Surprise... The shameful campaign against Kavanaugh was motivated by Roe v. Wade all along

Anyone who thought the opposition to Kavanaugh had anything to do with something that happened to Ford by K when they were in high school was at best naive. At worst they were… well, I reserve saying that. It was nothing but an attempt to block a relative conservative but who is likely pro-life (he has not ruled on an abortion case yet at SCOTUS).

Now to start this, I am also one who was skeptical of Dr. Ford’s story from the start, but let’s keep in mind that this is an opinion piece with something of an axe to grind—and which will not convince anyone who is not already convinced. It does answer the question of motivation of Dr. Ford to an extent, and on a very interesting note, it’s worth noting that if Dr. Ford didn’t authorize her lawyer to say this, it could be grounds for discipline. It otherwise would be protected under attorney-client privilege.

When we’re dealing with this case, and its veracity, rather, we can simply proceed from what we know. Dr. Ford’s handlers led with inadmissible evidence (the lie detector test) taken wrongly (a few days after her grandmother’s funeral) without the rest results and procedures being provided for examination, a clear Constitutional violation. Then you add to that the fact that she didn’t remember critical details, that corroborating evidence didn’t come through, and that the allegations were being played for maximum political advantage by Senator NIfong Feinstein—last minute, dickering over testifying, etc..

Finally, you’ve got the fact that, under cross examination, Dr. Ford basically admitted she lied about fear of flying, that she’d lied about why she put in the 2nd front door to her house, and more, and you’ve got a list of “hmmms” that would lead most any prosecutor to say “not touching this one.” The latest news is simply the unsurprising news that a resident of Palo Alto willing to work with Senator Nifong Feinstein to oppose a Trump nominee was doing so to protect Roe v. Wade. Yes, it helps flesh out motive, a crucial consideration, but it’s not exactly a shocker.

Put differently, while it’s not likely that this listing of crucial evidence would persuade those firmly on Dr. Ford’s side, those who are in the “I don’t know” camp are likely to respond far better to a listing of the crucial evidence than a triumphalist showing only what we strongly suspected already; that Dr. Ford’s motive was to protect Roe.