BRETT KAVANAUGH PART II

In my previous blog on this matter I expressed the opinion that we should withhold judgment until after both parties had testified, under oath, before the Senate Judiciary committee. Yesterday, as you know, both parties did so. (Apparently, Dr. Ford overcame her fear of flying, at least temporarily.)

In my opinion, both parties comported themselves very well. Dr. Ford appeared to be sincere in her belief that Mr. Kavanaugh had assaulted her 36 years ago. Moreover, she presented a reasonable amount of detail to support her recollection. However, once again, she was not able to present any corroborating testimony.

On the other hand, Mr. Kavanaugh “knocked it out of the park.” For example:

1. His denial was strong and unequivocal. He firmly and emotionally declared “I never sexually assaulted anyone, not in high school, not in college, not ever.”
2. Throughout his testimony, he demonstrated a proper and appropriate balance between anger, indignation and emotion. For example, he showed anger when asserted that the Dems had been “lying in wait” with Dr. Ford’s allegations in the event that they “failed to take me out on the merits.” He became emotional at various times when discussing the toll on his family, especially his young daughters, and his friends, including death threats.
3. He was able to produce a calendar/diary, that showed, in reasonable detail, his actions and associations during the period in question and beyond. It demonstrated he spent virtually all his free time either hanging out with his family or a close circle of friends, studying, or “working out” for football or basketball. All in all, the calendar/diary portrayed a typical high school student’s life – school, sports, and hanging out. (Yes, he drank beer with his friends, sometimes to excess. So what? Who hasn’t? As he said, if we were to prosecute everyone who had done that, we would be truly in a “bad place.”) This was just the type of defense I had alluded to in my previous blog.
3. He produced dozens of testimonials from female friends and acquaintances from high school, college and his professional life stating emphatically he had not and would not do what Dr. Ford and others had accused him of doing. Many of them were in attendance. How many of us could have put together such a group of friends and acquaintances to provide that degree of support? Not many.
4. His response to the various questions about whether he would be amenable to another FBI investigation was appropriate. Despite the fact that the FBI has already investigated him six times he said he would abide by whatever the Committee decided. It was obvious to any objective person that such an investigation would be another transparent delaying tactic and superfluous.

The foregoing is not, in any way, meant to question, denigrate or belittle Dr. Ford or her testimony. I believe she sincerely believes she was assaulted by someone, somewhere, at some time. But, I don’t believe it was by Kavanaugh. Perhaps, she has been manipulated, or at least influenced, by outside parties with an agenda. I respect and admire her courage in testifying before the entire nation, but she has not been able to corroborate her story while Kavanaugh has produced strong corroboration (the calendar/diary and the testimonials) that he is innocent, maybe not enough for a court of law, but certainly in the court of opinion and common sense. He has come as close as one can to proving a negative, which is an unreasonably high bar.

CONCLUSION

Due to the foregoing, there is no doubt in my mind that Kavanaugh’s nomination should be approved. The process should be moved forward expeditiously.

There is a much larger point that needs to be addressed here, and that is, what does this charade demonstrate about us as a society? It is one thing to oppose a person or a policy. That is a basic tenant of our political system. What has happened here is quite another. Liberal Democrats and the left-leaning media have attempted to and to a large degree have aided and abetted destroying a man’s life and reputation, not to mention his family’s. One committee member went so far as to characterize Kavanaugh as “evil.” How irresponsible is that! It’s acceptable to say you disagree with someone, politically, but to label him as “evil” brings it to another level. It is totally unacceptable, especially for an elected official.

Kavanaugh gave several examples of this assault. Many of them were despicable, and I do not choose to repeat them all here. My favorite quote was when denoted that the Dems on the Committee have changed their “advise and consent” responsibilities to “search and destroy.” To me, that was “right on.” They were not able to derail his nomination based on his record or his qualifications, so they moved on to other, less savory methods.

His story about his younger daughter wanting to pray for Dr. Ford was very emotional. Most people would have been “broken” by this assault. Kavanaugh’s fortitude to stand up to it and virtually refute is, to me, nothing short of amazing.

I may not agree with everything Senator Lindsay Graham espouses politically, but, yesterday, he hit the nail on the head when he lectured his colleagues and, by extention much of the liberal press and their supporters. He said, in part,: “What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life and hold this seat open. I would never do [to liberal-minded nominees] what you have done to this guy. This is the most unethical sham I’ve seen in politics.” [Note: Graham was referring to his having voted for liberal Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.]

From the start, we have all known that the Dems’ endgame was to derail Kavanaugh’s nomination and prevent the Supreme Court from what they perceived would be a conservative tilt. The opposition has pulled out all the stops – delay, slander, innuendo, and putting forth the insane notion that one should be judged “guilty” unless they can “prove” their innocence. The liberal Dems and their supporters have shown the voters that political expedience “trumps” all. Both sides have been guilty of political stunts in the past, but to me, this one, destroying a man’s life and reputation, went too far. Today, I would be ashamed to be a Democrat (if I were, that is).

CNN and ABC have further enhanced their reputations as unabashed purveyors of “fake news.” CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin, ABC’s Joy Behar and others have even played that old standby, the race card, even though all those involved are white, referring to the GOP senators on the committee derisively as “old white men.” What does that even mean? As an “old white man,” myself, I would like to know. Are we all racist, misogynists, senile, or a combination of all three?

I think and hope that most of America was as appalled by this sham as I was. I fear the Dems have opened a “Pandora’s box” of hate and divisiveness that will carry forward for years. I hope not. Presently, we have the best political system the world has ever seen, and I, for one, would like to keep it.

I say to all you frustrated liberals out there, IF YOU DON’T LIKE WHAT’S HAPPENING, FOR GOD’S SAKE, WORK WITHIN THE SYSTEM. WIN AN ELECTION.

I welcome feedback. Let me know what you think about this situation.

Advertisements

One thought on “BRETT KAVANAUGH PART II

  1. “Perhaps [] she has been manipulated, or at least influenced, by outside parties with an agenda.” Larry, Larry, Larry – allow me to remonstrate. Remember the childhood puzzle: “Can you find the mistakes?”
    – Highly demeaning to Dr. Ford;
    – Depends critically on conspiracy theory beliefs;
    – What agenda, conspiracy, influence was Dr. Ford under in 2012? 2015?

    “The foregoing is not, in any way, meant to question, denigrate or belittle Dr. Ford or her testimony.” And yet, you accomplished all three!

    Did Kavanaugh “Hit it out of the park” in his response to Senator Klobuchar, just after she mentioned that her father had experienced alcohol addiction?
    Q; “So you’re saying there’s never been a case where you drank so much that you didn’t remember what happened the night before or part of what happened?”
    A: “You’re talking about blackout. I don’t know. Have you?” he shot back.
    Rude, yes. Aggression towards a woman – absolutely! And, presumably, he had not yet consumed any beer.

    Although we’ll never truly know who did what to whom, Brett Kavanaugh’s misogynistic yearbook page https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-allegations-yearbook-male-bonding.html alone is disqualifying.

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