This week, we will witness the spectacle of a panel of grumpy old men listen with disdain and disgust to a female professor who will testify about an assault on her body by a potential Supreme Court Justice. The grumpy old men have made their minds up. Their ears and minds are closed. Many of them sat in judgement in the Anita Hill testimony in 1991 and rejected her graphic description of crude, vulgar, completely inappropriate behavior. Despite her credibility, these men confirmed Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.
Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Inquirer explains the importance of this moment.
“The immediate stakes of the drama that has played out over this weekend — whether Dr. Blasey will tell her story alleging a sexual assault by a 17-year-old Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee who could bring a conservative jurisprudence for the next generation, and whether that will torpedo his Senate confirmation — are so high that it’s easy to lose sight of the much bigger cultural moment that’s taking place here.
“This is a cultural and psychological battle that’s taking place — about what kind of society America wants to be in the 21st century and beyond. Sure, Republican senators like Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — so determined to ram through Kavanaugh before he’s even heard one word of this woman’s story, with their initial demands that Dr. Blasey testify only on their terms, at a date, time and place of their choosing — are executing a short-term and shortsighted political strategy. But more and more people, especially women, are seeing things for what they really are: An ancient patriarchy clinging to what it’s always done in the past: Control the narratives of women.
“Except there’s good reason to believe that this time the creaky old gears of the patriarchy machine are finally breaking down, that Dr. Blasey will tell her story on her terms, on her chosen date, and with millions of women watching her back. Men are terrified…
“The more we learn about Dr. Blasey, the more she comes across as a credible, compelling woman with a story that America needs to hear. We already knew that she told her account of the assault to her therapist and her husband earlier in this decade, that she named Kavanaugh as her attacker and that she told other friends in 2017 before Trump named the judge as his SCOTUS pick. She was willing to take a lie-detector test (not admissible as evidence, but she passed) and she also wants an investigation by the FBI, which is known to criminally charge people who don’t tell them the truth. From an excellent profile in the Washington Post and other news accounts, we’ve since found out that whatever happened in that suburban bedroom 36 years ago, Dr. Blasey was so traumatized that she insisted that her bedroom have a second exit, and that she even considered leaving the United States upon learning that Trump had Kavanaugh on his short list of picks for the High Court.
“It’s the other side, the Kavanaugh side, that has played prevent defense, in a full-blown cover-up mode from Day One. It’s Team Kavanaugh, with the full backing of the Trump White House, that has thwarted an FBI probe that could get to the bottom of the allegations and which had always before this been standard operating procedure, including in the infamous Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas showdown of 1991. That’s in keeping with a process in which a record number of documents have been hidden from the public, with a Republican Senate accelerating everything to 110 mph after slamming the brakes for a whole year on then-President Barack Obama’s failed court pick, Judge Merrick Garland.
What was the real reason for this confirmation process on steroids? Why such an effort to spin Kavanaugh from Day One as “America’s carpool dad” and trusted coach of 15-year-old girls’ basketball players? How could Team Kavanaugh round up 65 female contemporaries from the judge’s younger days to vouch for him in a matter of hours after Dr. Blasey’s allegation dropped?
“What exactly did they think was coming down the pike for a judge who joined both a fraternity and a private club at Yale known for their heavy boozing and skirt-chasing, continued bragging about his wild, partying law school days well into adulthood, and was said by the well-known Yale law professor to prefer female law clerks who had “a certain look,” like a model?…”
Read the rest of this excellent reflection.
Bunch says these old men are trying to shut up Dr. Blasey. They have announced that they don’t care what she says.
Like putting their hands over her mouth.

I’ve urged my Senators to vote NO on Kavanaugh!
LikeLike
Hopefully, Avenatti is not someone to toss around.
………………………
Brett Kavanaugh and pals accused of gang rapes in high school, says lawyer Michael Avenatti
By KATE FELDMAN
| NEW YORK DAILY NEWS |
SEP 23, 2018 | 9:30 PM
Lawyer Michael Avenatti told the Senate Judiciary Committee late Sunday that he has multiple witnesses who can say Brett Kavanaugh participated in gang rapes of drunken women during high school.
“We are aware of significant evidence of multiple house parties in the Washington, D.C. area during the early 1980s during which Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and others would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs in order to allow a ‘train’ of men to subsequently gang rape them,” Avenatti said in an email to Mike Davis, chief counsel for nominations for the Senate Judiciary Committee…
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-news-brett-kavanaugh-gang-rape-avenatti-20180923-story.html
LikeLike
Wow. That may be the most powerful concluding line that anyone ever wrote. Chilling.
LikeLike
“Men are terrified…”
Hmmm, no men are not terrified. That’s a leap that can’t be logically made.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am with you on this Duane. I have no fear. I want the truth to come out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I certainly don’t want all men to be terrified. But men like Kavanaugh who treat women’s bodies like their personal playground should be terrified. We need to get past the idea that “presumption of innocence” can be a blanket get out of jail free and live the life of your dreams card (for affluent white men). Even if there’s not enough evidence for a criminal conviction, there is very likely (and in this case definitely) enough evidence to deny these men powerful positions that should be earned, not the entitlements of the elite prep school crowd regardless of their behavior. Enough with the Cosbys and Weinsteins and Kavanaughs of the world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You make some good points. Sexual predators should be terrified. Nevertheless, I do not get your equating presumption of innocence with a get out of jail free card. It is not the same.
ALL people, rich or poor, are entitled to the presumption of innocence, until proven guilty. Accusation does not mean guilt.
Look at the flip side. In Afghanistan under the Taliban, any woman who was accused of adultery, was immediately stoned to death. No person, male or female, should be subject to the passions of the mob, especially in accusations of sexual misconduct.
There is a big difference between Bill Cosby and Kavanaugh. Cosby was tried, evidence was presented, and he was convicted by a jury.
Kavanaugh is up for a seat on the Supreme Court. We should all remember the four words, which are etched in stone on the Supreme Court building.
“Equal Justice Under Law”
LikeLike
Chas,
Those words may be inscribed on the walls but there has never, ever been equal justice under the law. While it is a great sentiment to aspire to, it has never obtained. Do I need to give any of the hundreds of thousands if not millions of examples to the contrary?
LikeLike
In the United States, the wealthy buy their own justice even if they are guilty and they almost always get off. The middle class and poor get stuck with public defenders and often are scared to death so they make a deal and admit guilt where they might be none to avoid a longer sentence for a crime they might not have committed.
If someone in the middle class hires their own lawyer, even if they win, they lose because of the massive bill from the lawyer they hired.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly, Lloyd, exactly!
LikeLike
You know perfectly well, Charles, that presumption of innocence applies only in a criminal proceeding. Of course people should be presumed innocent and not thrown in jail. No one should lose their freedom or other rights without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
But there is no right to get a job or a promotion or a scholarship or a university education. Those are things you have to prove yourself worthy of through your behavior. If an employee of my place of business is credibly accused of sexual harassment/assault (or embezzlement or plagiarism or any number of other misdeeds), my employer has every right to terminate them without a criminal trial if the evidence points to guilt. This is as it should be.
You know perfectly well that less than 1% of all sexual assaults (much less sexual harassment claims) end in a criminal conviction. The men who commit such acts should not have the presumption of innocence to go on living the dream life while their victims are forever haunted.
There is more than enough credible evidence against Kavanaugh. There is no “presumption of innocence” that should allow that slime to serve on the highest court. It is up to him to prove that he deserves the job, and he has failed.
LikeLike
No one has a “right” to a lifetime spot on the Supreme Court. It does not require a trial in a court of law to raise serious questions about a person’s character. If the person’s character is flawed, they don’t belong on the Supreme Court.
LikeLike
What you are describing happens. O.J.Simpson got off. Bill Cosby, who is worth a half a billion dollars, did not .
Money talks.
LikeLike
The fact that Cosby was convicted disproves your point. Cosby’s Money did not talk.
LikeLike
@DIenne: I do not follow you. Two(2) individuals have made claims alleging misconduct by this man. Neither have testified under oath. All that there is , are accusations.
Why can’t people be reasonable, and at least wait until these individuals present their claims, under oath.
I am appalled, that you refer to the accused person as “slime”. All that there is (so far), is some claims and accusations.
LikeLike
The Senate hearing is not a court of law. It is a hearing with no standards of due process.
LikeLike
@Diane: No one is asserting that there is a right to a federal judgeship. The constitution sets forth the procedure. The Pres makes the nomination, and the Senate will advise and consent.
Of course, the character of the nominee, is fair game for the Senate to consider in their appraisal.
That is why this nominee, has had six(6) separate FBI investigations, already, for his previous federal judgeships. He passed all of them.
Why can’t everyone put the lynching rope away, and wait until the accusers present their claims under oath, and in front of the judiciary committee?
LikeLike
The hearing has zero standards of due process.
The deck is stacked by 11 old white men against the accuser.
They announced in advance that their minds are made up, no matter what she says.
LikeLike
Why are the Republicans opposed to an FBI investigation? What do they want to hide?
LikeLike
The senate committee is not a court. They have subpoena power and are able to take testimony under oath. They are after the truth, not to determine guilt or innocence.
The senators on the committee are free to decide as they wish.
There have already been at least six(6) previous FBI investigations. I do not have a clue, why there is an objection to another investigation.
LikeLike
the one thing the Senate committee will not do is seek the truth, whatever it may be. That’s why they adamantly refuse to ask for an FBI investigation. And they refuse to subpoena the third person in the room Mark Judge. Their minds are made up. They don’t want to know.
LikeLike
“Democratic lawmakers have been calling for an independent FBI investigation from the beginning. Senate Republicans, however, say that’s not possible because ‘It’s not the FBI’s role to investigate a matter such as this,’ as Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA) wrote in a letter to Ford’s lawyers on Wednesday.”
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/20/17879284/democrats-fbi-investigation-kavanaugh
Here’s what Charles calls an FBI investigation: “Grassley argued that the FBI’s role in the confirmation process is merely to conduct a background check of the nominee, which the Senate then takes into account when determining whether or not to confirm the individual in question.” …
Grassley has shut that avenue down too, though. On Tuesday, Grassley told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt in no uncertain terms that the “FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh is closed” and that the “FBI is not doing any further investigation.”
Charles, starting with Ford, new allegations of his background appeared and that should trigger another FBI background check in an attempt to verify the claims. There is nothign from stopping the FBI from reopening or adding to the previous background checks.
“In fact, in 1991, the agency did just that, at the request of then-President George H.W. Bush, when Anita Hill made sexual harassment allegations against then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. The FBI investigated and wrote a report that eventually led the White House to declare that Hill’s allegations were unfounded.”
Do you think Trump will make a similar request? As of this moment, Trump has not signaled any interest in opening an FBI investigation.
And a background check is not a thorough investigation into specific allegations.
“Undergoing an FBI background check is standard operating procedure for a number of federal positions, including nominees for the Supreme Court. It’s a review that’s meant to probe a nominee’s qualifications as well as possible security risks the person could pose to the United States.”
In addition, “Republicans won’t budge on Kavanaugh documents amid Dem accusations of hiding records” …
“The heightened tensions over President Donald Trump’s nominee came as the first batch of documents were turned over to the committee from George W. Bush’s team Thursday, totaling more than 125,000 pages during Kavanaugh’s time serving in Bush’s White House counsel’s office from 2001-2003.”
If there is nothing to hide, Charles, why does the GOP want to keep those documents hidden?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/02/politics/brett-kavanaugh-documents-republican-not-budging/index.html
LikeLike
I am aware of the previous background checks. I personally have no objection to another, more in-depth investigation. I want the truth to come out, and for the Senate to make their confirmation decision based on FACTS, and not simply accusations.
Stonewalling, is not the answer.
As to the failure to release documents, I am personally opposed to the stonewalling. I do not know the release is not forthcoming.
Ask the committee chairman.
When you ask, also contact the ranking member, Diane Feinstein (D-CAL), and ask her why she sat on the information (about the alleged incident with Ford), for seven (7) weeks.
LikeLike
I think “GOP men are seriously worried” would be a better description.
The GOP senators are too arrogant and corrupt to be terrified and they have gotten away with their crimes for so long they think they will never be stopped by anyone or anything.
How many of those GOP senators and some Democratic senators have done the same thing? I think too many to count.
LikeLiked by 1 person
¡Sí señor!
LikeLike
I understand that Dr. Blasey is not the only person who has had the courage to come forward. Deborah-Ramirez, in school with Kavanaugh at Yale, has identified herself as witness to despicable conduct from the would-be Supreme… while both were drinking.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez
or see Or See
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/24/17895740/new-yorker-jane-mayer-yale-university-emails-brett-kavanaugh-deborah-ramirez
LikeLike
Well, at least we know who the real victim here is: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/brett-kavanaugh-judiciary-committee-letter-728537/
Sigh.
LikeLike
Yuh. His response is tone-deaf and condescending. People are trying to stop his confirmation “in a frenzy to come up with “something– anything”. As if such allegations were just “anything,”
LikeLike
All of this reporting of abuse isn’t getting through to the powers who don’t want to hear. Kavanaugh’s good name? Good grief fellow.
….
GOP mounts counter-offensive on Kavanaugh
The White House and Senate Republicans launched an intense counter-attack on behalf of Brett Kavanaugh on Monday, signaling they intend to go forward with a vote on his nomination to the Supreme Court despite new allegations of past sexual misconduct.
The aggressive response was led by Kavanaugh himself, who said he was the victim of a “character assassination” and “smears,” an argument echoed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
“I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process,” Kavanaugh wrote in a letter to the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “The coordinated effort to destroy my good name will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. The last-minute character assassination will not succeed.”
LikeLike
Are there no powerful men who have not committed atrocities of this nature? I prefer to think that a majority of men are, if not completely innocent of such behavior, are at least willing to admit it when they did things as children that they should not have done. We seem to have entered a time that almost any accusation of impropriety must be taken seriously. All sides of the political debate have been seared by the hot flames of these allegations.
So where do we go? How long before the process wrecks the entire body politic? We seems to have a multitude of standards for all the people involved. How can we have one standard? How do we create fairness in power?
LikeLike
By definition there can’t be “fairness in power”. Power very much includes the fact that one person holds sway over another in one fashion or another. A better question might be “How do we create fairness in authority?”
And even then I am not sure that it is possible. Perhaps a starting point would be John Rawl’s “veil of ignorance”* for those who are charged with making laws. By eliminating the concept of “what’s in it for me and mine” and by attempting to understand all aspects of a particular issue, however it is framed, without self interest and with an attitude of what is the fairest and most equitable way to decide the issue perhaps we might approximate “fairness in authority”.
I wish I could be an optimist on that, but from all of my readings on human interactions throughout history I don’t believe that it is possible.
*For those not familiar with Rawl’s work (and yes, there have been many rebuttals needless to say):
“Imagine that you have set for yourself the task of developing a totally new social contract for today’s society. How could you do so fairly? Although you could never actually eliminate all of your personal biases and prejudices, you would need to take steps at least to minimize them. Rawls suggests that you imagine yourself in an original position behind a veil of ignorance. Behind this veil, you know nothing of yourself and your natural abilities, or your position in society. You know nothing of your sex, race, nationality, or individual tastes. Behind such a veil of ignorance all individuals are simply specified as rational, free, and morally equal beings. You do know that in the “real world”, however, there will be a wide variety in the natural distribution of natural assets and abilities, and that there will be differences of sex, race, and culture that will distinguish groups of people from each other.
It has been argued that such a concept can have grand effects if it were to be practiced both in the present and in the past. Referring again to the example of slavery, if the slave-owners were forced through the veil of ignorance to imagine that they themselves may be slaves, then suddenly slavery may no longer seem justifiable. Perhaps the entire practice would have been abolished without the need for a war to settle things. A grander example would be if each individual in society were to base their practices off the fact that they could be the least advantaged member of society. In this scenario, freedom and equality could possibly coexist in a way that has been the ideal of many philosophers. For example, in the imaginary society, one might or might not be intelligent, rich, or born into a preferred class. Since one may occupy any position in the society once the veil is lifted, the device forces the parties to consider society from the perspective of all members, including the worst-off and best-off members.” (from wiki)
LikeLike
“We seem to have entered a time that almost any accusation of impropriety must be taken seriously.”
I’m finding it hard to believe you can say that. Every day women (and sometimes men) are smeared and dragged through the mud for daring to impugn the powerful. It is still virtually impossible to get a powerful, connected, wealthy male removed from power or kicked out of a university or removed from an athletic team or whatever, no matter the pile of evidence against him. How many women have accused Trump? Have any of them been taken seriously? Has Trump been harmed in the slightest by such allegations? Heck it took eight women to accuse Franken, and even then he left more because it was becoming a distraction and burden than because anyone believed or cared about those women.
And these are just “any accusation[s] of impropriety”. Kavanaugh, for instance, is accused of sexual assault. I’m sorry, but, yes, that should be taken seriously.
LikeLike
Rawls’ veil of ignorance reminds me of John Locke’s impartial arbiter. Locke argued that we cannot give up certain rights (life, liberty, and property). He suggested that we naturally give up power to exercise these rights so that we can acquire an “impartial arbiter” in disputes to avoid conflict that is unsettling to the social order.
The present debate about sex crimes makes this seem an important thing to consider. How can we get a judge who is impartial on the bench if he has a past that includes crimes of power?
Montesquieu saw the problem as one of balancing out interests so that one interest does not produce tyranny. He was not thinking of the tyranny of the many over the few, but of the few over the many. I do not see the immediate application of his ideas to solve our problem but there is one idea he suggested that might be appropriate to broach.
Montesquieu felt that man in a state of nature felt powerless. So, he suggested, human beings associate with one another for safety and to assure an adequate food supply. Finding success in this method, he went on, they use the power of groups to gain greater power at the expense of other groups. I see this as the phenomenon we are experiencing with the emergence of the individuals who have been wronged in the past with regard to sex and power.
I must confess pessimism with regard to the matter.
LikeLike
Quite interesting comments, Roy. Thanks for the response. I wish more didn’t feel so intimidated by names-Rawls, Montesquieu, Locke, etc. . . as they were only flesh and blood humans as you and I and everyone else. They were bold enough to put their thoughts in writing. If more people would put their thoughts “out there” we might be able to broaden discussions to come up with better solutions.
As it is I believe most are intimidated by the supposed expert while not realizing that “expert” is nobody different than anyone else. We worship that supposed expertise whether in arts, sports, literature, etc. . . and rightly so to a degree, but at the same time in holding those virtuosos up as being beyond the average person we take away a little of their humanity.
In regards to writing, well the most I can say is if one wishes to improve one’s writing then start reading all the more.
LikeLike
“Are there no powerful men who have not committed atrocities of this nature?”
Anecdotal, FWIW. When I was in college, 15 yrs before Kavanaugh’s wild-oats-sowing phase — before AIDS, & drinking age was still 18 — there were plenty of drunken seductions and wild behavior. But among the dozens of women I knew well, there were only two who told of being assaulted in this way. Perpetrators both belonged to a wealthy fraternity whose members included scions of the 400, judges’ & pols’ sons, sons of LatAmer landowners, Euro aristocrats, Saudi royalty.
LikeLike
Over 900 women from the Yale community have signed an open letter in support of fellow alum Deborah Ramirez, the second woman to come out publicly about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
The women don’t just show their support for survivors Ramirez and Dr. Christine Ford; they also condemn an environment at Yale that has allowed such widespread abuse.
“We are coming forward as women of Yale because we have a shared experience of the environment that shaped not only Judge Kavanaugh’s life and career, but our own,” the letter states. “We are committed to supporting all women who have faced sexual assault, not only at Yale, but across the country.”
LikeLike
This assumes Kavanaugh is guilty, which you do not know is true.
LikeLike
Harlan Underhill: As Diane says, “Why are the Republicans opposed to an FBI investigation? What do they want to hide?”
What does Kavanaugh want to hide since he isn’t pushing for an FBI investigation to clear up his name? He will forever pay the price of these accusations that will never be addressed adequately. The old white men in power have already made up their minds.
LikeLike
@Harlan: I am with you on this . Did the alleged incidents actually happen? After so long a time, we may never know the truth. That does not mean, that there should not be an investigation.
The statute of limitations has long since run out. No one will ever be found guilty of anything. Except if the alleged victim(s) give perjured testimony.
LikeLike
This is not a criminal trial. The issue now is character and lying.
LikeLike
This is not a trial in any sense of the word. There are no charges, and if any law had been broken, the statute of limitations has expired. I sincerely hope that the truth can come out. No joke.
LikeLike
What the Democrat leadership is doing is fomenting mob rule, i.e. absence of the spirit of due process. Those of you who are aligning yourself with it are not thinking carefully. Due process protects everyone, male or female. In addition, Democrat leadership seems to have decided that the end of derailing Kavanaugh’s nomination justifies the means taken of advancing unverified claims. It is a decided new low for Democrat party leadership. You who support your Democrat leadership in this effort show clear ignorance of what is truly in your own best interest as individuals and citizens.
LikeLike
If there were indeed due process, the FBI would conduct an investigation before the hearings.
Recovering alcoholic and proud womanizer Mark Judge would get a subpoena to testify.
The old white men would be required to ask questions instead of hiring a woman to do it for them.
LikeLike
Harlan, Due Process favors the wealthy and always has. What is the ratio of millionaires and billionaires in prison vs the ratio of poor and middle class Americans that can’t afford high priced lawyers?
Due Process only guarantees your right to a trial but doesn’t guarantee you will have adequate support equal to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.
“In rural areas and small towns, lawyers tend to charge less, and fees in the range of $100 to $200 an hour for an experienced attorney are probably the norm. In major metropolitan areas, the norm is probably closer to $200 to $400 an hour. Lawyers with expertise in specialized areas may charge much more.”
https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/research/how-and-how-much-do-lawyers-charge.html
The reality of justice in the United States is why Donald Trump, an alleged billionaire, relied on the courts to cheat his victims out of money thousands of times.
“Donald Trump: Three decades 4,095 lawsuits”
https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/trump-lawsuits/
There was a huge amount of fraud that led to the 2007-08 global financial crises. How many millionaires and billionaires involved in that fraud ended up in court or prison?
“10 things billionaires won’t tell you”
https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/things-billionaires-wont-tell-you/news-story/ae80d4d5a5b1cecf2402bb1a125b3e15
“One in ten Black males in their thirties is in prison or jail in the United States. A grim reminder that the country has two criminal systems: one for the poor, one for the rich, says expert on sentencing policy.”
https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/two-in-one-differences-in-the-us-justice-system-for-the-rich-and-the-poor
Due Process does not equal justice.
LikeLike
Yep. His reputation is ruined forever. Why doesn’t he want an FBI investigation? [guilty!!]
…………………………..
If the FBI Can Investigate Lincolns Hat, Why Not Fords Claims?
By Richard Cohen
September 25, 2018
…As for Kavanaugh, he might actually benefit from an FBI investigation. Without one, he will always have a cloud over his head. If confirmed by the Senate, it will be on a party-line vote. He will forever be the justice who trails personal scandal — a bit like Clarence Thomas, only he was never accused of using physical force. Even so, Thomas will forever more be the Supreme Court justice with an invisible asterisk, known more for the way he was confirmed than for any of his jurisprudence.
Especially now that a second accuser has come forth, it will be even worse for Kavanaugh. Deborah Ramirez, who attended Yale with Kavanaugh, told The New Yorker that at a drunken dorm party during the 1983-84 academic year, Kavanaugh exposed himself, thrust his penis in her face and caused her to touch it. “I would think an FBI investigation would be warranted,” she told The New Yorker.
I would think so, too. And I would think that Kavanaugh, who has denied Ramirez’s allegation, would welcome one. His reputation has been impugned, possibly unfairly. The accusations are mortifying and completely at odds with the sort of man he says he is and his defenders affirm. While Ford and Ramirez deserve FBI validation, Kavanaugh might deserve FBI exoneration. Both sides have much at stake — the women as well as the man. All sorts of stereotypes — hysterical women, drunken preppy — are in play. In time, they will not dissipate; they will ossify…
If the FBI can be called upon to look into the authenticity of a $6.5 million Lincoln stovepipe, it can certainly undertake an investigation into the charges against Kavanaugh. The bureau may, in the end, be unable to reach a conclusion — it’s been a long while, after all — but it will have tried. As it looks now, the Republican majority on the Senate Judicial Committee appear to be jamming a nomination through the senate. Call in the FBI.
(c) 2018, Washington Post Writers Group
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/09/25/if_the_fbi_can_investigate_lincolns_hat_why_not_fords_claims_138156.html
LikeLike