Select Page

HORIST: Kavanaugh maligned … or revealed?

HORIST: Kavanaugh maligned … or revealed?

Rising from the cesspool of contemporary American politics, the last-minute claims of California college professor Christine Blasey Ford have trouble passing the smell test.

The first thing to keep in mind is that the Senate Democrats and their allies in the media will sink to any low to stop the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh – and by extension attack President Trump.  That should be obvious to all but the most sycophantic left-wing radical lemming.  Those on that far left want to prevail in all things — truth, the rule-of-law and basic decency be damned.

The second thing to consider is the motivation of the accuser – who the anti-trump media already identifies as the “victim” based on nothing more than the #MeToo movements dangerous contention that a woman should be believed … period.  Gone is “innocent until PROVEN guilty” and “due process.”  The believe-the-accuser approach has many names – mob rule, inquisition, vigilantism, kangaroo court, lynch mob.  What it is not called is “justice.”

We can deduce a number of things about the accuser that may speak to motivation.  The fact that Ford is a California criminal psychology professor at Palo Alto University offers a hint of her political viewpoint based on probability.  But, that alone is a bridge too far.  However, there is much more to consider. 

According to reports, Ford is a Democrat.  Based on her writings, she is a member of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.  It is more than mere reasonability to assume that she opposes the Kavanaugh confirmation.  In fact, we know she does.

That was established by the fact that she sent initially sent the letter to a California Democrat Congresswoman Anna Eshoo.  That letter was intended, with malice of forethought, to block the confirmation. It could serve no other purpose.

So much for a possible motive.  What about strategy and tactics?

That fact that the information came out when it did is very suspicious.  The information was known to at least one member of the House and California Senator Diane Feinstein, top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Feinstein claims that she kept the information confidential because the woman did not wish to come forward.  She wanted to remain anonymous.

That is just not credible.  Ford would have to be both the most naïve and stupid person on earth to believe that her letter would remain confidential in the hands of politicians who leak information as a matter of course.  In fact, without her coming forward, the letter would be meaningless.  The fact that Ford would reveal her identity in an interview with the left-wing Washington Post also says a lot about her coming out strategy.

Did Ford really believe that an anonymous letter would achieve the result she desired – to block Kavanaugh? It would seem just as feasible that Eshoo, Feinstein and Ford had conspired to not use the information unless necessary – unless all the other Democrat dirty tricks failed to block confirmation.  It might be seen as a sort of political IED (improvised explosive device) planted alongside the path to confirmation.

Then there is Feinstein’s credibility.  We are expected to believe that she withheld supposedly bombshell information regarding a candidate for the Supreme Court she vehemently opposes because the accuser wishes to remain anonymous.

We should also remember that Feinstein, in the matter of the Russian investigation, had no compunction in releasing transcripts of confidential testimony provided in closed hearings — which brought a rightful rebuke from Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley.  Unlike those official transcripts, Ford’s letter was sent to members of Congress.  Ford had neither a right nor an expectation of privacy with such a communication. 

Finally, there is the accusation itself.

Although it is possible that Ford has made up the whole thing, let us assume that Ford actually believes what she says.  According to Ford, Kavanaugh was attempting to rape her – and she even feared that he might kill her.  Since he did not rape her and did not kill her, those were just the impressions – maybe even the exaggerations — of a 15-year-old girl.  They are, at best, the recollections of something that happened more than 35 years ago, if it happened at all. 

Ford attempted to give support to her accusation by revealing the notes of a therapist.  The notes claimed that four boys, not two, were witnesses to the action.  Kavanaugh’s name did not appear in the notes.  Ford later changed the story to say there were only two witnesses – blaming the therapist for the miscount.

Ford told the Washington Post that those nameless boys who assaulted her went on to high level positions in government.  That indicates that those notes were taken long after the incident.  If it was Kavanaugh’s career she was tracking, it is even more puzzling why she waited until now to try to destroy his reputation.

What exactly may have happened if anything at all, is still a “she said/he said.”  Ford refers to only one corroborating witness, who cannot corroborate because he has no recollection of any such event.  According to Ford, we are also to believe that Kavanaugh would have attempted to rape her in front of a witness. 

Now to explain away all these credibility issues, we are told that both Kavanaugh and the alleged witness were both too drunk to know what they were doing.  That explanation would require one to believe that both boys were so inebriated that they could not remember anything about that event.  They were suffering from alcohol amnesia. 

That, too, does not seem credible.  Total alcohol amnesia is rare when not dealing with hardened alcoholics.  Ford’s version of the alleged events might have been more credible – if not more provable – if she had claimed no witnesses. The only witness seems more supportive of Kavanaugh’s denial than Ford’s accusation. 

Then there is the question: Why now?  We know that Ford did not report the incident to the police – or even school authorities.  We know that she did not bring her accusation to the FBI or the Congress as Kavanaugh was going through those six – count them, six – intensive background checks.  They show a lifetime of exemplary conduct by Kavanaugh.  In response to the accusation, 65 women – and counting — have come forward to attest to the respect Kavanaugh has shown toward them as women.

We are left with a decades-old dubious accusation against a teenage boy.  Did “something” happen at a party way back then?  And if so, what happened?  We do not know, and there is no way to ever know.  The verdict in the court-of-public-opinion will cleave along partisan lines.

This entire brouhaha is because there are no rules-of-evidence and statute of limitations in the court-of-public-opinion.  If we are to be a nation of laws, then we must never allow accusation to displace evidence.

From what we know today, the Kavanaugh confirmation should remain on schedule.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.

Follow Us