’s been most disheartening about this event is how Dr. Ford has been treated. Not in the hearing, where I thought the senators were (relatively) restrained, but outside of that arena, where she actually lives. The death threats, the impugning of her integrity, the snide remarks by Donald Trump Jr., all of it. That it costs a woman this much to simply tell the truth about being assaulted is sickening. Make no mistake, this hearing wasn’t about justice or fairness or even, really, Kavanaugh’s suitability (or not); it was about theater. It was about the over the top, emotional reactions of a privileged frat boy who should not, IMO, be in any position where he is responsible for the fair administration of justice and it was about the quiet dignity of Dr. Ford and the sincere truth she told about her pain. The true tragedy here is that I suspect that the bad vaudeville male actor will triumph and the sincere, wounded woman will lose. Which is a loss for us all.
*Sorry for the long post, but just as a reminder, independent reviews of the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearing have generally come down on Anita Hill’s side (or at least acknowledged that Judge Thomas lied under oath). And that hasn’t made a damn bit of difference. Further evidence at how broken both the country and its system are.
@Geoff-Aus: as Ken Jennings said on Twitter: “Not a good look.”
Wow! While some of Ford’s testimony seemed straight forward and sincere, there were other parts that looked and sounded contrived. With few details and 4 witnesses that refute her main allegations, her overall testimony is weak. Judge Kavanaugh looked mad as hell during much of his testimony. It is hard to tell if he is mad because he has been slandered or mad that he has been caught. (Both could be simultaneously the case). The other person who really gave off powerful vibes was Senator Feinstein when she was called out about delaying the release of Ford’s allegations. She looked like she knew she had screwed up and was guilty. Whether it is because she knows that the evidence is flimsy or that she was just playing dirty politics and got publicly recognized is hard to tell.
Any republican senator can point to Senator Feinstein and feel comfortable voting against that political game.
The consequences to the church are less than having prominent politicians supporting President Trump and President Clinton.
Regardless of whether he’s guilty or innocent of sexual assault, his testimony revealed a man who is far too partisan and not temperamentally fit to be a Supreme Court justice.
I think one’s position on Kavanaugh tells me much more about them politically than it does about the Kavanaugh/Ford situation itself. As a centrist, I am deeply ambivalent about this situation and do not trust anyone else who is not. I’m very troubled by the allegations against Kavanaugh. But I also think the democrats played dirty pool here, and blowing past it with a “whatever” in the OP doesn’t help–it seems pretty obvious to me that this allegation was unleashed only after the democrats couldn’t sway votes at the hearing. And I think you’d have to be naive to believe that the democrats aren’t trying to stall this out until the midterms (I would if I were in their shoes). Then again, I think the democrats haven’t played any dirtier pool here than the republicans did with Merrick Garland, which also really bothered me. Also, while I don’t want Kavanaugh on the bench if he’s alleged to have done what he did–I also don’t buy the “he was only 15” crap–if we as Americans can’t see any problems with a 3-decade allegation in which the witness almost literally cannot remember any other salient fact other than Kavanaugh did it, then I’m a little worried. Where did it happen? Not sure. Who else was there? Story keeps changing. When did it happen? Maybe sometime in the ’80s. Do any of the putative witnesses corroborate the story? No, but it’s been 35 years, so maybe they just don’t remember.
I speak from professional experience here when I say that: (a) this is an impossible claim to defend because you’re not sure what you’re defending against; and (b) it would be impossible to even get a warrant with the testimony I watched. But then again, all the things in the OP about women not coming forward for a lot of years are also often true. But are they true here? Or is it maybe possible, as this article (from what is typically a left-wing blog) suggests, that she’s not lying, but also may not be telling the truth: https://abovethelaw.com/2018/09/just-because-kavanaughs-accuser-may-not-be-lying-doesnt-mean-shes-telling-the-truth/.
So what do we do? Do we wrestle with all these difficult facts at once and try to sift through them, objectively weighing one against another? No. Apparently what we do is decide whether we want Kavanaugh on the court in the first place and then choose which narrative we want to believe, which is precisely what everyone did with similar allegations against Bill Clinton 2 decades ago, only with the democrats and republicans switching sides.
Again, if you’re not ambivalent, you’re doing it wrong.
jimbob: I disagree that ambivalence is the gold standard for sexual assault claims, even if they are 35 years old. I agree whole-heartedly that both parties are behaving in a partisan manner that has nothing to do with what type of person Kavanaugh is. Everyone is more concerned with Roe v. Wade either being overturned or upheld than with the fitness of the person being considered. I don’t want to see Roe v. Wade overturned either, but that’s a risk when a conservative president gets to nominate two Supreme Court Justices. Nominate, and let the chips fall where they may. This is what’s going to happen. It’s a flawed system.
Seeing the utter disregard for the victim by both sides is alarming. Was Feinstein playing a “gotcha” game? Probably. But she didn’t boast of the Devil’s Triangle in her yearbook while also being accused of it, and she’s not seeking a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. IMO, the Supreme Court Justices should be centrists. Unfortunately, our increasingly partisan system ensures they will not be. That’s a travesty.
But yes, it’s a dark day for women, particularly those who’ve been sexually assaulted, to be reminded once again that nobody cares. Nobody cared in 1982. Nobody cares now. The strong and entitled win, and the victims can live with injustice. Kavanaugh has had every advantage–looks, education, athleticism, popularity, Yale education–and as a result, he’s whiny, entitled, self-centered, manipulative, misleading, and disregards the feelings of others and the facts to promote himself. Too many of our politicians are just like him. I would hope that there are enough who can see through that and have integrity, but so far I’ve been disappointed.
I applaud Sen. Flake for taking a stand and breaking ranks with his own party. But what about the 3 other LDS senators? If the confirmation goes through (or even if it doesn’t) I believe there will be potential negative impacts to the Church, especially among millennials and younger who have already been watching the gradual erosion of LDS moral authority. And in the age of #metoo many young people view this confirmation controversy as a moral issue more than a political one.
Mike Lee is a Tea Partier and unapologetic Trump bootlick. Mike Crapo is a former bishop with a once-secret drinking problem. And Orrin Hatch has been selling his soul at below-market prices for four decades. I would be amazed if any of these men still had temple recommends. Flake is far from perfect himself, but seems to be the only one with enough integrity to at least try to do the right thing here.
I am a centrist and a independent voter. I watched the entire Judiciary committee hearing and found myself at points believing both of them. At the end of the day though, he played a whole bunch of games when asked questions, especially about his drinking habits of the past. I tend to think that her story is accurate, and he was such a drinker and the incident so irrelevant to his younger self that he just doesn’t remember it. (Said as someone who partied as a teenager in the 80s)
With that, I believe him to now be an inappropriate candidate for the supreme court regardless of the FBI investigation because this will define any and all judgments he makes going forward as political. We need supteme court justices that represent us all. (and I’d say the same of an extreme left judge)
Pretty much all the democrats and republicans involved Played political games every step of the way. The entire thing is just disgusting. I also feel helpless to change things going forward. I fear our way of governing our nation is going quickly downhill.
I really wish we had a functioning Congress. Instead, what I see is an attitude of party-over-country, which I find repellent.
Well written, and thank you for saying it.
I’m certainly biased to the liberal side, but I personally believe Feinstein when she says that her office didn’t leak the information. Dr. Ford testified that she told several people prior to her information being leaked, including two Congressional offices, the Washington Post, and “beach friends” (her words). So while the Dems are certainly playing a partisan game, I find it difficult to believe that the timing of the revelation is part of a scheme. It looks to me like someone “in the know” leaked it out of desperation, rather than planning the timing for maximum damage.
But jimbob is exactly right about this: for most people, including me, apparently, where one stands in Kavanaugh seems to be determined by political ideology.
George Aus says “With 4 mormon Republicans on this committee, what might the consequences be for the church if they confirm him and he is proven to be a liar?”
I think if he is proven to be a liar there will be absolutely no change in the church’s image. I think the consequence is that the church misses out on an opportunity to stand up for integrity in political office and the protection of sexual assault victims. But missed opportunities are difficult to measure.
Kavanaugh just dug a deeper hole for himself by not being honest and coming clean about his drunk partying times in high school ( and college) that is documented by things he and Mark Judge wrote about those years. We also have Kavanaugh’s statement “what happened at Georgetown stays at Georgetown.”
As Jeff Flake retires from Congress, at least he can do so with a measure of integrity.
I found Dr. Ford a very credible witness. (Let us remember, this took place in the 80’s when Bill Cosby was still a father figure and Jerry Sandusky’s claim to fame was being a great coach). If the party took place somewhere Ford only visited once and was unfamiliar to her, it isn’t surprising she can’t pinpoint the exact location. Same for the exact date—but she provided a clue by reporting she saw Mark Judge working at the grocery store weeks later. And, like many assault victims didn’t report it not even to her parents who she thought would be mad at her for drinking and partying at age 15.
Those who’ve been assaulted ( men and women) understand why victims usually don’t
report and often feel ashamed of what happened to them.
When I sit in church every week and hear the lessons about standing for truth/honesty, morality, the steps of repentance beginning with the admitting one has made a mistake etc I don’t understand the likes of people like Mike Lee, Orrin Hatch and their supporters who follow along with the immoral and amoral leaders we have today.
For me, Kavanaugh’s temperament at the hearing turned me off to him, whether or not he did the things he is accused of doing.
However, I do think that the OP and much of the center-left give too much credit to the “it’s not a trial, it’s a job interview” line of thinking. True, the standard of evidence should be much lower than necessary to get a criminal conviction, but if you can kill a nomination based on uncorroborated and potentially unfalsifiable allegations, then you potentially poison the entire process more than it already is. I have no doubt that if there is no additional evidence, the next time a Democratic president floats a nomination, some allegation from long ago will come up, and Republicans will demand that Democrats use the same standard of proof as the Kavanaugh nomination. The standard ought to be “more likely true than not”, and right now, I think we’re at “as likely as not”. I don’t think any senator should be condemned for requiring something more than the evidence that we have now in order to block an otherwise qualified nominee. Like I said, at this point I probably wouldn’t back him because he seems like a loose cannon, but I wouldn’t blame anyone for looking past that in order to do what they feel is best for future judicial decisions in the face of uncorroborated allegations.
Last Friday at the end of the day, as my husband and I discussed Senator Flake’s big move, he joked that Flake is the long-foretold Mormon who would save the Constitution as it was hanging by a thread. It was nice to laugh about something after such a stressful couple of days.
Rockwell and jimbob have it right, were one stands on Kavanaugh is based on politics. At least it is for the people on the left.
The Rule of Law is dead. People are guilty until they are proven innocent. No proof is required. Just an allegation, with no supporting information is required. Even when information is given to refute the allegations, it is not enough. The only thing that matters is killing this nomination, by any means necessary. Destroy his life, destroy his family’s life, and destroy his reputation and career. Just so you can stick it to Trump. Have you noticed that the media is not talking about Ford being sexually assaulted but that Kavanaugh may have lied about his drinking in high school and college? They are done with Ford, she will be cased aside as they move to the next plan to defeat Kavanaugh.
I agree with Angela C that “it’s a dark day for women, particularly those who’ve been sexually assaulted…” but not because nobody cares. But because of the whole process, people are less likely to believe women, especially men. Men see a man who is a good father, who is a coach for his daughter’s team, who went out of his way to promote women in his office, giving them a hand up in their profession, a man considered to be a “boy scout” during all of his professional years. And to have it all destroyed by an unsubstantiated allegation that cannot be proven or defended against… In the long run this with be a great defeat for women and will come back to haunt them.
As for Kavanaugh being a privileged person. So is Ford. She is not wall flower, underprivileged person, struggling against the system. She is a blood professor at Stanford and Palo Alto for hell’s sake; she also went to private schools in Washington D C and apparently was in the same social circles as Kavanaugh. She was also a student athlete and went to nice schools and earned a doctorate. She had just the same “entitled” and privileged up bring as Kavanagh.
Thanks for setting everyone straight, Scott J. You’re clearly right that the rule of law is dead because . . . some women are now no longer staying quiet about having been sexually assaulted. That’s what killed it for sure.
I completely agree with Rockwell that there’s no real consequence to the church because of the (in)actions of these senators. Everybody already believes this is a deeply conservative church, even though it’s had mixed political views in the past. It might be a turn off to independents, but so might church attendance be. It might be a turn off for feminists, but the church’s stance on women is already not great.
Scott J, you hint that women will be mistreated in retaliation for Judge Kavanaugh having to undergo this scrutiny. “And to have it all destroyed by an unsubstantiated allegation that cannot be proven or defended against” Here’s where I disagree with your statement. Of course, it can’t be proven, but it is already “substantiated” by the following: 1) the reference to “Devil’s Triangle” that is the very act he’s accused of, 2) that several women came forward, none of whom know each other, describing consistent harassing behavior at parties when he had too much to drink, 3) that his calendar doesn’t rule it out as he claims (the names of the same people she mentioned are in the calendar on July 1st), 4) that his friend and co-conspirator created a fictionalized version of him in a book that bears a striking resemblance to what these women are describing, 5) that many of his former fellow students have described him as a belligerent and sexually aggressive drunk at Yale.
And yet, it can be defended against. Here’s what he could have said but didn’t: “I don’t remember the incident Dr. Blasey Ford describes, and if she’s right and I did something like this, I am deeply sorry for the pain it caused her. I had a drinking problem when I was younger. I didn’t behave like myself when I drank too much as my friends have told me. I have learned from these youthful mistakes, and I created a life that bears no resemblance to that past. To any others I may have caused distress in that time, I am deeply sorry. I admire the bravery of all women who come forward at risk to their own reputations, and as a jurist, I’m committed to ensuring justice. To know that I may have acted in this manner is deeply distressing to me.” George W. Bush was an alcoholic, and he owned up to it. That didn’t hurt him because he didn’t lie about it.
If this ends up being a problem for Kavanaugh, it will be because he so obviously dodged, lied, and obfuscated when asked questions and never once owned up to the bad behavior so many saw him exhibit. Matt Damon’s SNL send up was spot on when he replied to the question “Did you drink too much in high school?” and he said “Do you mean ‘Was I cool?'” It seems he still wants to be seen as that popular, cool kid who had little self control or regard for others when he had a few too many beers.
Please, please, please don’t ruin this wonderful blog by introducing politics here!! We are buried by this crap everwhere we turn; every waking hour of the day; I DO NOT NEED IT HERE!. Hawkgrrl – I love your writing – but today, you just ruined it my afternoon. If this is where Wheat and Tares is headed…..I’ll spend my valuable time elsewhere.
Please, please, please don’t ruin this wonderful blog with politics! For the love of Heaven, we are buried with this endless “pile” every day; 24 hours a day! Do we really have to do this here? I love your writing Hawkgrrl – but you just ruined my afternoon by adding to the cacophony of “noise”. If this is where Wheat and Tares is going….I’ll devote my valuable time elsewhere! This makes W&T just like everyone else!
Well said Hawkgrrrl! Great insights!
I was concerned not for how members saw this but how the church is seen by the world. This was telecast round the world. Because we are not so divided politically (the majority are in the middle) we looked without the political prejudice described above. We are also a few steps further along with respect for women, so were more in sympathy with Dr Ford.
We also have respected public media who do in depth investigations into things like this.
At present there is no mention of the church in this but an in depth programme will point it out. As Jack says above anyone who values morality, would see it as lacking. If he is confirmed I see another nail in the coffin for the credibility of the church, as well as republicans generally. Unless of course Pres Nelson comes out in conference condemning The confirmation.
Dsc puts forward a common concern that this whole thing could lead to accusations of misconduct everytime someone is nominated.
I can see where this concern comes from, but I think that if this happens routinely it will lose its punch. I sincerely hope this doesn’t happen, regardless of the party making the nomination.
I also think we tend to overestimate people’s willingness and ability to make credible accusations. Seriously, you’d have to be pretty nuts to falsely accuse a supreme Court nominee of misbehavior. It is more likely to ruin your life than the nominee. Judge Kavanaugh will be fine, even if he has to go back to his current lifetime appointment on the appeals court. Hurt, maybe, but fine. Dr Ford risked her entire livelihood and reputation.
It’s worth remembering that Dr. Ford told multiple people about Kavanaugh before he was nominated. I believe her letter to Senator Feinstein was also sent before the nomination. Any credible conspiracy theory* would have to explain this somehow.
*Is the term “credible conspiracy theory” an oxymoron?
Scott J,
Partisanship is always the other side’s fault. (Sigh)
Also I didn’t know blond privelege was a thing.
Clearly I disagree with you on some things. But I’m willing to point out where I think the Dems went wrong. It was way back in the George W Bush era when they started blocking judicial appointments via filibuster. The Republicans followed suit, and this ultimately led to the end of the filibuster for judicial nominees. The result is what we have now, process that is more partisan than ever and getting worse. My fear is not assault allegations or anything like that. I worry that we are approaching a time when judicial appointments can only happen when the president and the Senate are controlled by the same party.
I have to take issue with some incredibly naive assumptions that some here have made.
1. Senator Feinstein has made her position clear on whether much better evidence of sexual assault is grounds to deny someone high political office. She voted against removing the president who had committed sexual assault and suborned perjury. Clinton was also accused of rape and had more evidence of that than Dr Ford could give about Kavanaugh.
This is clearly a partisan political play by Feinstein regardless of the truth of the allegations against Kavanaugh.
Also, Feinstein said that neither she nor her staff leaked the letter from Dr Ford, yet she had a staffer for 20 years that was a Chinese spy. She has low credibility on what her staff may tell others.
2. Dr Ford sent her letter after President Trump announced the nomination of Kavanaugh. She (and the other crazier accusers) are all democrat partisans and she did not appear in public until she had a substantial go fund me account built up. She will get a significant financial gain from the past few weeks.
3. There are some who assume that Dr Ford must be telling the truth, yet there are many ways that she could be sincere, believe her own story, yet be completely wrong about Kavanaugh. She could also be completely making it up like even NBC now seems to think that Swetnick did about her allegations.
El Oso said: “Dr Ford sent her letter after President Trump announced the nomination of Kavanaugh.”
This is true. Thank you for fact checking. I said earlier that I thought the letter was sent before the nomination, and I was wrong. And I don’t know right now if Ford named Kavanaugh to other people prior to the nomination, but I intend to find out. I believe this was covered in detail during her testimony. Somehow I got the timeline wrong.
Lefthandloafer,
I will truly be sorry if you avoid W&T. I look forward to your perspectives on things and the wells of kindness with which you share them.
That said, I can’t agree that this is no the place for discussions such as this. This is a critical moment for American government and for all of us as voters and citizens who depend on government. If religious values don’t inform our choices and guide us through divisive times such as these then I’d have to wonder at the worth or the efficacy of the teaching. So I think it’s very much worth exploring how we employ our moral compasses in coming to conclusions and how useful the church’s teachings are to help us overcome our personal prejudices and privileges to arrive at the highest good for the greatest number.
Please reconsider.
hawkgrrrl, when I read the title of the entry I knew you had written it before I opened the test.
Thanks for taking it on with your characteristic reason and deft touch of diplomacy.
That should have read before I opened the teXt.
I agree with Loafer W&T is the last place I hope to largely avoid the constant in-your-face Trump clown show.
Reported in Australia that trump has ridiculed Mrs Ford, further politicizing the situation. One of the things I found difficult was thaKavanaugh was so political. I thought he had to be neutral. If something political came before him could he be neutral/ just? Even without the history, is he suitable?
Rockwell,
I think people are more willing to make false or unsupported accusations than you assume. Of the five accusations against Kavanaugh, one was recanted, one has never been taken seriously, and one is looking increasingly unreliable after the accuser has significantly walked back her representations of her own knowledge. So people are clearly willing to make accusations even if they don’t actually have first hand knowledge. This whole thing provides a blueprint for the kinds of allegations that are easy to believe but hard to falsify.
The US is clearly and deeply divided along partisan lines at this time, close to 50%/50%.
The LDS population strongly leans one direction.
The participants of this LDS blog strongly lean the other direction.
Echo chamber within a contra- echo chamber.
.
There are two sided to this story.
People Lie. Especially attorneys.
Women do sometimes make up or mis-remember events.
Three decades later is along time to prove anything.
Due process applies not just in criminal cases.
Both sides are not interested in the truth, only in power. Both sides.
Total hypocrisy. Is there any doubt if the tables were turned that both sides would behave exactly as they do now?
This drama trivializes and marginalizes the strongly substantiated accusations of women who have been abused.
Trump won ( as the most unfit candidate ever to run in my opinion.) Or Clinton lost to His Most Unfitness.
Trump was clear on the sort of people he would nominate to the Supreme Court.
The right blocked Obama’s last selection to the Supreme Court, because they had the votes.
The right will install this Trump selection to the Supreme Court because they will have the votes.
This little week long investigation is a farce. There is nothing further to investigate and if there was they wouldn’t find it.
The left will generate several more contrived accusations in the next few days to no avail.
The left assumed they would win in 2016. They also assume they will win next month.
Why don’t they impeach Trump? There is actual strong evidence against him.
Angela C
First, I did no say women would be mistreated. They will simply not be believed, goes back to the boy who cried wolf story.
Second, I guess we disagree on what is unsubstantiated vs. substantiated. For example the other women coming forward with stories which are unsubstantiated, and in many of the cases are being walked back by the women, does not make them substantiated. The calendar does provide the names of the men on that day, but also has the names of others plus does not name Ford or any other women (I believe) at that party. A fictional character, even loosely based on a real person, is still a fictional character. These are not substantive items, even taken as a whole it is pretty weak broth.
As for what his defense should be. “I don’t know, it could of happen, I am sorry”. Is the defense of someone who knows they did something wrong and is trying to spin it. If I know I did not do something, I don’t go around saying “maybe it happened”. Plus by opening that door his is “guilt” of all the accusations. If you don’t remember one event then it is possible you don’t remember all the other.
Plus as of this morning, some of Ford’s testimony and statements are being disputed. She does not have a long time fear of flying, the most have “two front door” story is falling apart, ( She and her husband build an illegal apartment to their house to rent out, and at time used it as a business entry for her work). And her old boyfriend of more than 6 years states that she coached people on how to take a polygraph test, contradicting her sworn testimony when asked that exact question. The boyfriend also states that she never talked about Kavanaugh or being sexually assaulted, had no fear of flying and did not mind living in very small places (500ft2 apartment with only one door)
I actually prayed about leaving the Church over sexual assault and sexual abuse. I understand the shame and guilt a teenage girl feels when she is assaulted. Even Elizabeth Smart felt it. I share this because I had a friend at the Southaven rally last night. We grew up in the area. She joined the crowd in chanting “Lock her up” when the President was mocking Dr. Ford. I know because she posted a Snapchat video and shared it with me and our mutual friends. She assumed I would be on board because all Mormons are Republicans in her mind. It was poison to my soul. Why would she ever think that I would be okay with that poison? I felt revictimized just watching her brief snippet. I am not living my religion/my faith well enough around her.
Dsc said “Of the five accusations against Kavanaugh, one was recanted, one has never been taken seriously, and one is looking increasingly unreliable after the accuser has significantly walked back her representations of her own knowledge.”
I feel like this proves my point. These people may be willing, but are unable to make credible allegations.
It’s unfortunate and hurtful that people would make false allegations. That doesn’t change the fact that some allegations are worth investigating. Fear of future allegations is not a good reason to quash an investigation into current allegations.
Sarcasm warning.
Hold the phone everyone. Dr. Ford actually isn’t afraid of flying, so obviously she could not have been sexually assaulted. She could have hopped on a plane and jumped out the window at any time.
(Ok, yes I know you’re trying to attack her credibility because she said she’s afraid of flying. That argument is weak weak weak but I keep seeing it. My friendly suggestion is to stick to better arguments. Fear of flying is subjective, changing, and something that can be overcome for most people who are motivated.)
A new article in the Atlantic today discusses the problems with Kavanaugh’s demeanor and clear partisanship. This was one aspect of the RBG documentary that was a pleasant surprise. Despite ideological differences, she and conservative Scalia became close friends, sharing a love of opera. The Supreme Court should rise above partisan politics, but that seems impossible in our day. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/why-i-wouldnt-confirm-brett-kavanaugh/571936/
“People throw around words like perjury too blithely. I won’t do so here. I will say that I do not believe he showed the sort of candor that warrants the Senate’s—or the public’s—confidence. . . . I don’t believe that Supreme Court justices get to tell self-exculpating white lies.” Benjamin Wittes (author of the Atlantic article)
Earlier in the article, he quoted advice he would have given to Kavanaugh:
“He should remain a nominee . . . only if his defense . . . would plausibly convince even people who vociferously disagree with his jurisprudential views that he could serve credibly as a justice. His defense needed to make it possible for a reasonable pro-choice woman to find it a legitimate and acceptable prospect, if not an attractive or appealing one, that he might sit on a case reconsidering Roe v. Wade.”
I don’t know if our political climate today will allow that, but it should, and historically that has been the standard. What was even more shocking to me than Dr. Ford’s testimony and Kavanaugh’s rage-imony was that the vote to confirm was so completely partisan, to a person. That’s just crazy to me. We should choose justices based on their impartiality, not because they are a special interest group of one person working covertly for our team.
Angelica:
Do you have any thoughts as to how we came to this place of such deep partisanship?
Nonpartisan thoughts- I know its all the democrats / republicans fault.
(Obama the great uniter (cough). Bush stole the election. Clinton won because of Perot. Bla bla bla on back to George Washington.)
I agree that the 51-49 split with not one senator out of 100 willing to cross party lines is crazy, and indicative that this is all about selfish power politics, not justice, not integrity, not the truth. And plenty of hypocrisy all around.
“I don’t know if our political climate today will allow that, but it should, and historically that has been the standard. What was even more shocking to me than Dr. Ford’s testimony and Kavanaugh’s rage-imony was that the vote to confirm was so completely partisan, to a person. That’s just crazy to me. We should choose justices based on their impartiality, not because they are a special interest group of one person working covertly for our team.”
To this, Angela C, I think we can agree. We should choose judges based on their impartiality and ability to interpret the laws and constitution of this country. There should not be Democratic or Republican judges, just judges.
Great post, Hawk. You said so much of what I’ve been leaving in voicemails at Senator Flake’s office all week.
OK, well, holy crap, people. Despite this being a political post, we’ve all just agreed on something, even on both sides of the aisle. Let’s plant a flag in that for a minute and sing Kumbaya.
I honestly don’t know how we got to this partisan place or how we get away from it. I’m alarmed by the “two sets of facts” that we are seeing, based on political affiliation and the utter lack of respect shown by each side toward the other. Usually when criticizing someone else’s viewpoint, we assume one of three things, in increasing severity:
1) LAZY – they don’t know the information I know, or else they would think as I do. They haven’t looked into it as much as I have.
2) DUMB – they are too stupid to understand this; they lack my insight or intelligence; they are duped by others.
3) EVIL – they are bad actors, conspirators, manipulators, doing bad things for personal gain.
It feels as though we are just caught in an endless loop of seeing each others’ arguments are lazy, dumb, or having bad intentions. There’s no listening and no respect. I know I find a good deal of what people post on Facebook that’s political to be too upsetting to engage with, and I have unfriended people who post things I consider to be lazy or dumb. I don’t want to engage with them. I’ve been accused of not knowing what “they” know or of being duped by someone’s agenda. (Nobody’s directly called me acting in bad faith). I don’t want to engage with people who do that, and I unfriend them and move on. When I do, though, I realize that we are never going to understand one another or find common ground because I’m unplugging from it. I just don’t see how to change that.
I don’t know if I believe this or not but I will put it on the table in hope that it might lead to other better ideas.
Technology is to blame.
Back when McGovern ran against Nixon, the left thought McGovern was a good guy and everyone liked him and his ideas were progressive and didn’t seem too radical. Everyone knew Nixon was a paranoid crook even before Watergate. He was getting us out of Vietnam with some dignity (snort). He hated the vile communists. Nixon appealed to the so called silent majority who didn’t want to move too quickly into the future and were outraged by the hippie movement, especially after Woodstock of the West (Altamont?) turned so violent. Polls couldn’t be trusted. Politics was more art and theatrics than stats and smart spending. I think many people were surprised at just how badly McGovern lost. Nixon didn’t need to burglarize anything if he had known how easily he would win.
Contrast that with today when both parties have hundreds of wizards collecting data and analyzing it with powerful computers and hundreds of fund raisers fleecing their big donors at every opportunity. This allows the more passionate extremists in each party to stake out a position just radical/conservative enough that it wins 50.1% of the vote. They sometimes mis-calculate it and some candidates defy prediction.
I suspect that the corruption is much more widespread and subtle on both sides. Once a simple affair would sink your political boat. Now it is hard to image anything a candidate can do that would alienate their base on either side. And the wizards with their digital devices can spin anything. We really don’t care about character and integrity. Winning at any cost is the goal with even the worst character. of little concern.
Fun with math:
“I am not worried at all about my sons being falsely accused”
Should you be? Let’s look at the numbers that you present as accurate. I don’t think you actually believe them, but they are frequently used as tools (and you quote them).
“Only 2-8% of reports are false allegations according to the FBI.”
“20-25% of women are sexually assaulted at some time in our lives”
“Rape is the most under-reported crime; 63% of sexual assaults are not reported to police” (from the link you posted)
That means, using your very own numbers, that 32M women are raped in this country, 11.84M women report those rapes, and somewhere between 236,800 and 947,200 men have been falsely accused of rape in this country. That gives odds of being falsely accused of rape at somewhere between 16 per 10,000 and 63 per 10,000.
So what does that number mean? Traffic fatalities are 10.7 per 10,000 — meaning that a false rape accusation is between 1.5 and 6 times more likely than dying in a car crash (are you at all worried about your son dying in a car crash? after all, it isn’t like people who drive safely are injured in car accidents). But I think we know that — according to your numbers, almost 1 out of every 100 men you meet has been FALSELY accused of rape.
And note that your numbers only take the claims that were exposed as clearly false. Presumably some of the uncorroborated claims are false as well. Some studies, researching these uncorroborated claims, come up with false accusation rates of as high as 40%. So your son then has a one in 30 chance of a false rape accusation in his lifetime — still nothing to worry about?
The difference between a child and an adult is the capacity to recognize the tension between competing interests. Assuming your numbers are correct (and, for full disclosure, I do not — the numbers are obviously much lower) rape is an epidemic in this country, with sexual assault rates higher than most countries where rape is pursued as State police for the purpose of genocide. But regardless, the real numbers do show that rape in this country is far too frequent.
How do we respond to that? A child would say “Do anything we have to!” but an adult recognizes that “anything” has consequences. An adult looks at what can be done to reduce that number without, say, destroying the foundation of our civilization (due process and rule of law) along the way. After all, if you erode the rule of law, do you think that will help or hurt women in the long run? The rule of law often works to protect the powerless from the powerful — do not destroy your protection for a short-term perceived benefit.
So what does all of this mean? Just because someone doesn’t agree with your position on Kavanaugh doesn’t mean they support sexual assault.
“But yes, it’s a dark day for women, particularly those who’ve been sexually assaulted, to be reminded once again that nobody cares. Nobody cared in 1982. Nobody cares now. The strong and entitled win, and the victims can live with injustice”
I call BS on this. The vast majority of people in this country care. The vast majority of men in this country care. What they are unwilling to do is destroy the foundation of our society (due process and rule of law) by adopting a standard of “believe women” — especially when even your own statistics say that a portion of those claims are not just uncorroborated but actually false! We have as a foundation that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be imprisoned. Why? Because that is what justice demands.
But what is being demanded here isn’t justice, it is social justice. Kavanaugh must be destroyed (even with the allegations uncorroborated) because other men did other things and now other women might not be believed. Can you not see how twisted and evil that is? It is like the women screaming at Flake in the elevator about how his vote discounted their experience. If they were wronged, the guilt was with their rapist — not with Kavanaugh! If they think that Flake voting for Kavanaugh discounts their experience, then they are looking for a man (any man!) to be punished for something he may or may not have done because another man did them wrong.
But, of course, social justice is not justice — if it were, you could just say justice. It is about getting the pound of flesh for your team — all while complaining of partisanship from the other side. Sorry to be so hot with this one, but I have found this whole process egregiously reprehensible. So let me close with this:
If Kavanaugh did this, I agree that he shouldn’t sit on the Court.
As there is insufficient corroboration to demonstrate that Kavanaugh did this, efforts to keep him off of the Court are either naked partisanship (in a disgusting, unprecedented fashion) or a twisted effort to punish one man for the actions of other men.
And, in case tl:rd
We believe that Judge Kavanaugh should be punished for his own sins, and not for other men’s transgressions.
Jonathan: A few responses.
I understand the hysteria conservative men feel surround false accusations. I’ve heard from the pulpit how that girl in Steubenville ruined the Bright Future of those boys. I’m not blind and deaf. I’ll even go so far as to say people do care about sexual assault. They just care more about themselves.
I can see that it’s hard to live in a world where the rules are changing. Poor Sen. Hatch thinks a sexual assault victim wants to be told by him that she’s “attractive” and “pleasing,” that it’s a compliment, the highest compliment a woman can receive. He still seems bewildered about what he did wrong.
I don’t believe we should “believe all women,” but we should start from a position of taking their claims seriously. Voting Kavanaugh in without even conducting an investigation is not taking these claims seriously. If he’s innocent, he has nothing to fear from an investigation. False accusations in general are not as big a threat as some would claim simply because all sexual assault is so hard to prove in the first place that almost none of it results in charges being filed or convictions.
Where he’s being tried in the court of public opinion, his biggest enemy has been his own temperament. While I’m sure there are plenty of men who see him as full of righteous indignation, I’ve pointed out in the post where I think his testimony is weak and full of misleading little white lies. I find him less credible as a result. His lack of candor is a bigger issue to me than a 35 year old incident that can’t be proven, although he does seem to be more guilty than I would like (again, boasting in his yearbook of the exact thing she’s accused him of attempting to do). His contempt for the left and open affiliation with the right also convinces me that he’s unfit to be on the Supreme Court. The courts should be impartial, and he’s revealed that he is anything but.
In the past days I’ve also seen a lot of hysteria among men and women over the injustice of false accusations and the unfairness of a bright young man’s life ruined because of a misperceived sexual encounter. I re-read the OP— it’s been a few days— and yes, it’s a well-tempered analysis of the senate hearings and events, especially the footnote list of contradictions in Kavanaugh‘s testimony, which should by themselves disqualify him from this job.
Unfortunately, based on the reports allowed to the public, the FBI investigation hasn’t been thorough, (they didn’t even interview the accuser and the accused!) but it’ll serve the senators who vote him in, who want to claim that they did their due diligence. Readers may be interested in looking at or contributing to a website for Arizona sexual assault survivors to tell their stories, dearsenatorflake.org. It’s a poor substitute for justice, but it’s better than keeping a crime quietly hidden.
As for old men who fear for their sons’ or their own futures in this evolving world where a woman bringing a crime out of hiding should be believed, and for the wives, mothers, and sisters of these men, I can also understand those fears. How can you get to the truth of such an accusation, even years past, without evidence? What are we to do with the specter of between 236,800 and 947,200 potential false accusations? How could that possibly be investigated?
I didn’t understand investigations of this sort either, until I witnessed a friend bring charges a year after the assault took place. It was eye-opening for me to see the professionalism with which she was treated by her small-town police, and how carefully they questioned her about the specifics of the incident, without causing more trauma to her than necessary and in ways designed to expose any potential lies that she was making up. Since she wasn’t making up any of it, they were able to make a case which they used in corroborating her story and in questioning the perp, and they ultimately recommended their findings to the county prosecutor. He declined the case because the standard of evidence is much more demanding in court, (as it should be) but the investigation itself shed a great deal of light on who was truthful and who wasn’t, and brought a measure of justice and healing to my friend.
I’ve done my own cursory research on the incidence of false SA accusations, and your numbers (2-8%) are correct. Also useful to learn was that most false accusations are relatively simple to expose by well-trained investigators; the majority of them are brought by a woman with an easily detected agenda, such as a vindictive ex or a girl trying to escape the wrath of her parents. A competent investigation starts with believing the woman, but will focus on the stories of all the people available for interview, with probing questions that reveal guile or lack of it, and to find corroboration or lack of it. In almost all cases, a false accusation can be unmasked, and I think we can all “settle the hell down.” To coin a phrase.
Regarding Senator Flake, since this is a job interview and not a court trial, a thorough and free investigation by the best trained professionals we have should have been a no-brainer when the charge was first brought. And let the chips fall where they may, in the light of day. At minimum they should’ve questioned both the accuser and the accused, and anyone else named in the account who’s still available. But since this is an ugly partisan affair, they will ramrod the nomination in and we’ll have all the ugly fallout that will come, the least of which may be the deeply flawed SCOTUS for as long as Kavanaugh serves.
Jonathon, you compare the figures to car accidents. You may like to know that of 8 under 25s that die on the road 7 are male. So the odds of your son dying on the roads, are nearly 4 times higher. The cause of this relates to sexual assault too.
I think, like Angela, that a judge should be neutral/ ballanced, and his defence was not only partisan but into conspiracy theory, and using terms to obfuscate. Up to a couple of republicans to see how they define morality.
Angela C
For the most part, on this thread at least, I think we have tried to talk and respond civilly to each other, trying to understand the other’s point of view. We have even found common ground, wow how often does that happen.
But I have to disagree with you on one point. I think her claims have been taken seriously. From the time her story broke, the whole world, at least in the US, has come to a complete halt. The news cycle has revolved around this issue. The Judiciary Committee stopped everything and brought her in to hear what she had to say, to bring in her lawyers and to lay out her story and any and all facts she had. They then brought in Kavanugh and questioned him again. And then look what is going on behind the scene, she has two lawyers who have been working with her for months to prepare her and searching find evidence to support her claims. And you have to believe that every reporter worth their salt has been looking to find evidence to support the claims. It would be a huge plum in any reporter’s hat to have found a smoking gun. The FBI does an investigation this week looking into the matter, how many hundreds of man hours spent. And as of today it appears they have found nothing to back up her claims. And I am sorry, we just can’t convict a person without some kind of evidence and we can’t hold this thing unresolved indefinitely, hoping something magically shows up. And do you really think if they took 6 months that they would find anything we have not already seen or hear?
We live in a country that follows the belief that a person is innocent until proven guilty, and we as a people must uphold that or we as a people and a country will not survive.
ScottJ: I really do appreciate your respect on this and other threads, despite the disagreement in viewpoint. I wish all interactions between different opinions could include listening and respect.
I think that it’s unlikely that more investigating would change 1) the outcome of his confirmation, and 2) the facts in evidence. His confirmation was a foregone conclusion given the polarization in this country. I don’t agree that nothing has been found that backs her claims, but you could never prove her claims regardless–that’s the nature of this type of assault. I truly believe he doesn’t recollect it, but that he did it. I’m not even sure he meant to terrorize her, just that he was messing around and was older and larger than her and thought this was funny and normal party behavior in the context of the early 80s.
Personally, I think he did not answer questions with enough candor, telling little white lies that were, in my opinion, easily seen through. While I don’t think you can quite call it perjury, it wasn’t forthcoming and cooperative either. He didn’t maintain his composure and display respect for the process. I also didn’t like his comportment (the anger), and beyond that, I don’t think any judge should put partisanship above the the impartiality of the law, which in my opinion he did, very vocally. I don’t believe he’s fit, but I’m sure he’ll be confirmed. Having said that, Trump has done far worse with far more evidence, his temperament is a garbage fire, and he’s holding the highest office in the land. Nothing surprises me, and I’m not sure my opinion of the state of politics in the US could sink any further, but never say never.
It’s more than about conviction, Scott J. I mean, is that really that standard we have now? “Well, we can’t convict and he’s a Republican, so good enough for me!” Sheesh.
” I truly believe he doesn’t recollect it, but that he did it. I’m not even sure he meant to terrorize her, just that he was messing around and was older and larger than her and thought this was funny and normal party behavior in the context of the early 80s. ”
Angela,
While it is true that he might not recall it (if he drank to the point of passing out that night), this was not “normal” or typical or acceptable party behavior. Not at all. Not for the 70’s or 80’s or any other era. This type of behavior represents the low point which moral people avoid. As Kavanaugh’s freshman roommate said, Kavanaugh was on the more extreme end of the spectrum when it came to the level of drinking and partying.
Kavanaugh is absolutely unqualified to become a Supreme Court Justice. Assuming he had not recollection of the assault, he at least lied under oath. Instead of coming out calm, direct, controlled, he took a page from Clarence Thomas, attacking and emotional. The only thing is Kavanaugh couldn’t place the race card as Thomas did with his remark of being subject to a “high-tech lynching for uppity blacks.”
And yet Brian you have already convicted him in your mind, and no matter what, he will always be a rapist to you.
Angela C and others.
You talk about false accusations in general, no being as big a threat as some would claim. As I recall you are a professional, law I think. (forgive me if I am wrong). What would happen to you both personally and professionally if tomorrows evening news lead with the story “ local lawyer Angela C is being investigated for child sexual abuse, two local children ID her and police are investigating” and it again shows up in the local town paper with a picture of you, front page. And stays there for the next week or two. Now insufficient evidence is found so no charges are filed but no news coverage is given to that.
Now what does that do to your life? Your career? How do people react around you? Your friends will know you and believe you, for the most part. But what about everyone else? Would it hurt your career? And how much will it cost you to defend yourself, $10,000 or more? 20 years from now when people search your name this will come up, with very little but the charges.
Now in no way would I ever suggest that you would ever be in that situation. But think about the scenario and place yourself in it. Would it affect you? Would it keep you up at nights wondering what you may have done that lead those children to accuse you? Would it be a hellish experience? For yourself, your family. How many of your friends would say they support you but no longer bring there children around? What does your boss think about being associated with you and the company?
What I am saying is just the charge of this type are very damaging to people and even if you are innocent, your good name will never be completely recovered.
Thank you again for this nice opportunity to discuss this topic in a respect full manner. I have gained much insight by this conversation.
You know, I wrote a very long response, breaking down some of the replies point by point. I highlighted the list of claims of dishonesty in footnote of the original article and cited sources to go to in order to learn that what is presented as dishonesty is usually only seen that way when approached with a predetermined conclusion. But frankly, my post was not going to convince a soul. And even if it would, the whole “contention is of the Devil” thing doesn’t give me an out just because I happen to be right. So I deleted it.
Let’s face it — if you wanted him, you still do. If you don’t, you still don’t. Sides change on a dime according to what is convenient — the side begging for an FBI investigation last week (claiming that they were the only ones who could be trusted) are now saying the FBI doesn’t know how to do their job and therefore the investigation is flawed. The side that said an FBI investigation wouldn’t tell us anything last week is pointing to it now as additional proof. Positions are fungible according to the needs of the moment. You could be forgiven for coming to the obvious conclusion that our current broken political system (with its overstated emphasis on the Supreme Court) is the natural consequence (or Divine punishment) of Roe, and our dysfunctional politics will continue until we as a nation at a minimum return abortion to the political arena.
Instead, though, I will just give a link:
https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/editorials/wendy-mcelroy-beware-of-kafkatrapping/
If you want to know why what I am seeing from the Democrats scares the heck out of me (and thousands of others), read this. If you want to know why I get angry enough when I read Angela’s claims about how Kavanaugh’s temperament wasn’t judicial that I had to delete my own post, read this. And when you add in the disorder and confrontational politics of the left what is happening in Washington is overtly Stalinesque and it worries me for the future of this country that there are otherwise intelligent people of good will who are willing to go along with it.
The me too movement has been around for a year. Before that sexual assault was more often than not just quietly dealt with, by the victim, and there were no consequences for the perpetrators.
One in 6 women can expect to be sexually assaulted by age 15, and a further 1 in 6 after 15. So thats 10 million women in the US who have or will be victims.
Conservative men seem to think they are the victim, or likely to become one. So women have put up with sexual assault since old testament times at least. They have been believed more for a year, and conservatives, don’t see this as positive, but worry they may be falsely accused.
MDearest description of how the law deals with it should be reassuring.
I have trouble weighing the trauma of 10 million women who have or will be sexually assaulted, against the fear of a man possibly being unjustly accused of sexual assault. As MDearest learned investigators are likely to identify false claims, so the likelyhood is minimal for men. Is the probability even equivalent, let alone the trauma comparable.
Scott J, I have not already convicted him in my mind. In fact, you’ve just done what you accuse others of doing. You know nothing of my politics. You are the example of your own enemy.
Jonathan has links! Democrats scare the hell out of him! He’s impartial as well!
Jonathan, why would there be a divine curse for Roe? Why not a divine blessing? Don’t you like the church’s stance that there are cases where an abortion is permissible? Don’t you appreciate that American law currently makes space for them, and doesn’t condemn women who would die if forced to carry their offspring to term to do so?
Jonathan: “if you wanted him, you still do. If you don’t, you still don’t.” That’s exactly true, and unfortunate, IMO, as it speaks to the partisan nature of the vote. How can two parties see the same information so differently? I suspect you are right that it’s because they want their team to win, not what’s best for the country. The only disagreement from me here is with your conclusion that the Republicans are right and the Democrats are wrong. I see them both as acting poorly here.
Your comments about Roe v. Wade are completely out of left field. There’s no theological justification for opposition to abortion in the LDS church as far as I can tell. Our stance is much more moderate than the rest of the GOP’s stance, and our own scriptures point to the spirit entering the body just before birth, not at the time of conception. Most conservative talk about abortion sounds a lot like male hysteria over women controlling reproduction, a power men have wanted since time immemorial. Outlawing abortion results in more babies being born into homes where they are not wanted and not cared for, things I can’t imagine God wanting. Well-to-do women will always have access to abortions if they choose. It’s only those living in poverty with all its accompanying disadvantages who can’t obtain one safely when it’s illegal, which is why I agree with Leavitt and Dubner that Roe v. Wade is responsible for the unexpected drop in inner city crime in the 1990s. The other thing I find confusing is that the same people who want to outlaw abortion are the ones who want to limit access to birth control and sex education. To me, that makes the lie obvious.
Actually some people once wanted him on his judicial record and now don’t because of his demonstration of the lack of an appropriate judicial temperament. Sometimes it would be nice if we could cut the generalizations.
Thank you, JR! Some people aren’t all partisan. It’s time to put that generalization and myth to bed. It would greatly help these conversations.
JR: I agree if you’re talking about the American people. However, the senators haven’t changed their positions regardless the hearing.
It is possible to be a Latter-day Saint and believe abortion should be legal. This is the Romney belief – essentially that we should be free to make our own mistakes.
But when you start actively advocating abortion as a moral good, you have fully displaced your conscience with your politics. It is full on calling evil good and good evil.
Jonathan, It is not simply a “Romney belief.” It is church policy that there are circumstances in which abortion is appropriate. I haven’t seen anyone here advocating that abortion is generally a moral good — that that it being legal so that those limited circumstances in which it is moral and appropriate can be legally and appropriately attended to. Who are you claiming is “advocating abortion as a moral good.”?
MDearest wrote:
“…most false accusations are relatively simple to expose by well-trained investigators; the majority of them are brought by a woman with an easily detected agenda, such as….”
Bingo!
No agenda here?. Nope? Just a devotion to the cause of truth about an abused woman? And a lot of hot air. Yeh.
How much more obvious can it get???? It is totally political. Both sides have an agenda. The left is this desperate.
The stronger the agenda- the more likely the accusation is false.
I am sick and tired of reading more erudite crap that pretends there isn’t an agenda. Vote and be through with it.
(I am glad this tread has died).
***
I still can’t understand why they are not impeaching Trump. This entire tempest-in-a-teapot discussion is straining at gnats and swallowing a camel. A big fat filthy camel. They have far more evidence and the same Senate. Are these Democrats that dense? Did they not chant their daily prayers- .20 republican senators,.20 republican senators, 20 republican senators.
Now is the last best chance to get at the root of the political problems in this country. Force every congressman and senator up for reelection to either confirm or deny their support for that festering pest and clown of a POTUS, then immediately face the wrath of the voters. No titillating distractions. If he remains what the majority of Americans want, with no crooked Clintons to vote against, then God Bless America. We are going to need it.
Wait until the new year to impeach him and we could have almost 10 years of Pence and a sensible conservative agenda and sustainable economic growth. I might be able to retire after all. The left will howl or finally be forced to win fairly, with votes- in which case as a middle class tax payer with no diversity cards, I will be a servant to a rotten job until I have a fatal heart attack.
***
PS JR:
There is amble data that high abortion rates in the poorer classes of people is at least statistically associated with a decreased murder rate. This with a lag of about 20 years. since both future victim and perps are decreased disproportionately.
It may not be a moral good for you. I can’t find the citation but I recall about 1000 abortions (in the ghetto) is associated with about 1 less murder. It might be cost effective with the cost of legal proceedings and prison housing so high and the cost of a simple medical procedure in an efficient (cattle call) government clinic with dunce “doctors” relatively low.
For the record, I wholeheartedly believe Christine Blasey Ford for reasons that are not your business. But I can’t do the slightest bit of detecting of her agenda, since I am not a well-trained investigator nor have I seen the report of a thorough, careful investigation of her allegations and Kavanaugh’s response to them, conducted by such a professional. And neither can you.
Horse hockey.
The agenda of the democrats is clear, no more conservative judges on the supreme court.
Stall until the election shifts the balance in their favor. (maybe).
The agenda of the republicans is clear, more conservative judges on the supreme court.
Confirm before the election shifts the balance.
If anyone hasn’t mentioned this yet, the republicans successfully stalled for the last 9 months of the presidency of the Great Uniter Obama and refused to confirm his progressive nomination Merrick Garland to the supreme court to replace conservative Antonin Scalia. If you wish to review or be more aware of the long history of this same kind of squabbling over supreme court nominations by both sides multiple times- consider beginning with the wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination/
If we can’t agree on the reality of this basic persistent political practice, then further discussion is pointless.
(No discussion leads to tyranny of the mighty, not fairness).
You don’t have to graduate from the police academy to figure this out.
Erudite confession of this level of ignorance doesn’t cut it with me.
****
This case has already been investigated with more than 100 times the scrutiny of 99% of the murders (if not all) committed this year in the DC metro area. No further scrutiny will satisfy the left unless it confirms their agenda and sacks Kavanaugh. No further investigation will satisfy the right unless it shuts the left down which seems impossible. So far the hyper active media has failed to do either one . Hence a stalemate and a close vote.
Nothing prevents further investigation after the confirmation. The left has decades to investigate and prove their case and impeach him.
About a year ago a special election was held in Alabama for one of those senate seats. Alabama is very conservative but the conservative candidate, Roy Moore lost to Doug Jones. How did this happen? Several women (9?) came forward on the eve of the election and made allegations of sexual misconduct including rape. statutory rape, etc. These were crimes that should result in arrest, prosecution and incarceration. His excuses/explanations were not believed by enough of the public that he lost the election. Some may remember he famously rode a horse to the voting booth and was abusing the horse on national media and that created as much of an outcry as his abuse of 9 or more women.Here is a video documenting the so-called horse abuse.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWtpRg1J0DE
Was justice served? Has Roy Moore been successfully prosecuted on any of these horrible and convincing cases? Is he in prison? Why not? The evidence is simply not strong enough. Legally, it is entirely possible that he was guilty of far, far less than accused. If this was so important, then why is not this jackass in jail? And if it worked once for the left, why not try it again?
Is justice being served when the vast majority of the people of Alabama are not going to agree with the vote of their senator Doug Jones to block the confirmation of Kavanaugh?
***
I wholeheartedly don’t believe Ms Ford. Whether I make my reasons your business or not is irrelevant.Same goes for you.
Sincere belief and even testimony bearing are not the issue here.
It was said that one of the apostles showed up at a conference where people were invited to ask difficult questions about church history. The apostle claimed the answers were in a paper in his brief case that was soon to be published. But he never opened the brief case and he never published these silver bullet answers. The logic, that you have convincing reasons that are none of my business, sounds just like this magic brief case. They do not strengthen the persuasiveness of your argument, rather they make it sound even more emotional and irrational. I remain even more firmly convinced that Ms Ford is mistaken.
Notice the difference in the persuasiveness of the following hypothetical examples:
-The presence of the gold plates in a museum in Salt Lake where scholars have access to study them and confirm their claims.
-The written testimony of 11 contemporary men, plus Joseph, plus journals of 3 women, that they saw and touched them.
-The claim of 10 million people who lived over 100 years later that they prayed about it and felt good.
Much drama! Too judgement.
Angela C writes “and our own scriptures point to the spirit entering the body just before birth”
The spirit of my daughter entered her body at the 12th week. She also declared her name before she was born. It was pretty close to the time her spirit entered her body and didn’t like the relatively mild name we had chosen. She is not mild.
Libertarian.
Mike (the other Mike) writes: “Notice the difference in the persuasiveness of the following hypothetical examples”
“The presence of the gold plates in a museum in Salt Lake where scholars have access to study them and confirm their claims.”
That would be wonderful but I have a doubt it would accomplish much. The discovery of Jericho showed that part of the Bible is historically accurate to at least a small degree, but what has that done for Christianity?
The Kensington Runestone in Minnesota is a contemporary example. It is right there to be seen; I’ve seen it and photographed it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_Runestone
Yet despite this availability it remains disputed.
What ought to be wanted is proof of God himself; but what is the confirmation test? There isn’t one! He can prove himself to certain people for non-obvious selection reasons. The particular in each case will be something that the beneficiary accepts as proof of God and in my experience is also accompanied by some sort of goal or intention, not merely “Oh, by the way, I exist.”
“The written testimony of 11 contemporary men, plus Joseph, plus journals of 3 women, that they saw and touched them.”
Eyewitness testimony is almost as good as physical evidence. As we see, many factors exist why a person believes one witness but not another. Collusion is an important factor; so is presumed benefits to be gained by saying one thing or another. People often lie about things to gain advantage; it would be rare to declare falsely something extremely unpopular already.
“The claim of 10 million people who lived over 100 years later that they prayed about it and felt good.”
Ultimately that’s what moves most people to action, feeling good about something. But it is unspecific. Many people feel good about being Democrats, others feel good about being Libertarian.
Mike asks: “Is justice being served when the vast majority of the people of Alabama are not going to agree with the vote of their senator Doug Jones to block the confirmation of Kavanaugh?”
No, that is not Justice, not as I use the word anyway. Justice depends on facts; not belief. Courts depend on belief; sometimes there’s justice and sometimes not.