Sen. Collins not only saved the Kavanaugh nomination but the #MeToo movement as well

What Susan Collins did on Friday not only saved the Kavanaugh nomination to the Supreme Court. She also may have saved the #MeToo movement by her effort to keep it credible.

People who affirm signs like “We Believe All Survivors,” are delusional at best, bigoted at worst. Bigotry is defined as irrational prejudice. To believe all accusers, regardless of any corroborating evidence, is not rational. It is a religion-like, dogmatic embrace of a narrative: that women don’t ever lie about sexual assault.

With extraordinary sensitivity Collins said:

Every person-man or woman-who makes a charge of sexual assault deserves to be heard and treated with respect. The #MeToo movement is real. It matters. It is needed. And it is long overdue.

Since the hearing, I have listened to many survivors of sexual assault. Many were total strangers who told me their heart-wrenching stories for the first time in their lives. Some were friends I have known for decades, yet with the exception of one woman who had confided in me years ago, I had no idea that they had been the victims of sexual attacks.
Over the past few weeks, I have been emphatic that the Senate has an obligation to investigate and evaluate the serious allegations of sexual assault. I called for and supported the additional hearing to hear from both Professor Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. I also pushed for and supported the FBI supplemental background investigation.

And with unemotional rationality she said:

You (Democrats) have taken a survivor who was not only entitled to your respect, but who also trusted you to protect her – and you have sacrificed her well-being in a misguided attempt to win whatever political crusade you think you are fighting
Mr. President, we’ve heard a lot of charges and counter charges about Judge Kavanaugh. But as those who have known him best have attested, he has been an exemplary public servant, judge, teacher, coach, husband, and father
Despite the turbulent, bitter fight surrounding his nomination, my fervent hope is that Brett Kavanaugh will work to lessen the divisions in the Supreme Court so that we have far fewer 5-4 decisions and so that public confidence in our Judiciary and our highest court is restored. Mr. President, I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.

Read moreSen. Collins not only saved the Kavanaugh nomination but the #MeToo movement as well

Sex crimes prosecutor Mitchell says evidence is nonexistent

Career sex-crimes prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, has issued her final report (memorandum) on her conclusions from the Senate Judiciary hearing last Thursday.

Here is what she has specifically detailed to justify her position that Dr. Ford’s allegation does not rise to the level where “a reasonable prosecutor would bring a case.”

1. “Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.”

Ford originally said that the alleged incident occurred in the “mid-1980s,” but this recollection was later amended to the “early 80s.” More recently it was narrowed down to the “summer of 1982” in the September 16 Washington Post article.

The Post article also stated that notes from a 2013 individual therapy session had her saying she was in her “late teens” at the time of the alleged assault.

Read moreSex crimes prosecutor Mitchell says evidence is nonexistent

The questions that should have been asked of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford

For many Americans who watched the extraordinary Senate Judiciary hearing that was held on Thursday, the questions asked by Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford were perhaps not what one might have considered penetrating enough to determine the truth about her allegations of sexual misconduct by Brett Kavanaugh when he was seventeen.

I acknowledge that hard-edged questions directed toward a woman who may have been psychologically traumatized by an alleged event 36 years ago would be perceived to be both politically and ethically insensitive. But the overall destructive magnitude of the charge is so great that I believe Ms. Mitchell’s questions should have been more probing of the alleged event itself.

The American people have a right to know as much as possible about that evening and at this point, only Dr. Christine Blasey Ford can give us any information at all about what took place in or around the Bethesda, Maryland area one evening in, what she believes, was the summer of 1982.

These fictional questions (in color and italicized) are interspersed with Dr. Ford’s actual testimony or between actual questions from the hearing participants.

So let us begin.

Read moreThe questions that should have been asked of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford

The Left will do anything to stop the Kavanaugh nomination

New unsubstantiated allegations surfaced this weekend in the New Yorker by reporters Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow of #MeToo fame. The article accuses Brett Kavanaugh of exposing himself to a drunk classmate when they were both law students at Yale.

Although Kavanaugh’s former classmate Deborah Ramirez was “reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty,” in early discussions with the New Yorker she subsequently became certain and formally made the incendiary claim to the reporters after, as she describes it in the article, “six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney.” (Good to know that 6 days with your lawyer can clear up 35 years with a confused memory. And I’m still not sure what “assessing your memory” means.)

Read moreThe Left will do anything to stop the Kavanaugh nomination

Dershowitz says Kavanaugh’s accuser must testify under oath

Longtime Harvard Law Professor and constitutional scholar, Alan Dershowitz said that Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s sexual assault accuser when they were teens, Christine Blasey Ford, has a constitutional duty to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

According to the Daily Caller, Dershowitz said, “Nobody should be referring to her as a victim and him as a perpetrator until we hear from both of them under oath, subject to cross-examination. … There is nothing more essential to American justice than the opportunity to cross-examine your accuser, to confront your accuser. It is in the Constitution.”

Read moreDershowitz says Kavanaugh’s accuser must testify under oath

x Shield Logo
This Site Is Protected By
The Shield →