Here’s the latest in the ever-changing 11th-hour accusation against Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh put out a statement strongly denying that he ever acted like a drunken lout toward his accuser, when he was a teenager 36 years ago or at any other time, and agreed to go before a televised Senate panel on Monday to answer questions, even though it delayed his confirmation vote by a week. His accuser’s lawyer, however, now says she refuses to testify until after the FBI conducts a thorough investigation. If one were of a suspicious mind, one might begin to suspect that the entire point of this accusation was not so much to see long-delayed justice as to delay the vote until after the November election, when Democrats hope to take over the Senate. But we mustn't be cynical, must we?
Here are some of the problems with demanding an FBI investigation. First, the FBI has already refused to do an investigation, and a former spokesman for the FBI told Fox News that agents there resent being put in this position. He said the FBI’s job is to investigate federal crimes, and there is no federal crime here. If there was any crime at all, it was a local police matter, and one that under prevailing laws at the time is far beyond the statute of limitations and involved legal minors. He said it’s not the FBI’s job to do what a political party wants them to do (and I’d add that making a federal case out of something on TV does not actually turn it into a federal case.)
Here are some other problems with waiting around for the results of a “thorough investigation”: how can any agency possibly investigate this? The allegation is at least 35 years old. There’s no evidence, no contemporaneous medical records, and the alleged victim never mentioned it to anyone for over three decades, conveniently coming forth only when the accused was about to be confirmed for the Supreme Court (even those counselor’s notes from a few years ago show she never mentioned Kavanaugh’s name). The accused, a federal judge with an impeccable reputation, strongly denies that it happened, as does the only other witness. And the accuser can’t say how many people were in the house, or who they were, or where it was located, or the date when it happened. Since the possible dates span from the late ‘70s to the early ‘80s, she can’t even say for sure what decade it allegedly happened.
Okay, let’s say you were going to investigate that. Where would you start? You could ask Kavanaugh’s classmates what they remember about drunken parties they might have attended in high school 36 years ago. I’m sure that would yield some valuable information. Or the agents could just wander around Maryland, asking random people if they saw anything suspicious sometime between 1979 and 1981.
Democrats, having given up on making rational arguments for their views, have now been reduced to unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks and redefining words. In the same way that wanting to enforce long-standing, bipartisan immigration laws against criminal illegal aliens means that you “hate immigrants,” they have rallied around this latest mudball attack with an obviously coordinated PR effort to smear Kavanaugh as having been “credibly accused” of sexual assault.
As the linked article notes, words have specific meanings, and “credibly” means “easy to believe on the basis of available evidence.” In this case, there is no evidence, available or unavailable. But apparently, Diane Feinstein, the Democratic Senator who started all this at beyond the last minute after sitting on it for months, didn’t get the memo on the redefinition of “credibly” because in a weak moment, she let it slip out that “I can’t say everything’s truthful.”
You know we’re through the looking glass when the first honest thing a Democratic Senator has said since these confirmation hearings began is that she can’t verify that everything’s truthful, and then she immediately tries to take that back.
In the meantime, there are some political analysts insisting that the Republicans have to go along with this call for a full FBI investigation because if they don’t, furious women will turn against them in huge numbers in November. Frankly, I think that’s insulting to women. I believe the vast majority of women are plenty smart enough to understand that you should take all genuinely credible accusations of sexual assault seriously, but that to allow a decades-old, unverifiable, politically-motived accusation that can’t be refuted to destroy a man’s reputation and career would unleash a partisan weapon that could easily be turned against their own husbands and sons.
Since some liberal politicians are claiming that men shouldn’t even be allowed to talk about situations in which men might be falsely accused of sex crimes (an interesting argument, considering they have also urged judicial reforms to prevent innocent people, particularly black men, from being railroaded into prison), I will turn you over to Nina Bookout at the Victory Girls blog, who makes the case for due process and the right to self-defense for all from a woman's point of view.
Laura Ingraham is also a woman who has a suggestion for dealing with this. How about hearing her out?
Meanwhile, Brett Kavanaugh’s wife Ashley gave a fantastic demonstration of class in the face of crass. I hope those cupcakes were hard for those reporters to choke down along with all the shame they should be feeling for stalking Kavanaugh’s family.