I believe her

Right on the heels of the last episode, comes this one. I’ve held off saying too much about the confirmation process for Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. That’s mostly because so much was changing so fast that anything I said about it would be old and stale by the time it got to you. Some of the political podcasts I listen to had that problem, so I wasn’t going to get too detailed with my comments.

But he’s been voted out of committee, and I heard both sides during the hearings, both from Ford and Kavanaugh, and from friends and pundits, that I think my thoughts have solidified. I’m releasing this earlier than normal because it seems the FBI investigation is going to start changing the conversation further, and I don’t want us to forget what happened during the actual hearings.

Mentioned links:

Kavanaugh, Ford face off in emotionally charged hearing

65 women defend Kavanaugh as ‘a good person’ amid allegations

Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks!

On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes.

If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts.

Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it.

Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and Player.fm.

And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it.

I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience.

Show transcript

I’ve held off saying too much about the confirmation process for Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. That’s mostly because so much was changing so fast that anything I said about it would be old and stale by the time it got to you. Some of the political podcasts I listen to had that problem, so I wasn’t going to get too detailed with my comments.

But he’s been voted out of committee, and I heard both sides during the hearings, both from Ford and Kavanaugh, and from friends and pundits, that I think my thoughts have solidified. I’m releasing this earlier than normal because it seems the FBI investigation is going to start changing the conversation further, and I don’t want us to forget what happened during the actual hearings.

First, let’s talk about credibility. If, by the word “credibility” you mean a believable accusation that could certainly have happened, and also a believable defense to that accusation, I think you have to say that both Kavanaugh and Ford were credible. Ford’s story lines up with, for example, having told her husband years ago that she had been sexually assaulted. Kavanaugh’s story lines up with the fact that, for example, he has had no history (at least as far as the FBI could find) of sexual assault. From a credibility standpoint, they were both credible.

But the problem with credibility being the sole judge of whether someone is telling the truth is that it’s a low bar to clear. We heard two stories that were credible, yet were at odds with each other. Now, some have said that Kavanaugh’s story was not credible, but I don’t see how that can be said if you apply the same standard to both of them. Kavanaugh seemed cagey about some of his answers about his beer drinking, and Ford’s story has changed over the years, including up to the moment of her testimony regarding who was where at the party. If credibility is the standard, you have to change your standard to find one credible and the other not, no matter which you favor.

If credibility is not enough, what do we have left to try to determine the truth? The answer is evidence. Yes, this was not a criminal trial, but if you’re going to trash anyone’s reputation and ruin their career, this is what you have left and you must use it.

On the evidence side, she has none. Not even those she says were there back her up, including a lifelong friend who says she doesn’t even know Brett Kavanaugh. And she cannot say when and where the incident happened, so that prevents Kavanaugh from providing an alibi.

Now I want to be clear. Pointing out these inconsistencies does not mean she’s lying. Yeah, I’ve seen the memes and the caricatures of her as someone lying about an incident for the sake of politics. I don’t buy that. I don’t think she’s doing that.

But since evidence is what we have left to decide this on, you have to see that he has quite a few things to back up his story, as much as is possible for not have a specific place and time to address. He has that calendar of where he was during the summer of 1982. He’s being entirely transparent, and if we ever get a time and place, he’s ready.

But the biggest piece of evidence is one that I think very few people have considered, and I don’t believe it was brought up at this particular hearing. Let me start by quoting a Facebook friend, who is no Trump supporter, believe me. In one of her posts on this situation, she said this, “If he’s guilty, then Blasey-Ford is in a he said/she said with a pathological liar ~ a futile prospect to say the least. Not to mention that having to engage with the abuser, directly or indirectly, would be nothing short of traumatic! Without a radical intervention, an abuser will continue to be a menace. He will not suddenly start respecting boundaries.”

I responded with information that 65 women who have known Brett Kavanaugh for over a span of 35 years, including during his time at Georgetown Preparatory School. Here is some of what their letter said about him.

“Many of us have remained close friends with him and his family over the years. Through the more than 35 years we have known him, Brett has stood out for his friendship, character, and integrity.  In particular, he has always treated women with decency and respect. That was true when he was in high school, and it has remained true to this day. The signers of this letter hold a broad range of political views. Many of us are not lawyers, but we know Brett Kavanaugh as a person. And he has always been a good person.”

So then without a “radical intervention”, as far as the FBI has been able to find, this alleged abuser stopped being a menace? My Facebook friend acknowledged, “Someone exhibiting this type of behavior as a teenager would have many more victims by the time he was in his fifties. And, it would be highly unlikely that he would have so many women speaking favorably on his behalf.” Indeed, predators don’t stop. Exhibits A and B are Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby. I think this is the most compelling evidence for, not just what he said, but the credibility of what he said. This needs to get more airplay. It’s unfortunate that it is not.

In cases of similar credibility, the evidence needs to be gone over. I think, if you weigh it fairly, you cannot ruin his career on this. Could it have happened the way Ford said it did? Yes. Could something have happened to her without it involving Kavanaugh? Again, yes. I see no reason to think this is made up out of whole cloth.

But here’s my concern. If Brett Kavanaugh were to be rejected without any new evidence coming out against him, this would open the floodgates for unscrupulous people to knowingly accuse others falsely, as long as they can come up with a believable story, even citing witnesses that deny the allegation. These people will see this as an opportunity to take advantage of. It would be an extension of the logic we see so much on the Left, that it’s OK to punch a Nazi, and then claim everyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi, therefore it’s OK to punch them all. But then, they could do more than punch. False rape charges are rare, but they exist, and they’ve put people behind bars before. This new standard would, as I said, open the floodgates. Is this the kind of world you want to live in?

I am not upset with Christine Blasey Ford. She deserves sympathy and support. What she did was courageous. I am extremely mad, however, at how those she looked to for support ignored her for so long. Of course, I refer to the Democrats, and Senator Diane Feinstein in particular.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has the job of looking into the qualifications and background of a Supreme Court appointee. When information becomes available, they have investigators that work for them that are to look into that information. On July 31st, Diane Feinstein came into some new information, and proceeded to … keep it secret. In none of her public or private meetings with Brett Kavanaugh did she ever mention it. Then, 6 weeks later, after the formal hearings were over, she finally came forward with it. Further, she demanded an investigation be done; an investigation that she herself could have asked for when she was first informed!

Understand, she dragged out this trauma for a month and a half! This could all have been over in August, and in private. Instead, it was extended through the end of September, and done in front of the entire nation.

Keep that in mind when Democrats keep saying this is about getting at the truth, or it’s all about the victim. Feinstein’s actions, backed up and approved by the Democrats, are not the actions of those who are interested in either the truth or the victim. Instead, those actions are clearly calculated to delay and delay. If there is another explanation, I’m ready to hear it, but during the testimony on September 27th, I heard none. Instead, they kept asking Kavanaugh to ask for an FBI investigation. “Mr. Kavanaugh, we didn’t do our job for 6 weeks, but we want to know if you will go on the record right now to ask someone else to do our job for us. If you won’t, you’re clearly guilty.”

So now the refusal to pass the buck, or actually pass someone else’s buck, is an admission of guilt? Wow, way to lowering the bar, Democrats.

And what of the FBI? What will they do? What can they do? How will their report be useful?

As to what they will do, they will take statements; y’know, just like the Senate Judiciary Committee has been doing ever since Democrats finally disclosed this new information. What else can they do? There’s no forensic evidence anymore, no ubiquitous traffic camera footage. This was in the days BC – before cellphones – so there’s no trove of location data to gather up and go over. The only thing they can do is what has already been done.

And the Democrats know that. For corroborating evidence that they do, I submit audio of Senator Joe Biden speaking at the Clarence Thomas nomination hearings about the FBI report they got.

[Biden audio, see video above.]

These Democrats today know this full well. Biden’s speech was even mentioned specifically during the hearing, so there’s no excuse. So they hid this information for a month and a half, and then asked to have the job that they were supposed to do outsourced to a group that can only do what the committee was already doing, finally. If you really think that these are not delay tactics, I’ve gotta’ ask, how would this look any different if it was a delaying tactic? What we see is indeed what it would look like. Instead, Democrats insist with their words that it isn’t, but that goes entirely contrary to their actions.

As a bit of late-breaking news, it was the White House that recently let the FBI expand the scope of the investigation. Yes, Trump is the one giving them free reign to get to the truth, so consider this as well.

The people who have treated Christine Blasey Ford the worst are the Democrats she appealed to. That in itself is bad enough, but then to put the onus on Kavanaugh, as though their failure to launch is his fault, is just despicable. It all reeks of taking a woman’s clear pain and using for their own political ploy. It’s a new low in American politics.

Filed under: Judiciary