But really, Sen. Graham, I'm so glad you've come to the aid of all men who might be falsely accused of sexual abuse. From a Stanford (sure, biased source since Dr. Ford teaches there) Men's anti sexual assault group (group of traitors to their gender, right Sen. Graham?):
Only about 2% of all rape and related sex charges are determined to be false, the same percentage as for other felonies (FBI). So while they do happen, and they are very problematic when they do, people claim that allegations are false far more frequently than they are and far more frequently than for other crimes. Put another way, we are much more likely to disbelieve a woman if she says she was raped than if she says she was robbed, but for no good reason.2% are false claims, and 40% of such crimes are never reported, so that would bump down the 2% figure.
On a related note, only about 40% of rapes are ever reported to the police, and this is partly because victims know that if their claim becomes public, their every behavior will be scrutinized, they will be shamed for their sexual history, and they will be labeled as lunatic, psychotic, paranoid, and manipulative. Just because someone does not report their crime does not mean it did not happen. Furthermore, only one in two claims lead to prosecution, so if the DA decides not to prosecute, that says nothing about whether or not it happened. http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates)
And Sen. Graham is worried about men who are falsely accused, the 2%, rather than all the women (and men) who are sexually abused and assaulted with impunity. OK, I know this is one specific man. But unless you are ideologically blinded, or so corrupted by campaign funders, or worried that accusations like this might affect you and lots of other male abusers you hang out with, it's hard not to find Ford's testimony totally credible and Kavanaugh's evasive at best and sprinkled with lies - big and small - at worst.
What we learned, incontrovertibly, at the hearings was:
1. In a time of personal crisis, Kavanaugh fell apart. He did not remain calm and rational. He blew up. If Dr. Ford had acted like Kavanaugh, she would have been pilloried in the committee. Anger is an emotion, one that shows great loss of control. I don't care if this was a personal crisis. This man is being considered for the Supreme Court. Only nine people get that privilege. I'm sure there are plenty of qualified candidates who are able to control their anger and act more like Dr. Ford than Judge Kavanaugh.
2. He lied about the meaning of words he wrote in his high school year book. He lied about getting into Yale totally on his own merits, that he had no connections. (He was a legacy student because his grandfather went to Yale.) [UPDATE 3pm 9/30/18 - Nathan J. Robinson wrote the detailed, lie-by-lie analysis "How we know Brett Kavanaugh is lying" I didn't have the time or energy to do. And he does a much better job than I would have had I had the time and energy. So thanks Nathan. Here's his summary of what he's doing in this piece:
"In this case, when we examine the testimony of Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford honestly, impartially, and carefully, it is impossible to escape the following conclusions:It's long, but he needs time to spell it all out,]
Brett Kavanaugh is lying.
There is no good reason to believe that Christine Blasey Ford is lying. This does not mean that she is definitely telling the truth, but that there is nothing in what Kavanaugh said that in any way discredits her account.
I want to show you, clearly and definitively, how Brett Kavanaugh has lied to you and lied to the Senate. I cannot prove that he committed sexual assault when he was 17, and I hesitate to draw conclusions about what happened for a few minutes in a house in Maryland in the summer of 1982. But I can prove quite easily that Kavanaugh’s teary-eyed “good, innocent man indignant at being wrongfully accused” schtick was a facade. What may have looked like a strong defense was in fact a very, very weak and implausible one."
I recognize that these are the kind of lies Kavanaugh worked to attack when they were coming from Bill Clinton. There the kind of lies one tells to avoid bigger consequences - like not being confirmed by the Senate.
3. He openly showed his political bias. "Since my nomination in July, there’s been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything to block my confirmation.”
He showed himself to be a bitter, self-centered, jerk.
This was not a profile in courage. He did not pull himself up and and calmly and rationally defend his actions. I suspect that would have been hard to do.
Graham's accusation of "the effort to destroy this good man," which echoes Kavanaugh's words, should be seen in the context of Kavanaugh's own work for Ken Starr on the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
A 1998 memo written by Kavanaugh that was released in full Monday by the National Archives underscores his distaste for Bill Clinton’s Oval Office affair in apparently purposefully graphic terms. As the team prepared to interview Clinton, Kavanaugh advises it to put the president through the wringer “piece by painful piece” when questioning him.This is what Kavanaugh wanted to do to Clinton - to destroy him. So naturally he believes the Democrats would do the same thing. Is the K in Kavanaugh for Karma?
There may be people out to destroy Kavanaugh. The more I learn about him, the more I realize he's been a political hitman disguised as hard-working former alter-boy, who joined the Federalist Society judicial cult of originalism that favors the powerful over other citizens, and served that cause to the cusp of a still possible Supreme Court position.
I think most people who oppose him fear his ideological commitment to originalism would do great damage to the United States.
His performance the other day, in my mind, disqualifies him for this position for the reasons listed above, regardless of whether he did the deeds Dr. Ford alleges he did. This hearing is NOT about whether Kavanaugh sexually abused Dr. Ford - though the Republicans are making it that, and short of eyewitness reports, or better yet, video, nothing can prove it to their satisfaction.
It's really - as Graham said earlier - not about truth, but about power.
Alaskans, your calls to Sen. Murkowski carry more weight than those of people outside of Alaska. Call her. Email her. Even if you've already done so ten times. And send copies to Sen. Sullivan. He's not going to vote against Kavanaugh, but it's important to let him know you're watching and you aren't happy.
Murkowski, Lisa - (R - AK)
522 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-6665
I did an hour bike ride this morning, had a hot malasada, and now I'm going to play in the water.
And a reminder about Senate courage from the JFK Presidential Library:
And here are some study/discussion questions for students that the Senate Judiciary Committee might want to work on as a group.
And some poetry on courage from a rich, white, male, imperialist poet (Rudyard Kipling) that is sure to appeal more to Sen. Graham. It begins:
"If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;"
Touché with Kipling, Steve. I may just contact Sen. Murkowski's office. It's her moment and we actually know one another.
ReplyDeleteWell, I figured they'll say Kennedy's Profiles In Courage is part of the plot to destroy Kavanaugh and the Republican Senators, so I figured Kipling was more in their ideological camp.
DeleteUpdate. Sen. Murkowski's email facility screens for an Alaska residency address (not to mention phone number). I am registered with SOA elections office at my London home.
DeleteI may try to call the Anchorage office later today to see how I can get an email through to her.
A bit frustrating.