Bret Kavanaugh Nomination Ethics Train Wreck Update: Christine Blasey Ford, AKA “Anita Hill”

Now we know the name of the author of the late, through-the-mists-of-time character assassination attempt on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Good. Realizing that her anonymous sniper attack wouldn’t be sufficient to accomplish the Democrats’ political objective, she identified herself in an interview with the Washington Post. She is Christine Blasey Ford, like Anita Hill a professor who decided to inject an ancient incident into the solemn process—well, it once was, anyway—of confirming a nominee to the Supreme Court.

The fact that the accusation is no longer anonymous changes some aspects of this latest—is it the most unethical? Probably—twist in the Kavanaugh Ethics Train Wreck saga so far. From the second the desperate Sen. Diane Feinstein—desperate to defeat a qualified conservative judge, desperate to bolster her standing with a California progressive base that finds her too moderate—released Ford’s allegation, it could be tagged “unethical” in five ways:

1 The accusation was anonymous, and thus could not be fairly confronted by the accused. UNFAIR.

2. The accusation was over 30 years old, meaning that all aspects of it, including the recollections of the alleged participants, would be inherently untrustworthy. This is why we have statutes of limitations. UNFAIR, and IRRESPONSIBLE.

3. The accusation was, and still is, unsubstantiated by anyone else. UNFAIR, and IRRESPONSIBLE.

4. The accusation was made against a distinguished public servant and family man with no documented blemishes on his record or character as an adult, stemming from an alleged incident that occurred, if it occurred, while he was a minor. UNFAIR

5. No complaint had been made against Kavanaugh by the accuser at any time in the intervening years, until his nomination by President Trump became a political rallying point for the Left. IRRESPONSIBLE.

Now there are only four. One would be too many. The accusation should not have been made, and should not have been made public. This is a simple Golden Rule equation: what innocent human being would want to be the target of an unprovable accusation like this, at a moment when a significant career advancing opportunity was in the balance? We must begin with the assumption that Kavanaugh is indeed innocent, because there is no substantiated evidence that he is not, and because as an adult, which is what matters now, he is innocent.

Do I believe Kavanaugh, who has unequivocally denied that the incident occurred? I have no reason or justification to believe or disbelieve him, and neither does anyone else. However, I would regard the incident as irrelevant to his confirmation even if he agreed that it happened. Would a report of such an incident when he was applying for bar membership be treated as sufficient proof of bad character to cause his application to be rejected? Absolutely not,  not in any jurisdiction in the nation. Would such conduct as a minor cause any adult with an impeccable record since high school to be rejected for any job or post? Are high school indiscretions that do not involve criminal prosecutions ever deemed relevant to adult employment? Never. (Well, hardly ever.)

Do I believe Ford? I have no reason or justification to believe or disbelieve her. There are several good reasons, however, to be skeptical. If this happened, and was so serious that it warrants raising now, why did she never mention it to anyone—not a friend, not a family member—for over thirty years? When she did mention the episode, in 2012, her assailant wasn’t identified, making the fact that she talked about it worthless as evidence that the alleged assault involved Kavanaugh. I can honestly say that as keen a recollection as I have of many high school incidents in my past, it is likely that the details have become garbled in my mind. There are too many ways that Ford could be mistaken. Those who believe Ford’s account, in the absence of a single confirming witness, do so out of pure confirmation bias: they want the story to be true, so they believe it is.

Anita Hill’s unverified accusation against Clarence Thomas during his confirmation was unethical, and Ford’s accusation is worse. It is even older, and it does not involve professional or even adult conduct, as Thomas’s alleged sexual harassment did. Thomas rescued himself by playing the race card (“a high-tech lynching”), an option Kavanaugh does not have at his disposal. If Brett Kavanaugh is rejected by the Democratic Party’s employment of this ugly tactic, then we can be sure that every male candidate from either party will be at perpetual risk of an unsubstantiated accusation of some kind of sexual misconduct, no matter how ancient, speculative, or juvenile.  How ugly is this tactic and Democratic manipulation of it, you ask? A current meme on the web:

Nice. All it takes to be tarred as someone with “a history of attacking women” is a single, politically-motivated, unsubstantiated accusation of teenage misconduct.

That alone is sufficient reason for the Senate to confirm him, and to resoundingly reject “the ends justify the means” for the Golden Rule.

54 Comments

Filed under Character, Ethics Train Wrecks, Gender and Sex, Government & Politics, Law & Law Enforcement

54 responses to “Bret Kavanaugh Nomination Ethics Train Wreck Update: Christine Blasey Ford, AKA “Anita Hill”

  1. Michelle Klatt

    Facebook is flooded with lefties say Kavanaugh was a 17 year old man, should have known better, and should step back and end this now. Mind you, these are the exact same folks who would cry in outrage any time someone criticized David Hogg, who at 18 years old was a mere boy, and therefore untouchable. It’s so bad now, we can’t even have a standard for when someone is an adult. It just depends on if the person is conservative or liberal, or rather, how liberals view them.

  2. Should have known better than to do what he denies doing, and that nobody but a woman who is suddenly indignant over a 30 year plus old memory thinks she remembers him doing.

  3. Chris Marschner_

    Imagine the conundrum we would have if Kavanaugh was black. Should we automatically believe the white girl?

  4. dragin_dragon

    If I recall the Thomas hearing, the Chair apologized to Thomas for putting him through Anita Hill.

  5. Other Bill

    Judging from the high school year book pictures in this article, Brett Kavanaugh is definitely guilty of being and Irish Catholic presumably heterosexual white guy who played football and basketball (fairly competently, evidently) and attended a Catholic high school with other white guys who appear to have been goofy teenagers at the time. I’m going to guess that in the eyes of the woke, this is fully sufficient grounds to disqualify any Supreme Court nominee.

  6. Edward Warren

    If Democrats want to proclaim that Juanita Brodderick’s rape claims against William Jefferson Clinton, who was not a teenager at the time, are true, I will consider whether these 30 year old claims are true or not.

  7. Willem Reese

    Diane Feinstein groped me 50 years ago and turned me into a newt. I got better, but forgot about it until just now.

  8. when will Spike Lee tweet her address?

  9. Isaac

    A comparison between Ford (A) and Juanita Broaddrick (B) is in order:

    B: Knows exactly the time and place that she was assaulted by Bill Clinton. All of her details check out.

    A: Can’t recall the date or location of the party, although she claims to have been permanently traumatized by it.

    B: Was a Democrat who looked up to Bill Clinton. Only speaks out against him because he raped her, not because she disagrees with his politics.

    A: Is an extreme liberal activist, who cleared her social media of all evidence of her activism just before revealing herself. Hates Trump and Republicans generally.

    B: friends found her in a disheveled state, immediately knew that she was raped by Bill Clinton, and were super mad about it. Even when Broadderick wanted to let the matter rest, her friends continued making a stink about it on her behalf for years, until the rumors about Bill’s behavior became impossible to ignore.

    A: Zero signs of knowledge by anyone of the alleged assault after or while it happened. Not even rumors. No friends of Ford seemed to have acted or said anything on her behalf, even as Kavanaugh became a public figure.

    B: Clinton had a long history of groping and forcing himself on women, both before and after the assault. Broaddrick was able to describe certain behaviors and kinks of Clinton’s which were also independently described by his other victims.

    A. Kavanaugh has no history or pattern whatsoever of the described behavior.

    B. Broaddrick only failed to report the crime because she feared the powerful Clintons, who would retaliate by dragging her name through the mud and insinuating that she was a lying slut (which they eventually did anyway.)

    A. No such reason not to report an attempted rape by a 17-year-old.

    B. Went public in reaction to the Clintons calling her a liar on television (violating, if I recall, an agreement to leave Broaddrick alone as long as she didn’t press charges.)

    A. Went public just as Kavanaugh was about to be confirmed for the Supreme Court, and for no other reason.

    B. Can explain exactly why she failed to press charges, with documented evidence. It was widely known by everyone in her inner circle that she was traumatized and disturbed by the event from the moment it happened. They also all knew who did it.

    A. Does not give plausible reason why she did not press charges, tell her friends, or tell her parents what happened. Claims to have seen counselors over it, but no one before 2012 knows of her being assaulted, and even then Kavanaugh was never named.

    B. Fits the general profile of someone telling the truth.

    A: Fits the general profile of Rolling Stone’s “Jackie,” Lena Dunham, Mattress Girl, and other politically-charged false assault accusations. The kind that only make it harder for real victims.

    B: Democrats lose their minds if you believe Broaddrick.

    A: Democrats will lose their minds if you don’t immediately believe Ford.

    Correct me if I got some details wrong.

  10. Steve-O-in-NJ

    I think it may be too late Jack. Senators Flake and Corker may use this as a chance to take a parting shot at a president who they hate, and have their own McCain thumbs down moment. It is not ethical to destroy someone’s career just so you can get back at someone you dislike, however bitterness and revenge are frequently stronger than ethics.

  11. adimagejim

    The chances for avoiding civil conflict diminish by the day. This is just one more example of the widening chasm between two irreconcilable sides. Hopelessness reigns.

  12. Still Spartan

    Attempted gang rape is not the same as a high school indiscretion. Really?

    So, in your “let’s assume it’s true” hypothetical, of course it should disqualify him.

    • 35 year old allegations that are less clear than a London fog are meaningless. That’s the problem here.

      When your side is rewarded for this crap strategy, well… if you don’t know the dangers of this precedent, then there’s no point discussing them.

    • By your standard, Sparty, Bill Clinton would be in JAIL today.

      This is bullshit, and you know it.

      • Still Spartan

        Actually, I had some female lawyers over for brunch yesterday and Bill came up. We all agreed that he wouldn’t fave fared as well today. Then again, we do have the “grab ’em by the pussy” video, so maybe we just have a lower test for President than we do for SCOTUS.

        • We saw how the media covered for his wife.

          Any accusers of Bill today would be smeared by the media as “partisans” and “drummed out of the wood work” and “political attack dog”.

          No, Bill would still pass Leftist circles with flying colors.

  13. joed68

    Is anyone surprised by ANYTHING the left does anymore? There is no low too low, and asking them if they could stoop lower would likely be taken as a dare. Just the latest in a long series of events since Trump’s election that guarantee he will be reelected, and that they will lose even more seats this go-round.

  14. Celia

    I feel a need to jump in here. While I understand that you have a fair point in being suspicious of this woman not speaking out publicly until now, 30 years after the incident, I would like to remind you that women often are not able to speak out against harassment until long after the fact because they are afraid and unable. And as skeptical as we might be of this woman, I have to believe her. I have to believe that she would not make this up. I have to believe that she deserves to be heard now, even though she couldn’t be heard for 30 years. I don’t want someone in power with even the slightest doubts about him or his misconduct. Even if this woman’s story is less than accurate, there is still a possibility that he is dangerous and untrustworthy, and I really don’t want someone like that having power in this country. Additionally, please stop putting Democratic politicians down. They are not evil, cheap, greedy, or trying to sabotage members of the Republican party just for the sake of doing it. They are doing their best for this country, so please respect Ms. Feinstein and her colleagues. Thank you.

    • “I would like to remind you that women often are not able to speak out against harassment until long after the fact because they are afraid and unable.”

      Then they lose their chance. There are a lot of things in life like that. If I’m reluctant to speak up and challenge a mob harassing a US Senator while he’s dining with my family, I can’t wait 20 years and do it then, can I? If you are afraid to report a community criminal when you have evidence against him because you’re afraid to snitch, it’s no mitigation to report the evidence after more people have been hurt because of your delay. How about women who don’t stop their boyfriends from sexually molesting their children because they are afraid? Is it acceptable that they wait until the Statute of Limitations has run, the damage has been done, and the kids are grown and molesting children themselves before they speak up? You don’t have to remind me of it. I’m sorry, but I am really sick of this argument, Celia. It’s an excuse and a rationalization. It makes fairness and due process impossible, and it allows false accusers to manipulate others. Three decades? Holding a complaint until the exact moment when it can’t be defended against AND will do the most damage?

      It’s explainable, perhaps, but it isn’t ethically excusable.

    • Additionally, please stop putting Democratic politicians down. They are not evil, cheap, greedy, or trying to sabotage members of the Republican party just for the sake of doing it. They are doing their best for this country, so please respect Ms. Feinstein and her colleagues.

      Oh. my. God.

      Celia is either a very low information voter, or a partisan hack.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.