The name of this blog is Pink’s Politics. The name comes from my high school nick-name “Pink” which was based on my then last name. That is the only significance of the word “pink” here and anyone who attempts to add further or political meaning to it is just plain wrong.

Thursday, September 27, 2018

What We Learned From Today's Hearing

The testimony of Ford and Kavanaugh ended about an hour ago.  So here are my initial observations about what have we learned today:

1. That some people do not find Ms. Ford credible while others do, and some feel that they must defer to her simply because she is a woman.  Some find Ms. Ford credible in the sense that something happened to her or that she truly believes that something happened.  As Sen. Booker said, she “told her truth.”

2. We don’t really know what “her truth” is.  There is absolutely no proof that her truth is actually the true facts of what happened.  Ms. Ford has produced no corroborating evidence and the supposed witnesses she produced have all denied under penalty of perjury that what she claims happened did not happen.

3. Once the allegation that the Democrats held secretly for weeks was made public, the Republican members have conducted investigations that the Democrats refused to participate in.  The senate judiciary website documents the investigations in detail.  These investigations are not unlike the investigations that would be conducted by the FBI; an FBI investigation would simply ask the same questions that have already been asked.  An FBI investigation does not make conclusions about the testimony.

4. Judge Kavanaugh steadfastly denies the accusations against him.  He actually has some contemporaneous evidence in the form of his calendar/diary for the period of time during which Ms. Ford claims the event occurred.  That calendar/diary records the events, including gatherings and parties, that Judge Kavanaugh attended during the summer of 1982 (when the event allegedly occurred).  The party that Ms. Ford describes is not listed.

5. What we have is two people whose testimony conflicts.  The accuser has brought forward no corroborating evidence and that which she proffered to the committee did not support her testimony.  It is not Judge Kavanaugh's duty to prove himself innocent, but the duty of an accuser to prove her allegations.

6. The Democrats could have brought Ms. Ford’s allegations forward to the committee and had them investigated out of the public eye as was Ms. Ford’s wish, but instead they chose to use them politically as a means of stalling the appointment of a Justice to the Supreme court.  Their plan, long before Ms. Ford came forward, was to keep Kavanaugh from the court by any means necessary.  Ms. Ford, sadly, became a weapon of the Democrat’s political agenda.

7. Democrats do not believe that these accusations entitle Kavanaugh to due process.  Yet, these are criminal allegations and while they may have been brought forward in the wrong venue (i.e. not the court of law where she still could have brought the charges), in this country under our Constitution, an accused is entitled to due process.  One is not found guilty of criminal charges without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  To determine, based on allegation alone, that Ford's story is true in essence finds Kavanaugh guilty of the accusations, requiring him to live with that pronouncement for the remainder of his life.

8. The argument that this is not a criminal prosecution so no need for proof just does not fly.  It reeks of McCarthyism and Communist Show Trials.  Yes, it is not a criminal trial in the sense that it is not taking place in a court of law, but rather in some way attached to the nomination hearing.  Nonetheless, the effect is the same on the accused; in fact, it is really worse because if a decision is made just on who is “more believable” then there is never a definitive decision about the guilt or innocence of the Judge and he will live the rest of his life with this question hanging over his head.  Similarly, Ms. Ford will spend the rest of her life with the question of whether he story was provable or not/whether it was really true or not.

9. Democrats’ search and destroy mission continues as they have already obtained a URL for the next website dedicated to stopping the next judge.

10. To keep a qualified jurist from the Supreme Court because of unsubstantiated allegations is a new low for the politics of hatred and a serious wound to our Constitution and our Democracy.

11. There is also the effect on women and the MeToo movement which I have previously addressed.  Suffice it here to say that demanding all women be believed or that all men must be guilty not only destroys a basic tenet of our Constitution, it also has a way of minimizing the true and serious allegations of sexual misconduct while at the same time demeaning women with the implication that they must be so weak that they can’t stand up to the demands of proving their case.  It also has a way of creating a victim mentality in all women.

12. This is a completely unsubstantiated allegation against the nominee (note, I am not saying that Ms. Ford did not suffer some sort of sexual encounter with someone, nor am I saying that she does not believe it was with Kavanaugh, nor am I saying we should not have sympathy for whatever it is that she is going through).  An accusation, without more, is not enough to give rise to a no vote against an otherwise qualified candidate.  That is true regardless of one’s political views or views about women or the MeToo movement or anything else.   We know what the votes were going to be before these allegations were made.  Despite delays and efforts to find some sort of corroboration, they still have no proof other than the words of the accusers. The Democrats would have us delay further, conduct duplicate investigations,  as they search for something/anything to completely destroy the judge. What they are doing is making a mockery of the nomination process.  Anyone who changes their vote based on the flimsy accusation presented here should not be reelected; it is clear that they have no understanding of fairness or our constitution or our democracy.

No comments:

Post a Comment