The Strange Case Of Brett Kavanaugh
Well, this has been quite the circus, hasn't it? And for all the wrong reasons.
The one thing that hasn't been discussed in any noteworthy measure over the course of the nomination hearings has been the one thing that should have been the focus... Mr. Kavanaugh's politics. "Will he overturn Roe v. Wade?", was the only topic that was even tangentially or peripherally covered in all this mess. I know that there are many who will read this that won't be exhilarated by this prospect, but I will say that I am. I think it would be a long overdue act of justice from a legal standpoint and mercy from a moral standpoint. Perhaps, that's best reserved for another article.
Alas, amidst unsubstantiated (and uncorroborated) claims of sexual assault by former High School alum Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford , all pertinent discussions have been regarding how many beers were consumed by whom over 30 years ago and what may or may not have occurred. Oh, and no one seems to really recall with any significant detail, those events.
I will not elaborate on the main points as I will presume that all of you are sufficiently clued in. Who couldn't be with Mr. Matt Damon's stirring role as Mr. Kavanaugh on a recent Saturday Night Live sketch?
We all know that there is an ongoing investigation of the Blasey-Ford matter by the FBI, which I consider to be something of a farce, and I shall say why in the form of two questions, as follows:
1) Many have stated that the investigation is suitable even under no corroborative evidence as a kind-of background check of Mr. Kavanaugh. It could be viewed as a somewhat fair and nonpartisan glimpse into the past of the man considered for what President Trump said was "one of the most profound responsibilities of the President of The United States" to appoint. My question is this: Would it surprise you to hear that there were in fact, no less than six FBI background checks of Mr. Kavanaugh that turned up absolutely nothing? I might follow this up by asking why a 7th federal inquiry is necessary and what would be turned up that wasn't revealed in the 6 previous attempts.
2) The second question is more a matter of sheer effectiveness and prudence. Would it surprise any of you to learn that the FBI investigators have, in fact, less investigative power than the very judiciary committee that is ordering said investigation? The investigators cannot subpoena documents or witnesses, for instance, as this is not a criminal investigation. All the investigators can do is ask to speak with people that may or may not have been involved in the ordeal. In other words, exactly what they have done the previous 6 attempts. Politics is nothing if not redundant and this would seem to be, not perfect evidence, but a good deal of evidence of that fact.
Now I mentioned earlier that the fact that there is no corroborative evidence (really any evidence, period) is significant.
For a comprehensive list of what Dr. Blasey-Ford doesn't remember (this is indisputable, judging from her testimony) is the following: Where it happened? When it happened? Who drove her there? Who drove her home? Who else was at the party? If "significance drives memory", as Mr. James Comey stated recently in a New York Times Op-Ed, then I think one can be fairly assured in asking why it is that Dr. Blasey-Ford doesn't remember anything except that it was, indeed, Mr. Kavanaugh that was involved.
Now, I can already hear the not so gentle whispers of some of you who tend to side with Dr. Blasey-Ford's testimony. Let me state this as clearly as I possibly can and if you still don't gather my point, then I am prepared to leave you occupying that station of ignorance... no one, republican or democrat (I assume), is saying that someone who committed sexual assault should be elected or appointed to higher office. This, of course, would seem to exclude Mr. Bill Clinton whose catalog of rape and psychopathy go back to his time as Attorney General of Arkansas (read Juanita Broaddrick's book "You Better Put Some Ice On That"), but never mind that.
What we see now, in damning clarity with these committee hearings, is that an accusation is tantamount to a conviction. There should be an impulse of discomfort and disgust that run through anyone that makes this realization. After all, a right to face one's accusers, the rule of law and the presumption of innocence are precious items that all fall under the rubric of our glorious fifth and fourteenth amendments.
Well, Senator McConnell is pushing with fervor that the committee vote by the end of the week, so it seems that the circus is wrapping up. I certainly hope so. My own prediction is that, barring the highly unlikely event of the investigation coming up with something, I believe Mr. Kavanaugh will be taking a good, hard look at certain federal policies from the enviable perch of the "highest court in the land" by this time next year.
The one thing that hasn't been discussed in any noteworthy measure over the course of the nomination hearings has been the one thing that should have been the focus... Mr. Kavanaugh's politics. "Will he overturn Roe v. Wade?", was the only topic that was even tangentially or peripherally covered in all this mess. I know that there are many who will read this that won't be exhilarated by this prospect, but I will say that I am. I think it would be a long overdue act of justice from a legal standpoint and mercy from a moral standpoint. Perhaps, that's best reserved for another article.
Alas, amidst unsubstantiated (and uncorroborated) claims of sexual assault by former High School alum Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford , all pertinent discussions have been regarding how many beers were consumed by whom over 30 years ago and what may or may not have occurred. Oh, and no one seems to really recall with any significant detail, those events.
I will not elaborate on the main points as I will presume that all of you are sufficiently clued in. Who couldn't be with Mr. Matt Damon's stirring role as Mr. Kavanaugh on a recent Saturday Night Live sketch?
We all know that there is an ongoing investigation of the Blasey-Ford matter by the FBI, which I consider to be something of a farce, and I shall say why in the form of two questions, as follows:
1) Many have stated that the investigation is suitable even under no corroborative evidence as a kind-of background check of Mr. Kavanaugh. It could be viewed as a somewhat fair and nonpartisan glimpse into the past of the man considered for what President Trump said was "one of the most profound responsibilities of the President of The United States" to appoint. My question is this: Would it surprise you to hear that there were in fact, no less than six FBI background checks of Mr. Kavanaugh that turned up absolutely nothing? I might follow this up by asking why a 7th federal inquiry is necessary and what would be turned up that wasn't revealed in the 6 previous attempts.
2) The second question is more a matter of sheer effectiveness and prudence. Would it surprise any of you to learn that the FBI investigators have, in fact, less investigative power than the very judiciary committee that is ordering said investigation? The investigators cannot subpoena documents or witnesses, for instance, as this is not a criminal investigation. All the investigators can do is ask to speak with people that may or may not have been involved in the ordeal. In other words, exactly what they have done the previous 6 attempts. Politics is nothing if not redundant and this would seem to be, not perfect evidence, but a good deal of evidence of that fact.
Now I mentioned earlier that the fact that there is no corroborative evidence (really any evidence, period) is significant.
For a comprehensive list of what Dr. Blasey-Ford doesn't remember (this is indisputable, judging from her testimony) is the following: Where it happened? When it happened? Who drove her there? Who drove her home? Who else was at the party? If "significance drives memory", as Mr. James Comey stated recently in a New York Times Op-Ed, then I think one can be fairly assured in asking why it is that Dr. Blasey-Ford doesn't remember anything except that it was, indeed, Mr. Kavanaugh that was involved.
Now, I can already hear the not so gentle whispers of some of you who tend to side with Dr. Blasey-Ford's testimony. Let me state this as clearly as I possibly can and if you still don't gather my point, then I am prepared to leave you occupying that station of ignorance... no one, republican or democrat (I assume), is saying that someone who committed sexual assault should be elected or appointed to higher office. This, of course, would seem to exclude Mr. Bill Clinton whose catalog of rape and psychopathy go back to his time as Attorney General of Arkansas (read Juanita Broaddrick's book "You Better Put Some Ice On That"), but never mind that.
What we see now, in damning clarity with these committee hearings, is that an accusation is tantamount to a conviction. There should be an impulse of discomfort and disgust that run through anyone that makes this realization. After all, a right to face one's accusers, the rule of law and the presumption of innocence are precious items that all fall under the rubric of our glorious fifth and fourteenth amendments.
Well, Senator McConnell is pushing with fervor that the committee vote by the end of the week, so it seems that the circus is wrapping up. I certainly hope so. My own prediction is that, barring the highly unlikely event of the investigation coming up with something, I believe Mr. Kavanaugh will be taking a good, hard look at certain federal policies from the enviable perch of the "highest court in the land" by this time next year.
Comments
Post a Comment