Justice-to-be Kavanaugh

Disclaimer

When I first sat down to begin writing this column, I harbored animus toward Christine Blasey Ford. I wasn’t even alive when Anita Hill accused Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual assault, yet I was somehow having flashbacks to watching the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings that plagued his ultimately successful nomination to the Supreme Court (thank God!). But over the past week, my feelings toward Dr. Ford have shifted from animosity to pity. I do not think Ford is acting with malice. I think it is likely that she was assaulted, as Judge Kavanaugh said, “by some person in some place at some time.” 

However, as Kavanaugh also stated, she was not assaulted by him. Nevertheless, it is apparent that Ford has convinced herself that whomever attacked her nearly 40 years ago was Brett Kavanaugh. Thus, unless evidence arises that Ford intentionally fabricated these allegations, she is not to blame for this disgraceful mockery of the Senate confirmation process. Rather, the blame lies with the politicians and activists that commandeered Ford as a political puppet for purely partisan reasons. The woman has been mercilessly exploited by the Democratic Party (the Party that specializes in the exploitation of vulnerable populations) and she obviously needs help. I hope she gets it, and I sincerely wish her and her family all the best.

Why Dr. Ford’s allegation is not justification for rejecting Kavanaugh’s nomination

Because it is just that — an allegation. If an allegation and an appealing testimony are all that is necessary, then I can have the entire liberal wing of the Supreme Court impeached tomorrow. There is a colossal difference between taking allegations seriously and immediately deeming any allegation tantamount to a conviction. There is a reason that the United States’ legal system is built upon the presumption of innocence and due process. While this is not a trial, I would hope the American people would maintain those ideals in their assessment of these allegations.

Notre Dame students and faculty recently staged a walkout to demonstrate solidarity with Ford. I’ve never been a fan of walkouts (you might as well throw a toddler tantrum), but expressing solidarity and support for sexual assault victims is always a good thing. However, Irish 4 Reproductive Health — the organization that organized and promoted the walkout — said in a statement to The Observer that “We believe Dr. Ford.” I can get behind supporting Ford. I can get behind ensuring that she receives the care all victims of sexual assault deserve. But to say that you believe her allegations without a single shred of evidence is heinously malicious and naive.

How did blindly believing Tawana Brawley go?

How did jumping at the chance to believe Crystal Mangum work out? (Ironically, Mangum is currently behind bars for stabbing her boyfriend to death).

How did leaping to unreserved belief of “Jackie” from an infamously false Rolling Stone article go?

This is why the most important objective since the day the allegation against Kavanaugh broke has been collecting and assessing the evidence (or, more appropriately, the lack thereof) to determine whether or not the allegation is true.

The evidence

Ford has failed to offer a single modicum of evidence that Kavanaugh assaulted her. In fact, much of the limited evidence available not only fails to support her allegations, it actually contradicts her claims. I have outlined some most important points below:

1. All three identified witnesses side with Kavanaugh. This includes Leland Keyser, a Democrat and lifelong friend of Ford.
2. Ford’s memory of the event is hyper-selective. Ford cannot remember: who invited her to the party, how she got to the party, in which house the party occurred or how she got home (which is extremely troubling, because she has a highly-detailed memory of her “escape” out of the house, yet cannot recall how she made the seven-mile trip home). Ford was conveniently able to remember that she had exactly one beer and was not on any medication at the time of the alleged assault (allowing her to claim that her memory was uncompromised).
3. Ford’s own accounts have been extremely inconsistent. Ford has offered five different general dates (with some substantial difference) for when she claims the assault took place. Ford has testified extensively about the impacts of the alleged assault, yet she was not capable of nailing down even a multi-year period of when the assault occurred. Other inconsistencies from Ford include: how she described the event to her husband, her various accounts of the event, her communication with The Washington Post and the alleged psychological impacts of the event.
4. It is likely that Ford perjured herself during her sworn testimony (under penalty of felony). An apparent ex-boyfriend of Ford has come forward claiming all of the following: Ford coached a friend on how to take a polygraph examination, Ford has no fear of flying and Ford has no fear of small places/claustrophobia. If these allegations are true, then Ford lied under oath during her testimony before the Senate. The ex-boyfriend also alleges that Ford never mentioned anything about a sexual assault during their six-year relationship, and that she actually committed credit card fraud by secretly using his credit card after he broke up with her because she was unfaithful.