THE WEEK IN PICTURES: DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN EDITION
Anything happen? Oh heck, who am I kidding. It’s deja vu all over again, in Yogi Berra’s great The #MeToo moment was apparently delayed and intensified for 20 years by the need of liberals to defend Bill Clinton in 1998-99. There isn’t a black hole large enough to swallow up the liberal hypocrisy and nastiness.
Yes indeed, Sen. Gillibrand knows how to spot sexual predators.
______________________________________________________________
Sen. Gillibrand wants to become president. She is a wild eyed feminist from New York and says bizarre things. She is a lawyer. She also is a "Despicable" who hates "Hillary Deplorables." Her comments about accused rights defies what our Constitution demands.
Based on her personal comments, I believe she is a 'killer brand' which I would not even order from Amazon. (See 1 below.)
Let's hear from Kavanaugh. (See 1a below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I was sent this link by a tennis friend who also comes across as a fellow traveler fellow, and who believes everything he reads in The NYT and wants me to as well.
Though I demur but I frequently will post what he sends.
I responded by asking: 'were there any questions The NYT's wanted to put before Ms. "Accuser" Ford or, because she was a Feminist, liberal College Professor who hated Trump, was she entitled to just go Dred Scott Free? "
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/25/oion/brett-kavanaugh- women-sexual-assault- questions.html?emc=edit_th_ 180926&nl=todaysheadlines& nlid=434573280926
Yesterday, Trump gave an important speech in a monotone voice. He told the world we were an independent nation, we would not succumb to being ruled by corrupt world bodies and were ready to do business on a level playing field, defend ourselves and friends and he warned Iran, do not screw around with "Hoppy." (For those too young to know I am referring to Hopalong Cassidy.) (See 2 and 2a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Enthusiasm Polling Data reveals Republican enthusiasm is 61% and Democrat enthusiasm is 64%. Perhaps the difference is accounted for by Democrat Election Fraud? (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One more drama relates to Deputy Atty. Gen. Rod Rosenstein.
He apparently quipped he should wiretap Trump to assure voters the president is sane or whether Congress should invoke the 25th Amendment .
Rosenstein is the man who supervises Mueller, is determining whether Trump and everyone he ever spoke with in the last 50 years are guilty of anything that remotely resembles Russian Collusion.
We already know Democrats, Hillary, The DNC and their sympathizers in some of our nation's most sensitive agencies were engaged in spying, paying for false documents which were presented to FISA Courts in order to obtain warrants, continue to withhold documents Congress has a right to have and a list of other abuses and illegal activity.
Rosenstein continues to slow walk documents a legitimate Congressional Committee has requested and his alleged comments raise serious questions regarding his objectivity and whether he is capable of serving the president without bias or is he part of what Trump calls a "Witch Hunt?"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
California Democrats could do the nation a great favor, even if it means electing a radial leftist, by sending Feinstein out to pasture. She is my age, 85, and, if elected, would be 91 at the end of her term.
Feinstein has proven she is willing to do the bidding of her party's masters and was willing to withhold evidence in her possession in order to present it at a most opportune time. She also claims to be a feminist advocate yet watched as Ms Ford got devoured by Democrat more interested in disparagement than duty. (See 4 and 4a below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Today is an important day and, no doubt, many millions of Americans will be watching and listening.
The hope is that the interrogations and responses will result in resolving credibility issues so a vote can take place on Friday and the issue of the Kavanaugh nomination will eventually be resolved and the nation can move forward so he can either take his seat as a Justice on The SCOTUS or it is back to the well.
The Senate's responsibility of advise and consent has now turned into a court of public opinion because Democrats, once again, made a political mockery out of their obligation.
That said, and I have no way of proving this, I believe, should Kavanaugh make it to the highest bench, Democrats will continue to attack his integrity in the hope they can shape his judicial decisions and intimidate him. They have sullied the man which was always one of their goal because character assassination is another of their clubs in their full bag of scummy tricks.
Once again, I urge you read Kim Strassel's book on intimidation which has become a preferred weapon of choice employed by Democrats, lefties and an assortment of those who have an agenda and will stop at nothing to implement same.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)Kirsten Gillibrand got due process, but denies Kavanaugh his
By Cheryl K. Chumley
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Kirsten Gillibrand, the senator at the forefront of calling for a withdrawal of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s name from Supreme Court nomination because two women say he’s guilty of sexual misconduct — but have yet to bring forth the evidence — was once herself accused of seedy ties to a sexual slave cult.
She denied it.
But the accusation was made. The media reported. She was accused of turning blind eyes to her own father’s connection to this group.
And here’s the part that really pops: Gillibrand was given the benefit of the doubt on these accusations and duly cleared. They were found to have cropped for political reasons only.
But if she had been forced by the media and a hating political opposition force to go by the same standards she’s applying to Kavanaugh, fact is, Gillibrand shouldn’t have her senatorial seat any longer.
This all took place just in March — just a few weeks ago, just a short enough time ago that the sting from her own unpleasant ordeal should be sharp in her memory. Just a short enough time ago that she should be reeling from hypocrisy about now, as she demands Kavanaugh, absent due process, absent solid evidence, steps aside and lose his chance to become a Supreme Court justice.
1a) The Honorable Charles Grassley Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate
135 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein:
When I testified in front of the Senate three weeks ago, I explained my belief that fair process is foundational to justice and to our democracy.
At that time, I sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee for more than 31 hours and answered questions under oath. I then answered more questions at a confidential session. The following week, I responded to more than 1,200 written questions, more than have been submitted to all previous Supreme Court nominees combined.
Only after that exhaustive process was complete did I learn, through the news media, about a 36- year-old allegation from high school that had been asserted months earlier and withheld from me throughout the hearing process. First it was an anonymous allegation that I categorically and unequivocally denied. Soon after the accuser was identified, I repeated my denial on the record and made clear that I wished to appear before the Committee. I then repeated my denial to Committee investigators—under criminal penalties for false statements. All of the witnesses identified by Dr. Ford as being present at the party she describes are on the record to the Committee saying they have no recollection of any such party happening. I asked to testify before the Committee again under oath as soon as possible, so that both Dr. Ford and I could both be heard. I thank Chairman Grassley for scheduling that hearing for Thursday.
Last night, another false and uncorroborated accusation from 35 years ago was published. Once again, those alleged to have been witnesses to the event deny it ever happened. There is now a frenzy to come up with something—anything—that will block this process and a vote on my confirmation from occurring.
These are smears, pure and simple. And they debase our public discourse. But they are also a threat to any man or woman who wishes to serve our country. Such grotesque and obvious character assassination—if allowed to succeed—will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from service.
As I told the Committee during my hearing, a federal judge must be independent, not swayed by public or political pressure. That is the kind of judge I will always be. I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. 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.
I have devoted my career to serving the public and the cause of justice, and particularly to promoting the equality and dignity of women. Women from every phase of my life have come forward to attest to my character. I am grateful to them. I owe it to them, and to my family, to defend my integrity and my name. I look forward to answering questions from the Senate on Thursday.
Sincerely,
Brett M. Kavanaugh
1a) The Honorable Charles Grassley Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate
135 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein:
When I testified in front of the Senate three weeks ago, I explained my belief that fair process is foundational to justice and to our democracy.
At that time, I sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee for more than 31 hours and answered questions under oath. I then answered more questions at a confidential session. The following week, I responded to more than 1,200 written questions, more than have been submitted to all previous Supreme Court nominees combined.
Only after that exhaustive process was complete did I learn, through the news media, about a 36- year-old allegation from high school that had been asserted months earlier and withheld from me throughout the hearing process. First it was an anonymous allegation that I categorically and unequivocally denied. Soon after the accuser was identified, I repeated my denial on the record and made clear that I wished to appear before the Committee. I then repeated my denial to Committee investigators—under criminal penalties for false statements. All of the witnesses identified by Dr. Ford as being present at the party she describes are on the record to the Committee saying they have no recollection of any such party happening. I asked to testify before the Committee again under oath as soon as possible, so that both Dr. Ford and I could both be heard. I thank Chairman Grassley for scheduling that hearing for Thursday.
Last night, another false and uncorroborated accusation from 35 years ago was published. Once again, those alleged to have been witnesses to the event deny it ever happened. There is now a frenzy to come up with something—anything—that will block this process and a vote on my confirmation from occurring.
These are smears, pure and simple. And they debase our public discourse. But they are also a threat to any man or woman who wishes to serve our country. Such grotesque and obvious character assassination—if allowed to succeed—will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from service.
As I told the Committee during my hearing, a federal judge must be independent, not swayed by public or political pressure. That is the kind of judge I will always be. I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. 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.
I have devoted my career to serving the public and the cause of justice, and particularly to promoting the equality and dignity of women. Women from every phase of my life have come forward to attest to my character. I am grateful to them. I owe it to them, and to my family, to defend my integrity and my name. I look forward to answering questions from the Senate on Thursday.
Sincerely,
Brett M. Kavanaugh
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)Trump’s United Nations Speech Spotlighting “America First”President Donald Trump delivered a defining United Nations speech spotlighting “America First” on September 25, 2018. Central to his address was the message that America will not bend to the whim of globalization nor partake in other initiatives where America loses its sovereignty.
In an era where policy and social momentum are defined by currents of emotion (and sometimes mass hysteria), it is stunning to see the American president take a strong stance against collectivism. The danger of collectivism is that often the identity and voice of the individual is suffocated — especially in totalitarian systems. While most would champion the individual against the collective strong-arming of societal pressure, the same values are lost when the principle is applied between nations.
Maintaining the independence of the individual nation is critical to the health of the collective. Critics have responded to the theme of “America first” as being an isolationist view. It is not. Trump’s position to put “America first” isn’t one of isolation, but rather autonomy. In his first two years in office, that autonomy has allowed the American president to accomplish more in half of one sitting than most presidents have accomplished in two terms.
Addressing the United Nations General Assembly, President Trump:
- Gave a nod to the embassy move in Israel to Jerusalem, which he said underscores his commitment to peace in the region between Israelis and Palestinians
- Spoke critically of Iran, distinctly addressing its dictators and leaders (and not the Iranian people at large)
- Warned against German dependence on Russian energy, hinting at Russia as an expansionist foreign power
- Applauded Gulf countries for “taking more responsibility in fighting terrorism”
- Recognized North Korea, adding he has seen “encouraging measures,” including the suspension of tests and other steps to ensure good faith negotiations. He also thanked North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un for “his courage”
Trump has repeatedly faced backlash for his support of dictator states and willingness to dialogue with their leaders. However, few realize that participation of Arab nations in fighting violent extremism is instrumental to countering violent extremism. Foreign collaborative efforts benefit the American people by reducing the risk of radicalization and terror attacks.
The critique the president faced extended to his recognition of Kim Jong-un, whom he addressed as “rocket man” early during his presidency when tensions with North Korea were seemingly fanned by Twitter diplomacy. Despite the previous exchange, dialogue with North Korea is imperative. Among the administration’s critics, fewer still understand this critical need to a relationship with North Korea.
President Trump’s leadership at the General Assembly was a success if success is defined by a willingness to come to the table. Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe stated he’s willing to meet Kim Jong-un, a significant move that could lower tensions between the two nations. In what is termed as breaking the shell of mistrust, the United Nations General Assembly is a demonstration of one thing the UN can do, which is to bring nations together.
However, when it comes to how to move forward, that is the responsibility and right of each sovereign nation — something Trump did well to remind the assembly despite the laughter he received from the audience. It’s very easy for people to laugh; it’s much tougher to get one of the most volatile nations in the world to dialogue and step outside its shell.
President Trump has demonstrated that the policy of “America First” can lead a community of the nations with divergent philosophies toward peace.
2a) Europe’s Bad Iran Bet
Like the mullahs, the Euros think they can outlast Donald Trump.
President Trump will lead a United Nations Security Council session Wednesday on weapons of mass destruction and Iran, and European leaders are signaling that they’re more than willing to disagree with the U.S. Meanwhile, Europeans are looking for ways to duck U.S. financial sanctions—without much success.
2a) Europe’s Bad Iran Bet
Like the mullahs, the Euros think they can outlast Donald Trump.
The Editorial Board
On Monday European Commission foreign-affairs chief Federica Mogherini unveiled a new “special-purpose vehicle” to facilitate trade with Iran after U.S. sanctions go back into effect in November. Restoring Iran’s access to the global financial system and trade was a central plank of the 2015 nuclear pact. Ms. Mogherini and the three European co-signers of the deal—Germany, France and Britain—have been scrambling to keep those commercial benefits and they view trade as the main carrot for Tehran to comply
Recent months have shown what a diplomatic mistake this has been. European companies have withdrawn from Iran to avoid U.S. sanctions, despite the European Union’s so-called blocking statute barring compliance with this U.S. pressure. Access to the U.S. market and financial system are too important no matter how noisily European diplomats complain about the Trump Administration.
Brussels also hasn’t found a financial workaround for Iranian trade. Vague proposals to establish direct links between Iran’s central bank and its European counterparts to move euros have faltered in part because European central banks and finance ministries worry about Iran’s money laundering.
The same concern hinders German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas’s aspiration to develop a European alternative to the global Swift system for exchanging transaction messages between banks. Belgium-based Swift is likely to be included in the next U.S. sanctions, which would cut off Iran’s banks from most of the world. But developing an alternative could make it harder for Europeans to track terror financing and money laundering.
There’s no evidence that Monday’s idea would work any better. Ms. Mogherini said technical experts are working on the details, but the special-purpose vehicle is supposed to facilitate barter in which Iran would exchange oil for foreign goods perhaps without using cash to settle the trades. This might dodge financial sanctions, but it is too cumbersome to handle much trade. And it would still antagonize Washington.
The puzzle is why Europe insists on sticking so doggedly with Barack Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal. European leaders know the deal is flawed. French President Emmanuel Macron laid out many of the weaknesses in his visit to Washington this year: It ignores Tehran’s ballistic-missile program, turns a blind eye to Iran’s military adventurism, and includes a sunset after which Iran could sprint to a bomb. Apparently they can’t bring themselves to agree on anything with the Trump Administration.
Europe would get better results—and maybe a better deal with Iran—if it coordinated with Washington to apply pressure on Iran to reopen the 2015 deal. Iran will refuse to talk as long as the mullahs think they have Europe on their side. Maybe Europeans think they can outlast Mr. Trump and restore the deal’s terms with a new President in 2021. But opposition to Iran’s nuclear and imperial ambitions is bipartisan in Washington. And there’s always the chance that Mr. Trump could win again.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)"US"
by Paul Genova
I haven't said too much about this election since the start...but this is how I feel....
I'm noticing that a lot of people aren't graciously accepting the fact that their candidate lost.
In fact you seem to be posting even more hateful things about those "deplorables" who voted for Trump.
Some are apparently "triggered" because they are posting how "sick" you feel about the results.
How did this happen you ask? Well here is how it happened!
You created "us" when you attacked our freedom of speech.
You created "us" when you attacked our right to bear arms.
You created "us" when you attacked our Judeo/Christian beliefs.
You created "us" when you constantly referred to us as racists.
You created "us" when you constantly called us xenophobic.
You created "us" when you told us to get on board or get out of the way.
You created "us" when you attacked our flag.
You created "us" when you took God out of our schools.
You created "us" when you confused women's rights with feminism.
You created "us" when you began to emasculate men.
You created "us" when you decided to make our children soft.
You created "us" when you decided to vote for progressive ideals.
You created "us" when you attacked our way of life.
You created "us" when you decided to let our government get out of control.
You created "us" the silent majority.
You created "us" when you began murdering innocent law enforcement officers.
You created "us" when you lied and said we could keep our insurance plans and our doctors.
You created "us" when you allowed our jobs to continue to leave our country.
You created "us" when you took a knee, or stayed seated or didn't remove your hat during our National Anthem.
You created "us" when you forced us to buy health care and then financially penalized us for not participating.
And we became fed up and we pushed back and spoke up.
And we did it with ballots, not bullets.
With ballots, not riots.
With ballots, not looting.
With ballots, not blocking traffic.
With ballots, not fires, except the one you started inside of "us".
"YOU" created "US".
It really is just that simple.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)
Republicans and others who live in California and are appalled by the Senate’s Brett Kavanaugh spectacle at least can do something about it. In November, they can hold their noses and pull the lever for Dianne Feinstein’s ultraliberal challenger and thereby send the state’s four-term Senate doyenne down to landslide defeat.
4)
Sen. Feinstein, Clean Up Your Mess
Thursday’s hearing should be canceled in favor of an agreed quick hunt for truth.
Republicans and others who live in California and are appalled by the Senate’s Brett Kavanaugh spectacle at least can do something about it. In November, they can hold their noses and pull the lever for Dianne Feinstein’s ultraliberal challenger and thereby send the state’s four-term Senate doyenne down to landslide defeat.
Mrs. Feinstein’s ending an otherwise a long and creditable career in humiliation and ignominy would be justice not only because of her culpable role in the Kavanaugh travesty. It would be poetic for her to finish under a real and recent cloud given actions that have cast a cloud over Judge Kavanaugh because of unprovable, last-minute claims about how he may have behaved in his teens.
Mrs. Feinstein could learn something from the New York Times in its own debunking of the latest ill-sourced Kavanaugh allegation, in which the paper says it contacted dozens of potential witnesses and found none who would verify a complaint floated Sunday in backhanded fashion by the New Yorker magazine.
Lesson: You don’t need the FBI. Private investigators are available. Opposition researchers can be hired—just not the Fusion GPS kind, who specialize in producing anonymous, unsubstantiated slurs rather than checking them out.
The Senate Judiciary Committee and the Democratic Party have ample resources. In fact, Democrats can still do something to repair the damage, in partnership with Senate Republicans. If Mrs. Feinstein weren’t so narrowed by her life in politics that she can’t see a bigger picture, she would already have owned up to her failure in this regard and tried to clean up the mess.
After all, she is the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. She could refuse to participate in Thursday’s hearing. She could demand that it be called off. She could point out the obvious: A hearing in the absence of any attempt by the Senate to seek verifiable facts against which to measure the vague memories of accusant Christine Blasey Ford can only be a “he said, she said” travesty, a modern-day gladiatorial contest in which tribal loyalty and the loudest shouting will substitute for truth and justice.
Whatever the truth of Mr. Kavanaugh’s teenage behavior, this is not a creditworthy exercise in advise and consent. Judge Kavanaugh evidently feels obliged to go along rather than have a refusal be interpreted as guilt. He will be subjected to cross-examination by Senate Democrats in which he will be forced to admit that he drank beer in high school and went to parties. This will be more than enough for Sen. Mazie Hirono, who has already determined that Judge Kavanaugh is a liar because he’s a man, and a rapist because as a judge he might uphold democratically enacted restrictions on abortion.
Republicans are stuck playing for the mildest possible political disaster, which means pushing through Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation even while the allegations remain unresolved. But Republicans won’t, for fear of increasing their jeopardy with women, subject Ms. Ford to the cross-examination that would be requisite in any truly fact-finding forum. They likely won’t even challenge her behavior since the allegations surfaced, which has clearly seemed more aimed at conveniencing Democratic strategy in the midterms than at putting her testimony before the senators so they can assess it.
Mrs. Feinstein so far has behaved as we expect politicians to behave on most occasions: as if there is no consideration higher than what she must do to assure her re-election. But she’s 85 years old. She doesn’t need another term in the Senate. She doesn’t need one more ritual of incumbency validation.
Since the glaring absence here is any context of facts in which her fellow senators can weigh the accusation that Sen. Feinstein allowed to be sprung on Judge Kavanaugh at the last minute, she should be the one to request that the nomination be briefly put on hold. She should propose that Democrats and Republicans jointly sponsor an investigator to take a week or two to question anybody and everybody who might have been present at the alleged party or know anything about the history of Judge Kavanaugh and Ms. Ford.
Mrs. Feinstein could even agree, as a gesture of expiation and good faith, to support Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation if the investigation yields no information to support Ms. Ford’s claim.
Failing that, the right thing to do is spare Judge Kavanaugh and Ms. Ford an awful, purposeless hearing that cannot be anything but a disgrace to the Senate. Republicans should vote up or down based on what is on the record. Ms. Ford is free to tell her story to any senator who wants to hear it. She is free to tell it to the media as many times as she wants; she is not being denied a right to be heard. The media are free to chase down every allegation that she or anybody cares to make about Brett Kavanaugh.
All this will not be satisfying, but it wouldn’t get more satisfying as the result of Thursday’s planned hearing. And at least the Senate will not be an agent of further disgracing itself in the process. Sen. Feinstein is the author of this abomination, whether she meant to be or not, and is the one who ought to call it off.
4a)
#MeToo Becomes a Political Ploy
Mazie Hirono makes clear that if Brett Kavanaugh were liberal, she’d give him the benefit of the doubt.
By Abigil Shrier
Pity Lady Justice; she’s had a rough couple of weeks. On “State of the Union” Sunday, CNN’s Jake Tapper tossed Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii what should have been a grapefruit: “Doesn’t Kavanaugh have the same presumption of innocence as anyone else in America?” Ms. Hirono responded: “I put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches cases.” Conservative jurists in America have been put on notice: They are to forfeit their most basic rights as punishment for their judicial philosophy.
In the national circus that is the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing, sexual assault is very much beside the point. Christine Blasey Ford claims that 36 years ago she suffered an attempt at the most terrifying act of brutality a woman can live through. But in the hands of Senate Democrats, this is one more bit of materiel flung at the other side. Ms. Ford is merely the expedient means to a desirable end.
I have no idea what if anything happened to Ms. Ford. (Is it necessary to say this?) I have no idea whether she is more credible than Leland Keyser, whom Ms. Ford places at the party, though Ms. Keyser has no memory of it and says she’s never met Brett Kavanaugh. Neither do any of the senators, including Dianne Feinstein, who learned of the accusation and withheld it from her Republican colleagues and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for six weeks, knowing as every good gunslinger must, that if you’ve only got one bullet left, you don’t let it go to waste.
Imagine if we treated murder this way. Imagine if a woman had written to Mrs. Feinstein alleging that the man who was about to be appointed to the Supreme Court had murdered her brother 36 years ago. What would we say of a senator who failed to turn this evidence over immediately to the authorities? That the question is so easily answered indicates how much less seriously we already take crimes of sexual violence.
Mrs. Feinstein was elected in 1992, the year after Justice Clarence Thomas’s appointment. When he was accused, we were told the woman is always right. Why else would Anita Hill have brought these claims? A few years later, when the accused was Bill Clinton, elite opinion cried we shouldn’t rush to believe the accuser. He was a good feminist—and Paula Jones, not nearly our sort of girl. In both cases, we knew that the point was not any of the accusations. It was to shelter powerful men with views we liked or punish men with views we didn’t.
Then came #MeToo. For a moment, it seemed everything might change. Public opinion was on the side, not of all women exactly, but of those women with credible, corroborated claims who were willing to name powerful men—even those men with the right political allegiances. In this light, Bill O’Reilly and Harvey Weinstein seemed more alike than different; they met the same disgrace not for their political beliefs but for behavior that Americans of every political stripe should want to stop. For the first time in years, even Bill Clinton seemed less a gift to women than a Trojan Horse.
But now we’re back to our cheap tricks, using sexual assault as a political ploy. If Judge Kavanaugh were liberal, Sen. Hirono makes clear, she would give him the benefit of the doubt. If he adjudicates like a conservative, that’s evidence of rape.
This is not a fair hearing. This is not any hearing at all. This is a series of political stunts calling itself “debate” over who should sit on the Supreme Court. Those who believe a sole witness’s inchoate recollection of a never-reported incident 36 years ago have every right to this instinct, but they cannot pretend to have seen sufficient evidence to adjudicate the matter. Not without corroboration or any pattern of similar acts by the accused. For those who are already convinced of Judge Kavanaugh’s guilt, it is enough to believe no politically conservative Catholic—“some frat boy named Brett”—as NARAL called him—should ever sit on the highest court of the land. Who but a monster would refuse to endorse the right to abortion? And isn’t that tantamount to violence against women? What other evidence do we really need?
Either we’re going to take sexual assault seriously because we’re interested in protecting women, or we’ll allow it to be transformed into merely the newest political weapon. If we choose the latter, we will have encouraged victims and witnesses of even the most heinous crimes to decline to report them for decades, waiting for the politically opportune moment. And we will have helped turn a grievous crime into a cheap register of public passion that flips like a weather vane at the next election.
Ms. Shrier is a writer living in Los Angeles.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
