Do we really want a man consumed with rage, self-pity and hate on the Supreme Court?
I wasn't in that Maryland bedroom in 1982. You weren't there.
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh says he wasn't there. But after listening to every word uttered by his tearful, yet calm and respectful accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, and Kavanaugh's combative, weepy refutation, I have no choice but to conclude she is credible and he is not.
[OCS: Amazing! An accuser, unknown to the accused, is faced with eleventh-hour allegations of a sexual crime allegedly committed 36- years ago without specificity: no date, no time, no location, a conflicting number of participants; and those cited as witnesses say it never happened and her best friend says she never met the accused. The type of allegations that would be dismissed by any district attorney or prosecutor in the nation or in a court of law. Unfortunately, this tragedy is playing out in the political theatre where truth, facts, and evidence give way to political perceptions and feelings. The fact is that, as most liars can attest, presentation can give the appearance of credibility when the facts do not support the allegations. ]
He is not suited to a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. Because of his self-pity and rage.
[OCS: Rage? Here is a good and decent man with an exemplary history of public service at the highest levels of the government. Here is a man who has undergone six FBI background checks. Here is a man who was blind-sided by hyper-partisan activists and political operatives not because who he is, but because he represents a stumbling block to their political agenda. I, too, would be mad as hell. My character, my family, my life’s work trashed by political animals on the world stage. Self-pity? Yes, there would be some of that too. Why me? Why now? What have I done to deserve this almost universal public scorn and derision?]
Because of the way he shredded the idea that he can be an impartial arbiter on the high court when he accused Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee of seeking "revenge on the behalf of the Clintons" and "left-wing opposition groups."
[OCS: It appears that stating what he believes to be true in a hearing precludes his impartiality on the court. This is nonsense, the staple of the progressive rhetoric.]
Because of the insulting way he spoke to Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar when she asked whether he ever drank so much he could not remember what happened. ("You're talking about a blackout," he said in a nasty tone. "I don't know. Have you?")
[OCS: After being grilled for hours by some of the most hostile, snarky, and downright repugnant Senators, it is amazing that this was the extent of his rebuttal. I do not know if I would have that degree of self-discipline to avoid calling out lies, distortions, half-truths and outright bullying on the part of committee panelists.]
Because he refused to give a straight answer about whether he would support an FBI investigation into Ford's charges.
[OCS: What part of “I will do anything requested by the committee.” do they not understand. The nominee is well-aware of the fact that the FBI simply interviews individuals and writes a report without conclusions or recommendations. In fact, the FBI interview is voluntary and they lack subpoena power and the ability to execute search warrants in this non-criminal congressional procedure. Of course, key Senate Democrats have specifically stated that, in contravention of existing jurisprudence, the candidate should be considered guilty until he proves himself innocent. Nonsensical because you cannot prove a negative and respond to allegations with no specificity. the nominee produced contemporaneous calendars from the period while his accuser produced nothing but allegations and statements taken decades after the fact from her husband and his family. Not one of the accuser’s immediate family signed-on to any statements.]
Because he interrupted Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal who was in the middle of asking a question, then had the cluelessness to say, "Let me finish."
[OCS: Blumenthal who continued to ask questions instead of allowing the nominee to answer the previous question? You mean “stolen valor” Blumenthal who lied for decades about non-existent military service as a combat veteran in Vietnam? Imagine getting lectured by Cory Booker who has admitted to groping teenage girls as a teenager. Dianne Feinstein who mentored a Chinese spy for 20 years while on the Senate Intelligence Committee and whose insider deals have made her and her husband rich? A great group to speak about ethics, behavior, and criminality. ]
Kavanaugh's anger may be understandable in a man who claims — hyperbolically — that his life and family have been "destroyed" by what he says are false allegations of sexual assault.
[OCS: Is this is the statement that is supposed to prove that this screed is fair and balanced?]
But they are hardly what we deserve or expect in a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, which has so much control over Americans' lives, especially women's.
[OCS: Aha! The abortion agenda, the right to kill unborn children on demand or use the horrific partial-birth abortion – which is deliberate murder of a child – at will? Women’s rights are a talking point of the progressives and little more.]
Ford, 51, a psychologist who studies trauma, was a mesmerizing witness.
She seemed honest, and pained, and, as she put it, "100%" certain that the 17-year-old boy who threw her on a bed, ground his hips against her and covered her mouth so she could not scream was Kavanaugh.
[OCS: Is this the same person who tried to delay the hearing because she found flying “painful” although she has a significant history of continually taking airplanes for work and vacations? Is this the person who is 100% certain of the alleged dirty deed and its perpetrator, but cannot remember anything else? Honest? What about the two-question polygraph which asked pretty much if she believed what she wrote on a piece of paper? I am not saying she is lying, but there have been numerous cases where people have believed themselves to be a victim of a non-existent crime or event.]
She practically pleaded for an FBI investigation that would include the only witness to the alleged attack, Kavanaugh's high school friend Mark Judge. Judge, who once wrote a memoir about his blackout drinking in high school, said in a statement to the Senate committee via his attorney that he has no memory of the event and never saw his friend behave in such a manner.
[OCS: The so-called witness gave a statement under the penalty of perjury that he did not recall any such event or see the accused behave in this manner. Thus, there is nothing to ask – unless you consider committee badgering and speechifying.]
She spoke knowledgeably about the biological processes of how memory works.
When asked to describe her most vivid memory of the assault, she replied, "Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the uproarious laughter between the two and their having fun at my expense."
[OCS: This is little more than self-serving camouflage – attempting to build a truthful framework around a non-existent or unavailable truth. But then again, she has two Master’s degrees and a PhD – one would hope she could speak about research in her field.]
Christine Blasey Ford on why the other witnesses don't remember the party where the alleged assault took place: "Nothing remarkable happened to them that night."
[OCS: How about, there was no party because it didn’t happen?]
When she described the room where the alleged assault took place, and the loud music and the laughter of the two teen boys who were in cahoots, I believe that every viewer who has ever been assaulted probably had an unpleasant flashback. I know I did.
[OCS: So now the author’s testifying? Should we assassinate the character of a good man and deny the country the services of a great Judge on the basis of probably.]
Like Anita Hill before her, Ford had wanted to remain anonymous.
But when she was outed, she said she felt she had no choice but to tell her story, knowing full well, as she testified, that the experience would be like stepping in front of a moving train, and that she would probably be "annihilated." As she said this, however, she displayed not a whit of self-pity.
[OCS: Anita Hill, another liar with a sketchy story to be exploited by the progressive socialist democrats. And, like Anita Hill, I personally hope that enough Senators have the perspicacity and courage to see through the sham and to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. If the accused wanted to be anonymous, why not just send her letter to the judiciary committee – she is a smart woman who could have figured that out – rather than to an activist politician. And, what happened to her request for anonymity – she was outed by the Democrats and details leaked to the media. Nothing honorable about that at all.]
It was clear that Kavanaugh's Judiciary Committee supporters don't particularly care whether or not he assaulted Ford all those years ago at a high school party.
[OCS: The article’s author continues to impugn the committee – or at least those who do not agree with her brand of witch-hunting. It is not that they don’t care, it is that they are faced with a decision: decide on the basis of self-serving mob politics or deal with the fact of unsupported allegations with no evidence, no real facts, and no corroboration – and apply the American standard of being innocent until proven guilty.]
And they knew — all 11 men — that they could not trust themselves to come off as caring, so they hired Rachel Mitchell, an Arizona sex-crimes prosecutor, whose plodding questions seemed to infuriate them. They wanted fireworks. She was a wet blanket.
[OCS: It is likely that certain committee members wanted to avoid the sexist, racist, ageist labels that were circulating in the media that characterized them as “old white guys.” This appears to be an attempt to bring impartiality and professionalism into the process.]
Their pent-up rage exploded after Ford finished her testimony. They sidelined Mitchell, and turned their wrath on Democrats, who were accused of withholding information in order to delay the confirmation until after the midterm elections, when Democrats have a fighting chance of gaining the majority in the Senate and could scuttle Kavanaugh's nomination.
[OCS: Funny how the author avoids the truth. It might be a coincidence that her attorney is an activist socialist supporting the anti-Trump resistance – but I doubt it.]
In tones verging on hysteria, they railed about the timing of the allegations (as if there is a good time to step forward alleging you've been attacked by a Supreme Court nominee).
[OCS: Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Committee Member, did not share the allegations with the rest of her committee members on either side of the aisle. She did not ask one question during the private and public meetings with Kavanaugh. And, then she springs it on the committee and the public at the last minute. Possibly not believing the accuser until they had an initial polygraph?]
I've never seen a theatrical outburst like Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham's display of self-righteous anger, sparked by Democratic Sen. Richard J. Durbin's simple assertion that if Kavanaugh truly cared about clearing his good name, he should want to have the FBI investigate Ford's claims. "God help anyone else that gets nominated," Graham said, forgetting that Neil M. Gorsuch was confirmed last year with barely a ripple.
[OCS: Everyone on the committee knew that an FBI investigation simply records what the parties say and does no real investigating in confirmation cases. This is a bogus issue.]
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said to Democrats on the panel: “What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life, hold this seat open and hope you win in 2020. You’ve said that, not me."
[OCS: Sounds like the truth to me. So why is this essential characterization so far down in this story.]
Sen. Orrin G. Hatch's outraged voice broke as he scornfully dismissed the idea that anyone would care what had happened in high school. And yet, Ford had very specifically discussed the "anxiety, phobia and PTSD-like symptoms" that she had felt, intensely, in the first four years after the assault, and intermittently thereafter.
[OCS: Especially uncorroborated remembrances unaccompanied by evidence, specificity, and all of the witnesses cited said it didn’t happen.]
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, forgetting his recitation of "Green Eggs and Ham" during a Senate filibuster, called it "one of the most shameful events in the history of the United States Senate."
Again and again, Kavanaugh, 53, was described by his supporters as a victim — not of Ford, because of course, it's no longer acceptable to publicly attack a victim of sexual assault — but of Democrats.
Ford, they said, was a victim, too. Of Democrats.
Just as I believed Anita Hill in 1991, I believe Christine Blasey Ford.
I wouldn't put Kavanaugh in jail for what he did when he was 17, but I sure as hell wouldn't put him on the Supreme Court. <Source>
robin.abcarian@latimes.com
|
