Kavanaugh is Guilty, and the Republicans are Complicit

[wpseo_breadcrumb]

By George H Butcher III

Proof Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford, and the Republicans covered it up

This discussion is the first of a twelve-part series of blogs. In my first several blogs, I will provide compelling objective evidence that in the summer of 1982, Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford during a suburban house party attended by several other teens. That is precisely what she testified at his confirmation hearing on September 27, 2018.

My assertion about compelling objective evidence may seem like an impossibility since Dr. Ford didn’t recall the date when or house where the sexual assault happened. Also, the witnesses that she testified were present all claim to have no memory of the event.

Yet compelling objective evidence of his guilt does exist, which corroborates Dr. Ford’s sexual-assault allegation beyond a reasonable doubt. Understanding the foundational fact described below is necessary for the evidence of Justice Kavanaugh’s guilt to become visible to you. Three independent proofs of his guilt flow from that one pivotal fact.

The foundational fact is that Dr. Ford was at a July 1, 1982 event with Justice Kavanaugh

Dr. Ford was provably present at a July 1, 1982 house-party, together with Justice Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth, and several other boys. The proof that Dr. Ford was at the house-party does not rely on the credibility of any witness testimony and is far beyond a reasonable doubt. Justice Kavanaugh admits that he, Mr. Judge, Mr. Smyth, and four other boys were at the July 1 event.

Justice Kavanaugh’s calendar contains a detailed description of the July 1, 1982 house-party. His calendar entry corroborates almost all of the details recalled by Dr. Ford about the event where she as assaulted. In total, it directly or indirectly confirms eight of the nine details that she remembered, including that she was present.

Only one detail that Dr. Ford recalled remains uncorroborated. But that detail is not material since Dr. Ford and her alleged assailants, Justice Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge, were all there. No evidence contradicts Dr. Ford’s one uncorroborated memory.

For the moment, take it on faith that she was at the July 1 event. In my second blog, I will describe the objective proof that Dr. Ford was present at the July 1, 1982 house-party. That proof is far beyond any reasonable doubt. My second blog will be released imminently. So, there won’t be a long wait for that evidence.

Importantly, the things that were used to undermine Dr. Ford’s credibility are all demonstrably irrelevant. The failed memories of other witnesses don’t impact the certainty of the proof that Dr. Ford attended the July 1 house-party. Also, the arguments used to question Dr. Ford’s ability to remember past and recent events don’t affect the certainty of that proof.

Three independent proofs of Justice Kavanaugh’s guilt of the sexual assault flow from the certainty that Dr. Ford was present on July 1, 1982. The first two proofs are described immediately below and are the subject of my third and fourth blogs. The third proof of his guilt is briefly referenced further below and is explained in my second blog.

Two proofs constituting confessions of guilt corroborate Dr. Ford’s sexual-assault allegation

The first two proofs of his guilt are confessions or admissions by Justice Kavanaugh, through his own actions. The first confession occurred in July 1982, contemporaneously with the sexual assault on Dr. Ford. The second confession occurred in September 2018, during his confirmation proceedings. Even viewed independently, each admission would corroborate Dr. Ford’s credible testimony that Justice Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Justice Kavanaugh’s admission of guilt in July 1982

Justice Kavanaugh omitted Dr. Ford’s provable presence at the July 1, 1982 house-party from his calendar entry describing the event. He testified on September 27, 2018, about the process that he always used to maintain his calendars. He assured the Senate Judiciary Committee that if a house-party like the one described by Dr. Ford had occurred, it would have been noted in his calendar. He emphasized that his calendar entry for such an event would have accurately reflected the people who attended the house-party and how he was very precise in that regard.

Justice Kavanaugh also testified that his summer of 1982 calendars functioned as a diary and are both forward-looking and backward-looking. “Forward-looking” means that he put events on his calendar in advance that he expected to occur. “Backward-looking” could mean either of two things. Those calendar entries were either added after-the-fact or corrected afterward as needed to reflect what actually happened.

I will prove in my next blog that Dr. Ford attended the July 1, 1982 house-party described in Justice Kavanaugh’s calendar. And he testified how precise he was in reflecting the people who attended such events in his calendar. So, Dr. Ford should have been included in his July 1 calendar entry.

Justice Kavanaugh did the list six boys who attended the house-party, in addition to himself. But his July 1, 1982 calendar entry did not show that Dr. Ford had also attended the house-party.

In his testimony, Justice Kavanaugh repeatedly used the fact that Dr. Ford wasn’t in his calendar to claim that she wasn’t at the event. The intended implication from his claim that she did not attend the July 1 house-party was that she is delusional and imagined the alleged sexual assault by him and Mr. Judge.

Justice Kavanaugh stridently testified that Dr. Ford would have been listed in his calendar if she attended the July 1, 1982 house-party. So, his testimony proves that the omission of Dr. Ford from his calendar entry was not an oversight. Since Dr. Ford’s presence at the July 1 event is provable and since her omission from his calendar was not an oversight, Justice Kavanaugh’s omission of her name from the list of attendees was intentional.

Justice Kavanaugh’s purposeful omission of Dr. Ford from his calendar entry describing the July 1, 1982 house-party was in effect a contemporaneous admission of his guilt of sexually assaulting Dr. Ford. His intention in omitting her from his calendar in July 1982 was to use her absence to claim she wasn’t at the house-party. Even in 1982, he attempted to hide the fact that Dr. Ford attended the July 1, 1982 house-party. But there would have been no conceivable reason for him to do that if he had not sexually assaulted Dr. Ford.

Justice Kavanaugh’s admission of guilt in September 2018

Justice Kavanaugh repeatedly gave knowingly false or purposefully deceitful testimony about Dr. Ford’s allegation. His deceptive testimony was intended to mislead senators and the public about Dr. Ford’s credibility concerning statements he knew to be truthful. My third blog will describe his false or deceitful testimony.

The purpose of Justice Kavanaugh’s false statements in his September 2018 testimony was to create the appearance that Dr. Ford did not attend the July 1, 1982 house-party. That is the same as his objective for omitting Dr. Ford from his calendar in July 1982. His multiple false statements about Dr. Ford’s presence at the July 1 event were, in effect, an admission in September 2018 of his guilt of the July 1982 sexual assault.

Justice Kavanaugh’s plan in taking the actions that constitute his 1982 and 2018 confessions was the same:

First, to hide the fact that Dr. Ford was at the July 1, 1982 house-party;
Second, to undermine her credibility by claiming that the event at which she alleged he assaulted her never occurred; and
Third, to use the uncertainty he dishonestly created about whether the event even occurred to imply that she is delusional and imagined that he and Mr. Judge sexually assaulted her.

Importantly, his plan required Justice Kavanaugh to have multiple co-conspirators in both 2018 and 1982, who he could rely on not to testify truthfully about what they remember.

Her accusation plus his confessions equals proof of guilt

As a general rule, a credible accusation plus a confession equals indisputable proof of guilt. In the instance, we have his pre-accusation 1982 confession, plus Dr. Ford’s credible accusation in her testimony, plus his post-accusation 2018 confession. The outcome is proof of Justice Kavanaugh’s guilt of sexually assaulting Dr. Ford, far beyond any reasonable doubt.

The evidence is compelling, even without the implications of guilt that arise from his two confessions

Dr. Ford’s testimony about the sexual assault by Justice Kavanaugh was compelling and credible, even standing alone before the existence of the other considerations described above became apparent. Those other considerations (excluding the effect of his two confessions) have the following impacts on the evidence; they:

Confirm Dr. Ford’s credibility, based on the accuracy and truthfulness of her testimony about the house-party.
Prove she was in the house with Justice Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge during the July 1, 1982 event (as explained in my second blog).
Destroy Justice Kavanaugh’s credibility concerning his denials and any exculpatory testimony that he has given or might offer in the future.
Prove that the memories of all of the other attendees at the July 1, 1982 house-party are either unreliable or dishonest.

In summary, even ignoring his 1982 and 2018 confessions, all of the credible evidence indicates that Justice Kavanaugh is guilty of the sexual assault of Dr. Ford. Since Dr. Ford is the only credible witness, Justice Kavanaugh cannot offer an effective defense. And that’s before taking account of either of his two confessions or of the third proof of guilt referenced below.

As I previously noted, a third independent proof of Justice Kavanaugh’s guilt also flows from the certainty that Dr. Ford was at the July 1, 1982 house-party. That proof relies on the corroboration of Dr. Ford’s sexual-assault allegation, beyond a reasonable doubt, by direct and circumstantial evidence. That third proof of guilt will be covered in my second blog.

Justice Kavanaugh’s dishonesty and frivolousness about of a sexual assault allegation are each disqualifying

Even beyond the implications as to his guilt, Justice Kavanaugh’s blatant and rampant dishonesty in addressing Dr. Ford’s allegation manifests a frivolous attitude concerning complaints about sexual violence that should be disqualifying for any federal judge. He didn’t even handle her sexual-assault accusation seriously. He treated it like a game in which he could play tricks on the audience in responding to her allegation.

The sexual assault may have occurred many years ago. But Justice Kavanaugh’s false testimony and frivolous treatment of Dr. Ford’s allegation took place in 2018, during his confirmation hearing to be a Supreme Court justice. The evidence that he treated her allegation frivolously and with disdain is indisputable and public.

The frivolous treatment of Dr. Ford’s allegation went beyond Justice Kavanaugh. The same attitude is reflected in the actions of Senate Republicans, like Senator Collins, and in the work of Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor hired by Senate Republicans to write a report about Dr. Ford’s allegation. Their conduct, which warrants that criticism, is a focus in my seventh and ninth blogs, respectively.

The Republican strategy for defending against Dr. Ford’s allegation was knowingly dishonest

They planned to claim the house-party never happened – she just imagined it and the sexual assault

The Senate Republican’s defense of Justice Kavanaugh against Dr. Ford’s sexual-assault allegation was based on the claim that there had never been an event like the one at which she described being sexually assaulted. Justice Kavanaugh’s defense of himself during his testimony was likewise based on the claim that he had never been at an event like the one described by Dr. Ford.

More specifically, both the Republican defense of Justice Kavanaugh and his defense of himself during his testimony were based on the pretense that Dr. Ford did not attend the July 1, 1982 house-party referenced in his calendar. That pretense had two components.

First, it ignored the evidence that Dr. Ford was at the house-party. The Senate Republicans and Justice Kavanaugh even attempted to obscure the existence of that evidence by claiming there was no corroboration of her account.

Second, their pretense relied on the nonsensical argument that the failed memories of other witnesses represented a refutation of Dr. Ford’s testimony that she was at the event where Justice Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. His calendar proves that event she described was the July 1, 1982 house-party.

Their plan never made sense on the merits

You may be confused by the Republican argument that a non-recollection claim refutes a provable fact. That’s because it makes no sense. Indeed, a non-recollection wouldn’t even be a refutation of an unproven assertion. Moreover, the argument that the non-recollections of other people refuted Dr. Ford’s testimony was not just wrong. It was purposefully dishonest and part of a conscious deception by Justice Kavanaugh and his Republican supporters.

No witness affirmatively claimed that Dr. Ford was not at the house-party. Even without the proof that she was present, the non-recollection claims of those who were provably there (Justice Kavanaugh, Mr. Judge, Mr. Smyth, and the other four boys) would have no impact in refuting Dr. Ford’s testimony that she was there. Likewise, the non-recollection claim of Leland Keyser, who Dr. Ford testified was at the July 1 house-party, would have no impact in refuting Dr. Ford’s testimony that she was at the party herself.

Non-recollection claim means that they claim to know nothing

Let’s be clear what is meant by “non-recollection claim.” It doesn’t mean that they recalled the event but didn’t remember Dr. Ford being there. Nor does it mean that their memory is clear enough to say they were not at the house-party.,

Instead, it means that they claim to have no recollection at all of a July 1. 1982 house-party. So, they are unable even to express a view whether they attended the house-party or not.

The people who claimed to have no recollection include Justice Kavanaugh, Mr. Judge, and Mr. Smyth, the three people whose presence is confirmed by both Justice Kavanaugh’s calendar and Dr. Ford’s memory. It also includes Ms. Keyser, who Dr. Ford recalls being there.

Those who made non-recollection claims also presumptively includes the other four boys listed in the July 1, 1982 calendar entry, including the host of the house-party. If any of them had any memory, it would have come out during the confirmation proceedings.

I will discuss in my fifth and sixth blogs why the collective non-recollection claims of the witnesses are not credible. That point may seem obvious as to Justice Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge, who allegedly committed a sexual assault. But it is also true collectively of the group of five boys who are fact witnesses.

The plan only required that they discredit Dr. Ford

Before Dr. Ford and Justice Kavanaugh testified on September 27, 2018, the evidence against him consisted solely of her uncorroborated allegation. The Republicans necessarily created their plan, to deny the event described by Dr. Ford ever happened, in advance of the confirmation hearing. So it appeared that they only had to discredit her.

Their plan depended on there being no testimony or other evidence that corroborated the details of Dr. Ford’s recollection of the event. More specifically, the Republican plan was dependent on none of the three witnesses who Dr. Ford identified (Mr. Judge, Mr. Smyth, and Ms. Keyser) admitting to recalling the event or having their memories refreshed.

But Justice Kavanaugh’s calendar and Dr. Ford’s memories prove it did happen

The confirmation-hearing evidence concerning Justice Kavanaugh’s July 1, 1982 calendar entry included both the calendar itself and his related testimony. Given that evidence, witness testimony is no longer needed to corroborate Dr. Ford’s memories. It became objectively provable that Dr. Ford was present on July 1, 1982, together with her alleged assailants – Justice Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge.

Importantly, only common sense is required to conclude that she was present on July 1. So, Justice Kavanaugh was aware that Dr. Ford was at the July 1 house-party, even if he had no independent recollection. Likewise, the Republicans who defended Justice Kavanaugh, like Senator Collins and Senator Graham, were aware that Dr. Ford was present on July 1, 1982. However, they each continued to engage in the pretense that the event she described never occurred.

There was a conspiracy to obstruct the investigation, led by Justice Kavanaugh

Justice Kavanaugh knew the event described by Dr. Ford occurred on July 1, 1982. His calendar entry showed that he, Mr. Judge, and Mr. Smyth were all present at the July 1 house-party, as she described. It also listed four other boys as having been present, consistent with her description that at least one additional boy was there. Since he claimed to have no recollection of the house-party, Justice Kavanaugh couldn’t have eliminated the possibility that Dr. Ford and Ms. Keyser were present as well.

In truth, he had to know that Dr. Ford was at the house-party, either based on his recollection of the house-party or based on the many details she knew about the event. Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that Ms. Keyser was also there, and no other witness admitted to having any memory of the house-party. Thus, he had no basis for claiming that Ms. Keyser wasn’t at the July 1 house-party.

A conspiracy existed in September 2018

So, how could Justice Kavanaugh have been confident that one or more of the six or seven other witnesses would not undermine his knowingly bogus defense – that the event described by Dr. Ford never happened. Any of the six other boys or Ms. Keyser could have blown up his defense. The question is rhetorical.

He would have had to be extremely confident that no one would remember the house-party to have proceeded with the confirmation process. But Justice Kavanaugh knew that the house-party described by Dr. Ford occurred on July 1, 1982, and that anyone who was present could have remembered it.

Given that knowledge, it would not have been rational for him to move forward with the confirmation process unless he were sure the other six or seven house-party attendees would not “remember” it. And Justice Kavanaugh is indisputably rational.

So, it isn’t credible that he would have proceeded without believing he had assurances that none of the other witnesses would corroborate Dr. Ford’s testimony. However, he could not have received such assurances unless a conspiracy existed among the house-party attendees in September 2018.

A conspiracy already existed in July 1982

There is another persuasive reason to conclude that a conspiracy exists. Justice Kavanaugh’s omission of Dr. Ford from his July 1, 1982 calendar entry would have been at best useless, and at worst damning, unless he had assurances that none of the other party attendees would admit that Dr. Ford was at the July 1 house-party. Without such guarantees, it would have made no sense for him to omit Dr. Ford from his July 1, 1982 calendar entry. However, he could not have received such assurances unless a conspiracy existed among the house-party attendees in July 1982.

In a later blog, I will discuss an additional reason to believe that a conspiracy led by Justice Kavanaugh has existed among many or all of the partygoers, other than Dr. Ford, since July 1, 1982. That means there are three separate bases for concluding that a conspiracy exists, each of which is compelling on its own.

The September 27, 2018 hearing reduced the Republican defense of Justice Kavanaugh to a farce

The Republican plan viewed before the confirmation hearing

Even without taking account of Justice Kavanaugh’s confession by omitting Dr. Ford from his July 1, 1982 calendar entry, the defense by the Senate Republicans and Justice Kavanaugh against Dr. Ford’s sexual-assault allegation was ludicrous and knowingly dishonest. Initially, they had what appeared to be a bold and workable plan – deny the event ever occurred – albeit one that involved not taking a credible sexual assault allegation against a Supreme Court nominee seriously.

To be clear, their plan to claim Dr. Ford is delusional was always despicable. Moreover, I can’t believe this approach could have ever been accepted as a viable defense by the public and the press in this era of the #metoo movement, even if it hadn’t been blatantly false. Bizarrely, the news media has taken their despicable approach seriously even after it was unmasked as nonsense.

They were “only” facing a he-said, she-said sexual assault allegation

Let’s concede that until Dr. Ford gave her testimony and Judge Kavanaugh testified about his calendar, the strength of the case against Justice Kavanaugh rested solely on her testimony. Given the non-recollection claims of the other witnesses that Dr. Ford identified, there was no corroborating witness to support any portion of her story. So, without the similarities between her detailed recollections of the event where she was assaulted and his detailed calendar entry describing the July 1, 1982 house-party, the evidence would have resulted in a purely “he-said, she-said” fact pattern.

Given Dr. Ford’s credible testimony, that posture of the matter should have been sufficient to defeat Justice Kavanaugh’s nomination to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court, in my view. But clearly, Senate Republicans don’t agree that protecting the public interests, women’s rights, and victims’ rights should be a priority if the nominee is a Republican.

But the Republicans could have served the public interest by finding a better nominee

Before the September 27, 2018 hearing, the strong Republican support for Justice Kavanaugh, despite Dr. Ford’s allegations, could have been viewed as reflecting an objectionable balancing of interests. The Republicans give more weight to having another reliable vote for their views on the Supreme Court than to the interests of the public.

The interests of the public broadly and of women, in particular, are in not having an unsuitable nominee like Justice Kavanaugh confirmed to the Supreme Court. The Republicans could easily have found a more suitable nominee who shares their judicial philosophy.

The Republican plan viewed after the confirmation hearing

The Republican plan – to claim the event described by Dr. Ford never happened – came apart during the September 27, 2018 confirmation hearing because of the similarities between her description and his calendar entry. But when their plan was reduced to a farce, pretending something didn’t happen that obviously did occur, the Senate Republicans proceeded with Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation undeterred.

As executed, the Republicans’ plan to confirm Justice Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court involved consciously relying on a false argument to undermine Dr. Ford’s sexual-assault allegation. That approach reflects two highly problematic attitudes.

First, it reflects a willingness to disregard the public interests, women’s rights, and victims’ rights, despite the #metoo movement. Second, it manifests a lack of respect for the public and contempt for the press. Both the disrespect and contempt are evidenced by the Republicans’ belief that they could get away with their despicable conduct, unscathed.

However, after the September 27, 2018 confirmation hearing, there is a definitive basis for concluding that the Republicans knowingly confirmed to the Supreme Court a grossly unsuitable nominee. A nominee they knew was likely guilty of a violent sexual assault and was definitively guilty of repeatedly lying under oath in defending against the allegation.

Even after their plan fell apart, the Republicans still implied that Dr. Ford is delusional, and they confirmed Justice Kavanaugh based on that theory

After Dr. Ford’s recollections and Justice Kavanaugh’s calendars were in evidence, there was no longer a purely he-said, she-said fact pattern. It became objectively provable that Dr. Ford was present at the house-party described in his July 1, 1982 calendar entry and that virtually all of the details of her recollection of the event are accurate.

So, Justice Kavanaugh’s and the Republicans’ claims that the event she described never happened became provably false, without the need for testimony from any corroborating witness. Still, they went ahead with their plan to portray Dr. Ford as delusional. Yet, the Republicans have not experienced any adverse consequences of their plan falling apart or of their despicable conduct in confirming Justice Kavanaugh.

Beyond the absence of negative consequences, the Republican plan has succeeded for more than 1.66 years, even though it fell apart in substance. They still got away with publicly claiming that Dr. Ford just imagined attending the event where she alleged Justice Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. So, she obviously imagined the sexual assault as well.

How could this possibly have happened?

It seems unfathomable that this outcome could be possible in the era of the #metoo movement. The following discussion provides some insight into how it happened, from the Republican perspective. However, it doesn’t explain the more important phenomenon – why the news media has done absolutely nothing to ensure there are negative consequences for both Justice Kavanaugh and his Republican supporters.

That would have required nothing more than for the press to do its job. I will explain in my twelfth blog my critique of the coverage by the mainstream media of the Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings. In particular, I will detail what the fact-based coverage should have been and how Justice Kavanaugh could not have been confirmed if the coverage had been appropriate.

The Republicans have developed a systematic approach for rejecting sexual assault allegations

The Republicans have developed a systematic approach for responding to sexual assault allegations. They used that approach to confirm a nominee who is provably guilty of sexual assault and who gave blatantly false testimony in responding to the sexual assault allegation. So, from their perspective, the application of their systematic approach to Dr. Ford’s sexual-assault allegation is an unqualified success.

Three pillars of the Republicans’ systematic approach for rejecting sexual assault allegations are: distort the facts to undermine the victim’s credibility; hide and refuse to acknowledge evidence of the nominee’s guilt; and require an inappropriate level of certainty of the nominee’s guilt. A fourth pillar is the use of a proxy/expert to reinforce and support their own dishonest efforts. It is also no accident that the Republicans used women to be the public face of their despicable conduct in rejecting Dr. Ford’s sexual-assault allegation. That reflects a fifth pillar of their approach.

The existence or use of the Republicans’ systematic approach for rejecting sexual-assault allegations is newsworthy!

The Republicans’ adoption of their systematic approach for rejecting sexual assault allegations, which they successfully tested in the Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings, should be viewed as just as newsworthy as the fact that they confirmed Justice Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court justice. But it isn’t only the existence of their systematic approach for rejecting sexual-assault allegations that is newsworthy.

Each use of any of the pillars of their system should be independently newsworthy. The individual Republican senators who employ any of them to justify ignoring a sexual-assault allegation should be scrutinized and required to justify their conduct, which they cannot do. It should not have been possible for Senator Collins to employ three of those pillars in her speech in support of Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation without being scrutinized, challenged, and shamed.

The Democrats’ prior reasons for not launching an investigation of Justice Kavanaugh do not apply

In September 2019, many prominent Democrats advocated that the House Judiciary Committee launch an impeachment investigation of Justice Kavanaugh. That effort occurred after a new witness emerged regarding alleged sexual misconduct inconsistent with his confirmation hearing testimony.

But Democratic leaders dismissed the idea of holding impeachment proceedings for what they deemed to be both pragmatic and political reasons. I assume that decision was well-considered. However, both the practical and political considerations support taking immediate action concerning Justice Kavanaugh’s now-provable guilt of sexually assaulting Dr. Ford and of giving false testimony in his confirmation hearing about her sexual assault allegation.

I will detail in my eleventh blog in this series, the pragmatic, political, and institutional considerations which support commencing an impeachment investigation of Justice Kavanaugh. However, moving forward with an investigation also has the virtue of being the right thing to do. It would be malpractice from a governance perspective, to leave Justice Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court.

The damage done by Justice Kavanaugh and the Senate Republicans is extensive

There may be an inclination to proverbially sweep the damage done by Justice Kavanaugh and the Republicans who confirmed him, under the rug. The Republicans, the judiciary, and elements within the media may all be incentivized not to be transparent. They may prefer to hide or minimize the damage to and flaws in their institutions that are exposed by the Kavanaugh episode.

But the cost of this episode is incalculable and should be highlighted rather than hidden. The Republicans perverted the Senate confirmation process to put the most corrupt justice ever onto the Supreme Court.

Justice Kavanaugh is the GOAT

Do you really want to argue whether he deserves the crown? Justice Kavanaugh would be a leading contender for most corrupt Supreme Court justice ever, i.e., the GOAT (greatest of all time), even if he were only guilty of sexually assaulting Dr. Ford and pervasively lying about everything related to her allegation.

He didn’t just lie profusely. He was indignant and blamed everyone else for his predicament. He questioned both Dr. Ford’s motivations and her sanity. And all the while, he knew that he was as guilty as sin. The level of gall that took is unfathomable!

But, he also led a three-decade-long conspiracy in which he induced multiple other witnesses to make false statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the FBI about her allegation. And his false testimony about Dr. Ford’s allegation and other corrupt related actions were during his confirmation proceedings, not in some antecedent context. Furthermore, he lied in many other respects during both his recent confirmation proceedings and prior confirmation proceedings.

All of Justice Kavanaugh’s judicial actions should be viewed as tainted

Given Justice Kavanaugh’s ubiquitous dishonesty, nothing that he has said should be viewed as credible. First, nothing he said about his judicial philosophy, to garner the votes needed for confirmation, should be viewed as having been honest. Nor should his claimed legal philosophy be considered to reflect an actual philosophy, as opposed to outcome-oriented rationalizations.

His dishonesty also impacts everything that he has said about his reasoning in any judicial action while serving on either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals. So, no decision in which he has cast a meaningful vote should be viewed as untainted.

Those are the cost to the legitimacy of the judicial system of putting a pervasively dishonest person into a position as a senior federal judge. The paramount requirement for any jurist should be honesty in the performance of his or her official duties.

The Republicans approach to confirming judges is also tainted

By being complicit in the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh, the Republicans have validated concerns that already existed. Those concerns relate to the legitimacy of the process by which they have approved their judicial nominees.

That is also the cost of putting a demonstrably corrupt individual into a position as a federal judge. Moreover, their decision to confirm Justice Kavanaugh wasn’t an accident. It reflected a conscious determination to ignore the consequences of a visibly poor decision.

Those costs to the legitimacy of our institutions should be motivations to ensure that the highest standards are maintained for judicial appointees in the future. However, there will be no motivation to do better if the costs to their legitimacy are not imposed on the judiciary and the Republicans. Things will just continue as before.

The judiciary failed to act to address a plainly visible threat to its integrity

The judiciary had an opportunity to take action concerning Justice Kavanaugh, and irresponsibly failed to do so. That failure to act reflected a conscious decision not to protect the interests of the public. Even worse, the appellate panel, which made that decision, pretended that they had no choice when that wasn’t true. Their dishonesty reflected an awareness that their decision was unjust.

A big part of the cost in both cases – for the Republicans and the judiciary – must be well-deserved public shaming. Both stories warrant the highest possible level of transparency and the most significant possible level of reporting intensity.

Looking forward

My next blog will look at the cornerstone of the proof of Justice Kavanaugh’s guilt of sexually assaulting Dr. Ford – the conclusive evidence that Christine Blasey Ford was at the July 1, 1982 house-party attended by Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. Once that cornerstone is laid, it will become clear that Justice Kavanaugh made numerous statements that were knowingly false or purposefully intended to deceive the Senate and the public about the truthfulness of Dr. Ford’s allegation that he sexually assaulted her. His pervasively false testimony is the topic of my third blog.