"[M]any Kavanaugh foes are eager to implement a new standard that they would never agree to live under themselves"

The Double Standard for High-Profile Sexual-Misconduct Accusations - National Review

5942 reads

There are 80 Comments

Bert Perry's picture

I once looked up data on how sexual assault allegations are resolved, and a strong majority are never reported, a portion of those that are reported (best guess 2-8%) are found to be perjurious, and of the rest, most fall into the bin of "insufficient evidence to indict."    What's going on, in my view, is that most of the political haymakers on both sides fall into that bin.  It doesn't mean we don't take them seriously, but rather means we remember the allegation, and its strengths and weaknesses, and if we get a certain number of similar allegations, then we review and see if we have sufficient evidence to indict.

In the Kavanaugh case, I think it's clearly in this bin, but if a bunch of other accusers were to come forward in the coming years with cleaner cases than that of Ms. Ford, or quite frankly if a bunch of accusers were to come forward claiming Ms. Ford was prone to making reckless accusations like this, I'd be very happy to use that as a pretext for removing the guilty party from their job.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Joeb's picture

It has been revealed that Kavanaugh’s rebuttal witness wrote a book about his times at prep school basically addressing FAST TIMES AT PREP SCHOOL RIDGEMONT HIGH.  In the the book he names Kavanaugh as being blind passed out drunk.  Now the Republicans don’t want to bring this rebuttal witness forward.  Seems to me that the book backs the Complaintant.   If this info is incorrect I stand to be corrected.  

Bert Perry's picture

Mark Judge, his chief character witness, wrote it.  The workaround is that getting blind drunk and hooking up a lot does not necessarily imply sexual assault of the type Ford alleges.  Again, you've got, theoretically, three very drunk people in a room.  Is it any surprise that the testimony on both sides is a mess?

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Darrell Post's picture

“The problem is, Dr. Ford can’t remember when it was, where it was, or how it came to be,” Sen. John Cornyn (Texas) says. “There are some gaps there that need to be filled.”

You don't say?

This has all the earmarks of a late hit-job designed to delay the confirmation past November elections so vulnerable Democrat incumbents in the senate won't have to vote Yes on the nominee. 

Joeb's picture

The Democrats are grasping at straws. Personally I think their throwing mud on the wall and hoping it will stick.

 If it is not Kavanaugh it’s going to be another conservative. I’m not a Trumpeteer  in any way but as a Christian any Prolife Judge is greatly appreciated.  This is where the rubber meets the road for some  Christians who voted for Trump.  This is the only reason they voted for this man of highly questionable character.  I’m not a fan of the ends justifies the means but I’ll still take this pick.  We need to take our wins when we can get them I guess.  

dgszweda's picture

Unless someone can come forward and corroborate this story, this is a stretch.  The other person in the room who Ford named, does not corroborate the story.  It is not clear what happened, except that he tried to "disrobe me".  I am not sure if something got accomplished or not.  A bunch of high school kids getting super drunk and doing stupid things, is probably a story for most people in Washington.  Unless something can be shown that he did something, someone can corroborate it or others come forward showing a history, this is a he said/she said scenario.  The question is who is more credible.  But something done 36 years ago, between 15 and 17 year olds when they were all drunk, is probably questionable on the accuracy and credibility all around.  I am not saying he is innocent, but given the current facts, it is hard to judge him as being guilty.

Bert Perry's picture

Keep in mind here that the criminal standard of guilt is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."  You can find one person more credible and still not come to that conclusion.  

This is significant because had Ford brought the matter to the police in the early 1980s, the end result would have been one of the known legal categories, and had Kavanaugh been exonerated, that would have been the end of it.  This is another huge issue in accusations of sexual assault; you have cases where both parties are credible, but insufficient evidence to indict, and you have cases where neither party is credible or sympathetic (say the hooker raped by a drug dealer), and yet there is a conviction.  

In short, it's a tremendously difficult part of the law where you rarely get open and shut cases.  In terms of using something for political gain, it's "wonderful" as well, because not only are the evidence hard to suss out, but it's emotionally charged and most people aren't conditioned to remember how the evidence are to be processed.

The main thing I can say for sure here is that a few Democratic Senators (e.g. Feinstein) and journalists need to lose their jobs over this, but won't, sad to say.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

C. D. Cauthorne Jr.'s picture

If this all proves to be true, it will show that alcohol can really mess up a life!  

Ron Bean's picture

My most memorable experience when being called for jury duty involved the attorney pointing to the defendant during jury selection and asking us, "Is he guilty?" Is he Innocent?" Or "Do you need more information?" Most responded that they needed more information. The correct answer according to the law was "Innocent" until he can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Darrell Post's picture

Feinstein (D) has been the one pushing Ford forward into the spotlight. Apparently, Feinstein said this afternoon, "[Ford] is a woman that has been, I think, profoundly impacted, on this..I can’t say that everything is truthful. I don’t know.”

Ok, if Feinstein is backing off, it appears that the invitation for Ford to testify will not be accepted. The GOP leadership called their bluff, and it appears Ford is going to fold. 

Lee's picture

"One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established." Dt. 19:15

 

 

Lee

Bert Perry's picture

....but that second witness wrote a book about drunken fornication in high school.  There is wiggle room between that and rape, but we're not talking about a super pristine witness.  

Correction: the link provided indicates that a third witness--Kavanaugh, Judge, and P.J. Smith are the witnesses--has come forward to deny (a) knowledge of such a party and (b) any behavior such as was alleged by Ford.  These three were all named by Ford as witnesses.

Regarding Ford's account, yes, it is just one witness, and yes, there is nothing between the alleged events and six years back, and that's why "he said/she said" cases rarely go anywhere--a big problem for sexual abuse allegations that for obvious reasons mostly happen in private.  We might see this as something of a "trial balloon" to see if anything else came up, like the claims earlier this year about Bill Hybels or the early complaints against Larry Nassar.  

Since no one else has come forward, Kavanaugh is looking pretty solid here.  The question, though, is whether many Senators will use the allegations as an excuse to do what they'd wanted to do from the start.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Ron Bean's picture

I see the MSM found Anita Hill for interviews.

The Clarence Thomas hearings are worth remembering. After seeing good men intimidated into retreating from a barrage of unproven accusations, he had the chutzpah to just say "Prove it!!"

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Bert Perry's picture

At this point, with three witnesses saying "no" and one saying "yes", but passing a polygraph, columnist Kathleen Parker has one possible solution; someone else who looked like Kavanaugh.  In my experience, I've had a number of times where I mistook one person for another while completely sober, whereas Ford concedes she was plastered at the time.  

And since Dianne Feinstein has herself admitted that she does not know whether Ford's accusations are true, I think it's a possibility that, were the Democrats honest, they'd have to admit as well.  The evidence so far--three witnesses, refusal to show up at hearing, etc..--are trending from "insufficient evidence to indict" to "probably false" at this point.

It's also instructive to remember the Anita Hill case.  There was he said/she said, and no corroborating evidence on either side.  However, some of Hill's accusations were quite similar to those of a case that Hill had access to in one of her jobs, and one of her chief character witnesses told of hearing about harassment at a point prior to her having met Hill.  The left forgets very quickly how close Hill's case was to completely imploding.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Joeb's picture

If Dr Ford does not show up Monday.  This matter is going to be a Memory and Kavanaugh is going to be a Supreme Court Justice.  

JohnBrian's picture

They had "Spartacus" Booker, and Harris, who is supposed to be the female Obama, make fools of themselves on national television. That failed, so they went back to their playbook, and decided that a sex scandal would wipe "The Kav" out.

But, they couldn't find anything in his adult life, so they had to go all the way back to his teenage years to find an alleged incident. Maybe, as one of the articles suggested, they hoped other "victims" would come out of the woodwork, with more recent allegations.

Alas, no one has, and they have ended up looking foolish.

They appear to have been counting on the upcoming election to turn the power over to them, but the 2016 polls showed Clinton winning, so maybe they should not be so confident. The Trump voters from 2016 may turn out in force again.

p.s. Beto in TX has raised more money than Cruz, but most of that from out of state, from those who cannot vote in TX!

p.p.s Clinton was the heir apparent during the Obama years, and the Dems had no one else "in the wings." No one has risen to the top since 2016, so I think they're going to have a hard time bringing someone forward to challenge Trump in 2020.

p.p.p.s And I'm a non-citizen so I don't have a vote!

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

Bert Perry's picture

Ford gave a total of $72 to Democrats, so either Palo Alto mortgage payments eliminated her disposable income or she was a fairly tepid Democrat.  We should avoid suggesting that she was motivated by political bias until we actually have proof--keep in mind here that again, she passed a polygraph and appears to believe what she's saying.   Really, the worst I can insinuate about her, at least without a lot of additional evidence, is that she either didn't notice or didn't care the blatant political games Feinstein et al are playing with her case.

Feinstein, on the other hand, has got to be one of the most cynical people on the face of the planet.  After all those years in the Senate, she should know better, but doesn't because she's gotten away with it for decades.

Once again, my best bet is Parker's thesis, mistaken identity by Ford, which is not hard to understand when everyone is drunk.  Here's a story from a friend along those lines.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Joeb's picture

Bert has a good point. The Republicans need to tread lightly here.  If they come off oh well boys will be boys or victim blame and demonize it could cost them in the mid terms.  Let’s see the Christian Right Gov of Alabama went down and the current Christian Right Governor Of Missouri is embattled right now for sexual harassment and misuse of office. Then of course we have Al Franken and other Democrats. 

Bert what’s the old saying hell  hath no fury like a women’s scorn. Some of the best sources in the criminal investigation businesses are jilted girlfriends and wives.  

I passed a jilted girlfriend over to a IRS Tax Fraud Special Agent in a refund scheme case which supposedly involved a corrupt IRS Employee.  This ended up being false but the  refund scheme was true.  The IRS Special Agent later told me he brought the ex girlfriend into the grand jury for testimony and then had to drag her out because she was spitting so much venom  it got to be ridicules. 

Darrell Post's picture

Ok, the word is this morning that Ford is declining the invitation to come testify to the senate. So the GOP leadership has called her bluff, and she won't testify, instead she calling for FBI to investigate (FBI has already done multiple background checks on Kav.), which is what Feinstein wanted all along--a mechanism by which to delay the vote, and/or hope more accusers would materialize somehow. There is nothing here folks. This is a wide open obvious attempt to take a man down, destroy his integrity and his career. As long as we are 'being careful' we need to be careful as a nation because we are on the cusp of only getting corrupt leaders because anyone with integrity will not pursue public service because of the trashing received for political gain. Read the commentary posted by Jim above. 

GregH's picture

Quote:

Ok, the word is this morning that Ford is declining the invitation to come testify to the senate. So the GOP leadership has called her bluff, and she won't testify, instead she calling for FBI to investigate (FBI has already done multiple background checks on Kav.), which is what Feinstein wanted all along--a mechanism by which to delay the vote, and/or hope more accusers would materialize somehow. There is nothing here folks. This is a wide open obvious attempt to take a man down, destroy his integrity and his career. As long as we are 'being careful' we need to be careful as a nation because we are on the cusp of only getting corrupt leaders because anyone with integrity will not pursue public service because of the trashing received for political gain. Read the commentary posted by Jim above. 

And you know all this how? Are you not trashing a woman without having a clue as to what the truth actually is? Does truth matter to you or are you just obsessed with your political agenda at the expense of truth?

Darrell Post's picture

"And you know all this how? Are you not trashing a woman without having a clue as to what the truth actually is? Does truth matter to you or are you just obsessed with your political agenda at the expense of truth?"

I am not trashing this woman at all. She has trashed Kavanaugh, in public, for all to hear, and then when offered the chance to attend a private hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she declines. That is like crying FIRE in a crowded theater and then after someone is trampled to death coming back to say, well, I didn't really mean it. Real damage has been done to Kavanaugh by Ford's statements, and her refusal to follow through and put on record her allegations says all we need to know. Her accusations were vague to begin with, and have had contradictory details. Have you actually read details in this account? The accusations are not even specific enough to raise concerns among the most left leaning Republican Senators. 

Furthermore, others who have been named have come to Kavanaugh's defense. No other woman has come forward to say, yes, this guy did this to me too. 

As to the political angle, Sen. Feinstein has had knowledge of this for months and waited until this very moment to bring this out. Why? And there is a pattern to this sort of thing, as outlined in the article Jim linked to above.

I am the one concerned with truth here. All the evidence points to this being a hit job, and when Sen. Grassley invited Ford to the hearing, and others including Sen. Flake who begged her to come and state her case, the response is no, she won't come and testify. 

Was Joseph in Egypt guilty? After all, Mrs. Potiphar testified directly as to what happened, she had a date, a time, she had his garment, and she could make the case that Joseph had the access, and the motive, and after all he was a slave who had been discarded by his family. But Joseph was innocent. And in the case with Kavanaugh, Ford has no date, time, garment or any other such evidence. And when asked to come under oath and speak to the senate, she refuses. Why? 

Senator Graham of SC said it this way: "Here is what I want your audience to know. If Miss Ford really did not want to come forward, never intended to come forward, never planned to come forward, why did she pay for a polygraph in August and why did she hire a lawyer in August if she never intended to do what she’s doing?… And who’s paid for it?”

It amazes me that in these situations few any more want to even consider being open to the possibility that the accused male could be innocent. This is a scary new world in which we live where a man's life can be destroyed only on the strength of an unsubstantiated accusation. If one is found to actually be guilty, then throw the book at him. Lock him up.

But when there is only one vague accusation, with a very clear political meta-narrative, and no other women came forward to say Me Too, and the vague accusation has conflicting details in it, and then the accuser refuses the chance to go under oath and testify at a closed-door hearing, then I make no apology for my comment above and take offense at your accusation that I am trashing a woman. 

 

 

GregH's picture

Darrell, not only are you trashing a woman but you are doing so from the position of ignorance. You have no idea what the truth is. 

I am taking no position on this because I don't know the truth. You think you know truth but you don't either. You just know "facts" and spin that you have been fed by whatever your preferred news media is. The only right thing to do when you do not have the facts is to be quiet, and stop throwing stones and trashing people that may be innocent. 

Darrell Post's picture

Greg, I am not trashing a woman. I am interacting with the facts, statements, and actions that are all public for anyone to see. If I commented without educating myself as to the facts, statements and actions in the case, then I would be ignorant. But I have read widely on this issue. This is the same as all of the senators I mentioned, they are also interacting with the facts, statements, and actions. They wanted to hear more from Ms. Ford, but she is refusing to put on record what she has stated in public. She has trashed Mr. Kavanaugh, and now will not put that on record or answer questions about it. That you cannot see the inherent unfairness with this is astounding to me.

Do you think the senators, who have raised questions beyond mine, and the witnesses who have come to Kavanaugh's defense are also trashing a woman?

GregH's picture

Let's put aside the term "trashing a woman" because it is pejorative and not helpful.

What you are doing is judging a case and presuming who is guilty/innocent when you don't know the evidence or little else about it. 

To do what you are doing is irresponsible and wrong. It is also ignorant and borderline slanderous. What people in your position should do is to resolve to put truth above politics and just be quiet unless you know something about the situation (which you don't).

Darrell Post's picture

Greg,

You used that term "trashing a woman" in an accusation against me, now you want to put it away. 

What you are doing is judging a case and presuming who is guilty/innocent when you don't know the evidence or little else about it. 

Not at all Greg. There is no case here. Everyone has the same basic set of information. You, me, and the senators involved in the hearings. Ms. Ford made public statements against Mr. Kavanaugh, then when given the opportunity to come to the senate closed door hearings to put this on the record and answer questions, she has refused. 

To do what you are doing is irresponsible and wrong. It is also ignorant and borderline slanderous.

Not at all Greg. Are all of these senators irresponsible and wrong? Are those who have come to Kavanugh's defense irresponsible and wrong? Are all the non-existent women who haven't come forward to say ME TOO also irresponsible and wrong?

Given that Ms. Ford refuses to go on record with her accusation only confirms that it was her who was slanderous against Mr. Kavanaugh. Again, you cannot use your words to do real damage to someone and then back off and refuse to stand by your words for the record. 

Even Sen. Feinstein who has been behind all this has just come out and said, "I can’t say that everything is truthful. I don’t know.” Is Sen. Feinstein also irresponsible, wrong, and borderline slanderous?

 

GregH's picture

Sigh...

I said I would quit using "trashing a woman" in an effort to be more civil. You want to my attempt at civility against me. Sad. Pathetic...

You have NO clue as to what the truth is or what happened in that room decades ago. None. Nada. 

Seems like when you don't know the truth, it would be beneficial to shut up and stop prejudging. But is just me. Do what you want. By all means, put your political agenda above truth.

BTW, this is not for you since you already know everything but for those of us that don't, Ford is not a criminal. She is not obligated to show up to testify when demanded to by the Senate on their timeline. Her refusal to play acquiesce to their demands does not mean she is lying.

Steve Davis's picture

I found this article interesting in light of the discussions and accusations.

http://www2.philly.com/philly/opinion/commentary/brett-kavanaugh-christi...

We may not ever know the truth. What we do not have yet is hard evidence. Did he do it? I don't know. I am skeptical but I don't see evidence. If someone asked me about or accused me of some things from high school I would probably have to say, "I really don't remember and don't want to." Of course I started high school 50 years ago. I work in the behavioral health and criminal justice field. I do a lot of interviews and assessments. I've seen memories suppressed, invented, suggested, and manipulated. I work with people who hear voices I don't hear and see things that I don't see. The mind holds great mysteries. We need evidence before we ruin someone's career.  After 35 years it may be too late to have evidence that will convince anyone who's mind is not already made up. 

Bert Perry's picture

Probably good to restate what we know; we have one witness telling one story, and three witnesses telling another, three and a half decades after the fact.    The one witness admits she'd been drinking, and there is no physical evidence, no location, no date of the crime, not much at all there besides the claim.  Even beyond the issues with the statute of limitations, I don't know that many prosecutors would bring it to trial because quite frankly they don't like losing.  This is one big reason that only six out of every 370 allegations of sexual assault end up with a prison term--the nature of sexual assault is that it tends to be he said/she said unless there is physical evidence or witnesses to corroborate it, and many times those people were intoxicated.  It doesn't make for an easy case to win.

Regarding the political implications, let's tread lightly.  The actions of Senator Feinstein are all very consistent with trying to run out the clock on Kavanaugh's nomination, to be sure, and I think it's very fair to criticize her for that.  The path back to Dr. Ford is more tenuous, and I don't think we ought to go there yet.  The alternative hypothesis--that she's simply scared of what going public means--is still admissible, in my view.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Pages