Liberals have all but decided that Brett Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault, believing that Ford’s account of events from 36 years ago to be utterly infallible. As a principled and informed progressive it saddens me to have to educate my fellow Leftists, but I refuse to play ball when the game runs counter to reality.
Some have argued that Ford must be telling the truth because she passed a polygraph test. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the APA (American Psychological Association) itself has made a ruling on this and it’s officially pseudo-science.
You can read the full article here, but these are the key points:
- “There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious.”
- “One reason that polygraph tests may appear to be accurate is that subjects who believe that the test works and that they can be detected may confess or will be very anxious when questioned. If this view is correct, the lie detector might be better called a fear detector.”
- “Evidence indicates that strategies used to “beat” polygraph examinations, so-called countermeasures, may be effective. Countermeasures include simple physical movements, psychological interventions (e.g., manipulating subjects’ beliefs about the test), and the use of pharmacological agents that alter arousal patterns.”
- “For now, although the idea of a lie detector may be comforting, the most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion wrung from a polygraph.”
Now before you emotionally-charged, easily-triggered, safe-space-demanding, politically-correct children throw a knee-jerk tantrum, it’s important to note that I am not accusing Ford of lying. She could very well be telling the truth (or believes she is telling the truth). I am only pointing out that we cannot honestly say, with objective certainty, that she is telling the truth based on the results of a polygraph test. This is undeniable.
An accuser’s word alone, regardless of the crime, is never sufficient enough to pass final judgment. When there are dozens of accusers, as was the case for Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein, it’s fair to say that guilt appears far more likely. But even then, more likely is not a legal argument. Actual evidence is required. DNA tests, witness testimony, video/audio recordings, drug tests, etc. are all admissible forms of evidence a prosecutor uses to present a case against the accused. The defendant then has an opportunity to make a thorough rebuttal, a jury makes a decision, then a Judge decides the severity of the sentence. This all falls under due process, a vital Constitutional right that belongs to all of us, not just the people we like.
To that end, there has yet to even be a judicial process. Thus far there have only been a handful of confirmation hearings run by the Senate Judiciary Committee. While anyone speaking was under oath and it was technically a legal proceeding, the Senate is not a courtroom and it did not hold an actual trial. Which is why I agree with Tulsi Gabbard in supporting a proper and thorough FBI investigation.
If there is evidence that Kavanaugh is guilty he should be denied a seat on the Supreme Court and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (although it is highly likely that the statute of limitations would allow prosecution since the alleged crime was said to have occurred 36 years ago). Why this hadn’t come up sooner is also a fair question, especially since the FBI had thoroughly-vetted Kavanaugh before he worked for the Bush Administration and nothing along these lines came up. That being said, I’m not the type to trust the FBI (or the larger Deep State).
WHAT DO WE REALLY KNOW?
We know that Ford claims that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in 1982 and that Kavanaugh vehemently denies it. We know that not a single witness Ford mentioned in her testimony has corroborated her story including her best friend at the time, Leland Keyser:
“Late Saturday, an attorney for a woman believed to be one of the witnesses Ford said was at the party released a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee and CBS News denying she was at the party. An attorney for the woman, Leland Keyser, said in the statement, “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”
(Click here for more on Leland Keyser’s statement)
We know that she tried to avoid testifying before the Committee by citing a fear of flying yet admitted to frequently vacationing in Hawaii and Costa Rica. While a small detail, the inconsistency is worth noting:
We know Ford originally said that a man referred to as “PJ” was a bystander, implying that he witnessed the assault, which she later recanted and clarified was not the case. Here was PJ’s response:
“I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post,” Smyth says in the letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, according to CNN. “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”
(Click here for more on PJ’s statement)
We know that Brett has refused to give a straight yes or no answer to a few questions, which rightfully raises eyebrows. We know that he was extremely agitated and combative which could invoke the old adage methinks thou doth protest too much, though if he is in fact innocent those be understandable reactions to have. We know based on his opposition to Roe v. Wade that he doesn’t respect the reproductive rights of women. And we know that he likes beer, which apparently was enough to cause an LA Times columnist to “shudder” and write an entire article about his “drinking problem”.
FBI WILL INVESTIGATE
It has been announced that Trump, with the support of Republican leaders, has ordered an FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh to verify whether or not Ford’s accusation sufficiently warrants legal action. I was surprised he would take such an action against his own nominee, but was pleased that he did something right for a change. Though I don’t approve of the timeline of a single week to be sufficient.
That being said, I think it’s fair to say that Trump wouldn’t have made the announcement if he didn’t already know that there wasn’t enough information for the FBI to prosecute. If there were any real chance of Brett Kavanaugh being found guilty neither he nor the Republicans would risk the public embarrassment, especially just before the November mid-terms.
A right-wing extremist like Kavanaugh should have been strongly maligned by Democrats on the basis of being a serious threat to Roe v. Wade to block his confirmation, but he will likely now be transformed into a legitimate victim of unproven, non-evidenced allegations. Whether guilty or not, that’s exactly how this is going to pan out if the FBI investigation fails to bring any new evidence to the surface.
Kavanaugh was already strongly opposed by the American public and there was a path to blocking his confirmation the right way, but now he’s going to earn sympathy points. In effect, the lazy Democratic strategy of playing dirty politics in an attempt to stop Kavanaugh is going to backfire and ultimately increase the odds that he will be confirmed as our next Supreme Court Justice. Five bucks a few Democrats will vote for his confirmation when all is said and done. None of this is the outcome that I want, only my prediction.
Whether you believe Christine Ford or Brett Kavanaugh, belief is never a sufficient basis for truth. For that reason liberals are wrong to blindly condemn Kavanaugh just as conservatives are wrong to blindly condemn Ford. Without evidence, a case of he-said she-said cannot be objectively decided. It is essential that we always consider the accused to be innocent until proven guilty regardless of personal bias, never the other way around. Those failing to abide by this most basic legal principle due to partisanship are forfeiting any moral high-ground purported to be held.