More on Judge Kavanaugh: Second Accuser Comes Forward—Albeit, Again, With Few (If Any) Details
By Ken K. Gourdin
Now comes word that another accuser says District of Columbia Circuit Court Judge and United States Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh basically committed sodomy on her (as that term is defined in the criminal law, at least in my state: the allegation’s details are unseemly, and I will not recount them here. Anyone with an interest in such prurient details is free to search for them on Google.)
Again, beyond the bare allegation, no details: When? Where? Who else, if anyone, was present? Did anyone else try to intervene? If not, why not? Did this woman ever tell anyone else about the incident before her allegation became public knowledge in light of the pending Senate vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s potential elevation to the United States Supreme Court? If not, why not? (As I asked Judge Kavanaugh’s other accuser, “Why now?” Once again, the timing seems awfully convenient.)
I don’t know if Judge Kavanaugh’s flat denials are the truth or not, but he did appear on The Story with Martha McCallum on FOX News on September 24, 2018. Again, I don’t know. I wasn’t there. But I will say that if Judge Kavanaugh is lying as he flatly denies the charges against him, he comes across as one of the most earnest, most believable liars I have ever heard.
If this woman was under the influence, how accurate is her memory? Even if other people were there, if they were under the influence, how accurate are their memories? We don’t know; it’s likely that we will never know. From the point of view of Judge Kavanaugh’s accusers, their supporters, and his detractors, it doesn’t matter . . . as long as he is not confirmed to the Supreme Court. (And if his reputation is destroyed in the process and his family is put through hell, so what? That’s simply “collateral damage.”
“Details, schmetails! We don’t need any details,” Judge Kavanaugh’s detractors say! “If the first account—or the second, or the third, or the twenty-fifth—is short on details, that doesn’t matter. If we can get enough people to come forward with such accounts—even if those accounts are unverified, unverifiable, and uncorroborated—the sheer numbers alone will convince a majority of the public, along with the Senators who represent them, what a cad Brett Kavanaugh must be!” And that will prevent his elevation to the Supreme Court.
Senators are in an unenviable position. Those from states in which a majority of voters voted for President Donald Trump aren’t apt to be happy if their senators capitulate to pressure to scuttle Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination, but if, on the other hand, a nomination vote is held and if Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed, they risk being seen as furthering an alleged sexual predator’s career.
Some people have drawn an equivalency between what’s happening to Judge Kavanaugh and what happened to President Obama’s last Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, for whom the Senate did not schedule a vote. The difference is, Judge Garland’s career and reputation remain intact.
Several Democrats have turned one of the bedrock principles undergirding the United States criminal justice system on its head: “Innocent Until Proven Guilty” now has become “Guilty Until Proven Innocent.” If Judge Kavanaugh is innocent, they say, let him prove it. (How, exactly, does one prove a negative?) Meanwhile, the question surrounding Judge Kavanaugh’s original accuser is, “Will she or won’t she?”
She has agreed—very tentatively, and subject to numerous conditions (that’s funny; I thought that the various safeguards which are part of the criminal justice system were intended to protect the accused against the sort of Kangaroo Kourt Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation is likely to become) to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee: for example, she wants Judge Kavanaugh to testify first. “Hey, Mr. Guilty-Until-Proven-Innocent, you say you’re innocent? Prove it. I want you to lay your cards on the table first.”
Meanwhile, Senator Ted Cruz (R – FL) and his wife, Heidi, were accosted at a Washington DC restaurant by a group of protesters who chanted, “We believe survivors!” (For the record, so do I—provided I’m aware of reasonable evidence that they’re telling the truth.) I guess I would ask those protestors, “Do you believe all survivors—or only those alleged ‘survivors’ who are trying to smear the reputation and destroy the career of someone with whom you disagree? Do you believe Juanita Broaddrick, or is she not believable because she accused a politician—former President Bill Clinton, of rape no less—you like? Do you believe Paula Jones, whom President Clinton also sexually harassed? Do you believe Monica Lewinsky? Or do these women not count?”