The Kavanaugh Conundrum
While the Democrats are attacking the reputation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, I don’t want to attack the woman who accuses him of sexual assault, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. It’s unseemly.
There’s a second accuser, Deborah Ramirez, but she’s not the least bit credible and the New Yorker magazine article which featured her dubious accusation is not even journalism. Her hollow accusation not even worth discussing.
As you might suspect, both accusers are hardcore liberal Democrats. They both have publicly opposed President Trump and his policies. Dr. Ford is also formerly the Director of Biostatistics for Corcept Therapeutics, the manufacturer of RU-486, commonly known as the
Of course, opposition to Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation comes down to abortion-on-demand, something Dr. Ford supports.
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) sat on Dr. Ford’s allegation since July and could have introduced them many times and many ways without even revealing her name, to start. But she didn’t. That’s the first and foremost indication this is a cynical Democrat Party tactic to
delay the Kavanaugh confirmation.
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee charged with confirming Supreme Court nominees, sat on Dr. Ford’s allegation since July and could have introduced them many times and many ways without even revealing her name, to start. But she didn’t. That’s the first and foremost indication this is a
cynical Democrat Party tactic to delay the Kavanaugh confirmation.
It is everyone’s civic duty - including the Senate Judiciary Committee - to uncover the truth and assign weight to what an accuser says while also defending a fellow citizen from the stain of defamation. This is a difficult task, and that's why the Democrats waited: they want the Senate to do their civic duty at a point in the process which will require a delay in the process. It’s quite obvious.
Any woman's claim of sexual assault should be heard. But that does not mean the claims should be accepted without evidence, and so far no witness has backed up Dr. Ford’s allegation. It is not solely a question of "lying" - it can be a question of perception, and that’s
complicated by almost four decades passing since she claims she was attacked.
Any man or woman accused of sexual assault also deserves the right to face the accusation with a thorough examination of the accuser’s motives, as well. Understanding the motive is quite important.
Most reliable academic studies say about 5% of rape allegations are false, and that’s 5 times higher than other offenses. I’ve read through a few.
- 2008 study of LAPD police reports, 4.5%
- 2017 Journal of Forensic Psychology, 5.5%
- 2016 Archives of Sexual Behavior, 5.2%
But when an accuser has a motive to lie – for an alibi, to seek revenge, to ruin somebody, or, say, to stop a Supreme Court nominee, it goes through the roof. Up to 45% of those rape allegations can be false, according to a 1994 report by the National Institutes of Health.
Remember the false accusations against the Sacred Heart football players, the Duke lacrosse players case, and the false accusations made against UVA students that cost Rolling Stone a huge amount of money?
In all those cases, the lying accusers ruined lives.
In the Rolling Stone false accusations, the accuser said “I don't remember a lot of what happened during that time. I believe that I was assaulted but some of the details of my assault - I have PTSD and some of them are foggy.”
Today we have a culture that allows for 36 year-old uncorroborated memories of assault to destroy a good man’s character. We also have a political party – the Democrats – which routinely weaponizes this serious issue, cheapens the issue with false allegations, and ends up destroying the issue in the end.
There are consequences for false accusations, too, if ‘memory” does not comport with the evidence. Because Dr. Ford will be under oath if she decides to testify on Thursday, she will have to be very cautions.
Dr. Ford’s attorney, Debra Katz, has a history as a partisan Democrat when it comes to sexual harassment. In the '90’s, she described Paula Jones' suit against her attacker, President Bill Clinton, as “very, very, very weak.”
Katz said on CNN’s “Talkback Live” in March 1998 in a discussion about Jones’ claims against Clinton, “She's alleged one incident that took place in a hotel room that, by her own testimony, lasted 10 to 12 minutes. She suffered no repercussions in the workplace. If a woman came to me with a similar fact pattern, that is someone in the company above her propositioned her but only once and she suffered no tangible job detriment, I would probably tell her that I'm sorry, it's unfair, but you don't have a case.’’
Likewise, Katz again said on CBS' Evening News on April 2nd, 1998 that Jones' allegation against the President could not hold up in court because, "Clearly a one-time incident that took place in 10 to 12 minutes, she was not forced to have sex, she left on her own volition,
the courts increasingly are finding that that is not enough to create a sexually hostile work environment claim."
President Clinton ended up settling with Jones out of court for about $800,000. Today, somehow, Katz finds Dr. Ford’s much less credible allegation worthy of discussion.
This fraught process is hard on both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh and their families. We don’t know how it will end. One thing is for sure: as a father, I will never tell my three daughters that if a bad boy touches you inappropriately, you should wait 36 years to tell someone. And I’ll tell them the story of Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh as an