[wpseo_breadcrumb]

By George H Butcher III

Table of Contents for Blog Post #7A

Republicans approved guilty Kavanaugh despite having reasons to know. Senator Collins led his dishonest defense, covered up his guilt, and slimed Dr. Ford

The Republicans’ approval of the provably guilty Brett Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court justice is a historical outrage. There were multiple reasons to know that Dr. Ford’s testimony is both credible and corroborated.

Senator Collins led the Republican’s dishonest and despicable defense of Justice Kavanaugh. That defense involved:

  • Hiding the existence of evidence that objectively corroborates almost all of Dr. Ford’s testimony,
  • Using baseless and false arguments to undermine Dr. Ford’s credibility,
  • Falsely suggesting that Dr. Ford is delusional and both imagined the house-party where she was assaulted and imagined the sexual assault by Justice Kavanaugh, and
  • Ignoring the evidence of Justice Kavanaugh’s guilt, including his false testimony about Dr. Ford’s accusation.

Their dishonest defense of Justice Kavanaugh reflected a willingness to subject the country, women, and victims of sexual assault to a grossly unsuitable Supreme Court justice. By approving him despite his evident probable guilt, they gave the middle finger to the #metoo movement.

The fact that Justice Kavanaugh is provably guilty of the sexual assault highlights the depraved indifference the Republicans showed toward sexual-assault victims and women by confirming him to the Supreme Court. But-for their coverup of the pertinent evidence and failure to permit a competent investigation, his guilt would have been evident during the confirmation process, and he would never have been confirmed.  

How did we get to this point?

This is Blog #7A in my series of blog posts. Blog #1 through Blog #4 explained the three independent proofs of Justice Kavanaugh’s guilt of sexually assaulting Dr. Ford. Blog #2 explained the definitive proof that Dr. Ford was at the July 1, 1982 house-party shown in his calendar, and the implications of that fact for his guilt. Blog #3 and Blog #4 described his admissions of guilt in 2018 and 1982, respectively.

Blogs #1, #5A, #5B, and #6 described the evidence that there is a conspiracy, led by Justice Kavanaugh. The conspiracy evidently includes most or all of the attendees of the July 1, 1982 house-party. The purpose of the conspiracy is to hide the fact that Dr. Ford was there.

Blogs 7 through 9 will examine the despicable conduct that the Republicans engaged in to confirm Justice Kavanaugh. The key events during the Republican’s defense of Justice Kavanaugh, in addition to his testimony, were:

In this Blog #7A, I will examine Senator Collins’ rationale for confirming Justice Kavanaugh despite Dr. Ford’s sexual assault allegation. Her reasoning encompassed every aspect of the Republican defense strategy.

The Republicans used a multi-pronged defense strategy

The Republican efforts to defend Justice Kavanaugh were based on the multi-pronged strategy described below. Dr. Ford alleged that Justice Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a summer of 1982 house-party. The essence of the Republicans’ defense was the preposterous claim that the event she described never occurred.

The list of prongs of the Republican defense strategy

  1. The first prong involved the assertion that the non-recollection claims of Mr. Smyth, Mr. Judge, and Justice Kavanaugh were evidence that the event described by Dr. Ford didn’t occur. Both Justice Kavanaugh and Senator Collins articulated this first argument.
  2. A second prong was to cite the denials of Justice Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge (the alleged assailants) as credible evidence that the sexual assault didn’t occur and that the event described by Dr. Ford didn’t occur. Senator Collins and Justice Kavanaugh articulated this argument.
  3. A third prong involved an assertion that Ms. Keyser’s claimed lack of any memory of the event described by Dr. Ford had particular significance. It also involved an assertion that Ms. Keyser’s claim not to recall having met Justice Kavanaugh, had particular importance. In both cases, the supposed importance was as evidence that the event described by Dr. Ford didn’t happen. Senator Collins and Justice Kavanaugh articulated this argument.
  4. A fourth prong involved claiming that the failure of any witnesses to actively come forward to provide support for Dr. Ford’s account represented even more damaging evidence that the event she described didn’t occur. There was one male witness whose name Dr. Ford didn’t remember and were three other witnesses whom she didn’t recall. The argument applied to those four individuals as well as the people Dr. Ford identified. Senator Collins articulated this argument.
  5. The fifth prong had three subparts. The first subpart involved disingenuously claiming to find Dr. Ford to be sincere and sympathetic and claiming to believe that she was sexually assaulted. The second subpart involved arguing that it was essential to apply a presumption of innocence, in this case, to preserve “public faith in the judiciary.“ Senator Collins claimed that not using such a presumption “would be hugely damaging to the confirmation process moving forward.” The third subpart involved concluding that Dr. Ford is delusional and just imagined being sexually assaulted by Justice Kavanaugh at an imaginary event. Unbelievably, Senator Collins articulated this viewpoint on national TV, although she used words that obscured what she was saying.
  6. The sixth prong involved ignoring and covering up the importance of the July 1, 1982 house-party described in Justice Kavanaugh’s calendar. It involved pretending that the details of the July 1 house-party in his calendar do not (a) prove that Dr. Ford was there, (b) corroborate her testimony about the details of the event where she was assaulted, and (c) preclude any conceivable relevance of prongs one through five of their defense strategy. Senator Collins and Justice Kavanaugh implemented this prong of the strategy through repeated claims that there is no corroborating evidence for Dr. Ford’s account.

Senator Collins played a leadership role in Justice Kavanaugh’s dishonest defense

It is apparent from the list above that Senator Collins played a crucial role in implementing the Republicans’ defense strategy. She played a leadership role by being the person who publicly articulated and attempted to validate each prong of their defense strategy.

So, we’ll assess the substantive viability and the effectiveness of the various prongs of the Republicans’ strategy in connection with the discussion below of the senator’s defense of Justice Kavanaugh.

Senator Collins’ defense of Justice Kavanaugh

Below is my assessment of and response to Senator Collins’ defense of Justice Kavanaugh. She put forward the Republicans’ best arguments concerning Dr. Ford’s accusation. The discussion below of those arguments is organized around the six prongs of the Republican defense strategy listed above.

The six prongs of their strategy fit into three categories. Prongs 1 to 4 represent the category of all the evidence they claimed justified ignoring Dr. Ford’s accusation. As explained in the discussion of the “alternative perspective” in Blog #5A, this category literally involves making something out of evidence which on its face is nothing. The arguments in this category would have been marginal if they weren’t irrelevant.

Prong 5 represents the category of explaining why you’re not going to apply the evidence standard you claimed to be using, more-likely-than-not, and instead are just going to assume that he didn’t do it. A presumption of innocence is critical if you don’t have much of an argument for actual innocence.

Prong six represents the category of disappearing all of the genuinely relevant evidence. The Republicans not only deep-sixed the critical evidence, but they also prevented a competent FBI investigation from being done. This coverup by the Republicans had a huge impact, as explained below.

As a thought exercise, consider the Republican arguments using the corrected facts

In considering each of the three categories of Republican arguments, it is useful to contemplate what the implications of their arguments are taking account of the real facts. For example, in considering the first category, which includes prongs 1 to 4, what is the implication of the unquestionable fact that Dr. Ford was at the July 1, 1982 house-party?

In considering Senator Collins’ arguments about the presumption of innocence, what are the implications of the following? Justice Kavanaugh is guilty of sexually assaulting Dr. Ford, conspiring with others for decades to subvert justice, and pervasively lying about her allegation under oath during his confirmation hearing? What are the implications of the fact that the Republicans confirmed the GOAT of unsuitable Supreme Court judges?

Prongs 1 to 3:

“Nevertheless, the four witnesses she named could not corroborate any of the events of that evening gathering where she says the assault occurred. None of the individuals Prof. Ford says were at the party has any recollection at all of that night. Judge Kavanaugh forcefully denied the allegations under penalty of perjury. Mark Judge denied under penalty of felony that he had witnessed an assault. P.J. Smith, another person allegedly at the party, denied that he was there under penalty of felony. Professor Ford’s lifelong friend, Leland Kaiser, indicated that under penalty of felony she does not remember that party. And Ms. Kaiser went further. She indicated that not only does she not remember a night like that, but also that she does not even know Brett Kavanaugh.”

Senator Collins used the alternative perspective of non-recollection claims, described in Blog #5A. She treated the four identified witnesses’ non-recollection claims as evidence that the event described by Dr. Ford did not occur.

The senator heightened the importance of Ms. Keyser’s non-recollection claim by referencing their relationship as a “lifelong” friendship. That emphasis suggested that Ms. Keyser would be especially trustworthy. Senator Collins also cited Ms. Keyser’s statement that she doesn’t recall meeting Judge Kavanaugh, as though that was more significant than not recalling the house-party.

The senator made her argument seem more substantial by inaccurately describing Mr. Smyth’s statement as a refutation of Dr. Ford’s claim that the house-party occurred. That was false. He only claimed not to recall the house-party.

Key takeaways

This Republican argument made by Senator Collins has important implications once the certainty that the event described by Dr. Ford is the July 1, 1982 house-party is considered. They implicitly argued that some of the other attendees would have remembered the party and would have told the truth about what they recalled.

On that basis, the Republicans argued that Dr. Ford made up or imagined both the event where she was assaulted and the sexual assault by Justice Kavanaugh. Even at the time, it would have been more reasonable to conclude that some of the other attendees were lying. It stretched credulity past the breaking point to believe that Justice Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge had no recollection at all of their interaction with Dr. Ford.

However, it is now provable that the event she described is the July 1, 1982 house-party. Thus, the Republicans’ logic unavoidably leads to the conclusion that Justice Kavanaugh and most of the other house-party attendees were lying when made their non-recollection claims.

Most importantly, corroboration from human witnesses wasn’t necessary given the existence of objective evidence that Dr. Ford was at the July 1, 1982 house-party. Senator Collins’ arguments in support of prongs 1, 2, and 3 are all irrelevant, as detailed in connection with the discussion of prong 6.

Prong 4:

“In addition to the lack of corroborating evidence, we also learned some facts that raised more questions. For instance, since these allegations have become public, Professor Ford testified that not a single person has contacted her to say, ‘I was at the party that night.’”

“Furthermore, … not a single person has come forward to say that they were the one that drove her home or were in the car with her that night.

And Prof. Ford also indicated that even though she left that small gathering of six or so people abruptly, and without saying goodbye, and distraught, none of them called her the next day or ever to ask why she left. “Is she okay?” Not even her closest friend, Ms. [Keyser].”

This prong of the arguments made by Senator Collins extended the alternative perspective from non-recollections of known witnesses to failures to act of both known and unknown witnesses. For example, the person who drove Dr. Ford home was an unknown witness who it wasn’t even certain is still alive. The witnesses who were identified by name were triple counted by Senator Collins to support the multiple variations of her argument.

Key takeaways

Senator Collins implicitly argued that some of the other attendees would have remembered the party and would have voluntarily come forward to tell what they know. On that weak basis, the Republicans argued that Dr. Ford made up or imagined both the event where she was assaulted and the sexual assault by Justice Kavanaugh.

Even at the time, it would have been more reasonable to conclude that some of the other attendees recalled what happened but didn’t tell what they know. It never made a lick of sense that this argument would have supported the conclusion that Dr. Ford is delusional.

If all of the other witnesses were interviewed or made statements, and if Ms. Keyser drove Dr. Ford home, then the prong 4 argument was just a duplication of the arguments in prongs 1 to 3. That seems very likely.

But, Senator Collins presented the prong 4 argument as if it was even more compelling than the prong 1 to 3 arguments. In other words, she made a big deal of nothing and used that nothing to claim that Dr. Ford imagined the house-party where she was assaulted and imagined the sexual assault by Justice Kavanaugh.

Most importantly, corroboration from human witnesses wasn’t necessary given the existence of objective evidence that Dr. Ford was at the July 1, 1982 house-party. Thus, Senator Collins’ arguments in support of prong 4 were all irrelevant, as detailed in connection with the discussion of prong 6.

Prong 5:

“I believe that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her life.”

“In evaluating any given claim of misconduct we will be ill served in the long republic if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness tempting though it may be.

We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy. The presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominees otherwise exemplary record.”

“The facts presented do not mean that Professor Ford was not sexually assaulted that night – or at some other time – but they do lead me to conclude that the allegations fail to meet the “more likely than not” standard. Therefore, I do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the Court.”

Senator Collins expressed sympathy for the sexual assault she said Dr. Ford just imagined. According to the senator, maybe Dr. Ford was sexually assaulted on the imaginary night that the senator says didn’t happen, or on some other imaginary night.

Senator Collins concluded it is not more-likely-than-not that the night described by Dr. Ford happened. But the senator never once mentioned the critical July 1, 1982 house-party, which she knew did happen.

Senator Collins never mentioned the event Justice Kavanaugh’s calendar proves is aligned with seven details of the event where Dr. Ford described being sexually assaulted by him. Those seven details included very specific matters, like Kavanaugh, Judge, and Smyth being present. Even one of their names would have been highly improbable to have guessed without having been at the house-party.

Thus, there is no reasonable possibility that Senator Collins could have failed to recognize the following truth. It is far in excess of more-likely-than-not that the event described by Dr. Ford was the July 1, 1982, house-party detailed in Justice Kavanaugh’s calendars.

Key takeaways

Throughout American society, there is no “presumption of innocence” for any job applicant. Any job applicant that needs a presumption of innocence would be extravagantly unqualified for any significant job. And the standard for disqualification is much lower than that the evidence the applicant is unsuitable is more-likely-than-not. The only place in our culture that such conditions exist is for Republican nominees for high governmental positions.

The notion of a presumption of innocence for nominees with an otherwise exemplary record is precious. That reflects a Republican attempt to ignore sexual assault allegations against their nominees unless they are provably serial sexual predators (ignoring the evidence that they are).

Senator Collins used that argument to ignore other complaints about his conduct as too “outlandish” to belong in a confirmation hearing. Thus, it was critical to presume that Justice Kavanaugh is innocent.

The Senator referred to there being “no credible supporting evidence” of Ms. Swetnick’s gang rape claim. But that ignores the existence of a witness.

Whether Ms. Swetnick is credible is unknown since she wasn’t permitted to testify. However, what is certain is that not an ounce of credibility exists within Justice Kavanaugh. And no accusation is too outlandish to be potentially valid.

Senator Collins objected to the allegation that “Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facility gang rape.” But he is guilty of sexually assaulting Dr. Ford beyond any reasonable doubt. And, that assault involved a preplanned attempted gang-rape of an underage girl.

Yet, Senator Collins used a presumption of innocence to ignore the evidence of serial predatory conduct and then used it again to presume that Justice Kavanaugh is innocent of sexually assaulting Dr. Ford. That is the equivalent of a presumption of innocence squared.

Because of Justice Kavanaugh’s provable guilt of sexually assaulting Dr. Ford, Senator Collins has disproved every argument that she made!

Prong 6:

As just noted, Senator Collins ignored the existence of the July 1, 1982 house-party. She never even mentioned the single most important piece of evidence as she explained her decision.

Moreover, Senator Collins obscured its existence by claiming repeatedly that there was no corroboration of Dr. Ford’s story. In other words, she engaged in a coverup.

There is very simple proof that the July 1, 1982 house-party is the event Dr. Ford described, which Senator Collins would have understood

The details of the July 1 house-party are aligned with seven details of the event described by Dr. Ford. And there was no other event in Justice Kavanaugh’s calendar which could have been the one she described. So, the July 1 house-party had to be the one described by Dr. Ford, unless the event she described didn’t happen.  

However, even without any sophisticated analysis, the similarities between the event described by Dr. Ford and the July 1, 1982, house-party eliminate the possibility that Dr. Ford’s event was either made up or imagined. So, the only possible conclusion for Senator Collins should have been that the event described by Dr. Ford is the July 1, 1982 house-party.

That analysis is too simple and obvious for Senator Collins or any other senator to have missed. Thus, when Senator Collins gave her speech and denied that the event described by Dr. Ford occurred, she had to know that wasn’t true. The event Dr. Ford described was the July 1, 1982 house-party.

A common-sense analysis demonstrates that Dr. Ford was present on July 1, 1982, which Senator Collins would have understood

Without any other complicated analysis, Senator Collins would have also realized that Dr. Ford must have been at the July 1 house-party. The number of boys of approximately Dr. Ford’s age who she could have selected from, if she had been merely guessing who to include for an event she made up, would have been a multiple of 100.

Dr. Ford and Justice Kavanaugh did not have any connection that could be viewed as narrowing the size of the pool from which she might have randomly selected party attendees. They did not go to the same school. Also, Justice Kavanaugh’s family did not belong to the Columbia Country Club, where Dr. Ford was swimming before going to the house-party where she was assaulted. Thus, random selections of potential male party attendees could have been any boy of approximately the same age who went to any school in the Bethesda area.

Only basic math is required

So just using simple math, the chance that Dr. Ford could have accurately guessed any one of the three boys’ names that she identified would have been a fraction of 1%. But she guessed three names. So just using common-sense, there is much smaller than a 1% chance that Dr. Ford was not there.

Just using common-sense, that means it is beyond a reasonable doubt (more than a 99% likelihood) that Dr. Ford was at the July 1, 1982 house-party. Senator Collins claimed to be applying a more-likely-than-not standard to her assessment of the evidence.

Well, using only common-sense, it is inescapably far, far more likely than not that Dr. Ford attended the July 1 house-party. That corroborates Dr. Ford’s testimony about the existence of the event she attended, at which Justice Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.

That analysis is again too simple and obvious for Senator Collins or any other senator to have missed. Thus, when Senator Collins gave her speech and denied that the event described by Dr. Ford occurred, she had to know that wasn’t true. Dr. Ford was present at the July 1, 1982 house-party.

The reasons cited by Senator Collins for questioning whether the event described by Dr. Ford happened, were all irrelevant.

Dr. Ford’s reasons for questioning whether the event described by Dr. Ford occurred are all irrelevant to the analysis. It is objectively provable using common sense that the July 1 house-party was the event that Dr. Ford described. It is also objectively provable, using common sense, that Dr. Ford was present at the July 1, 1982 house-party, together with Justice Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge.

Whether other witnesses don’t admit to recalling the house-party or failed to perform some action that they might have taken, doesn’t affect either of the two critical conclusions. The event Dr. Ford recalled was the July 1, 1982 house-party. And she was at present during that event.

Senator Collins doesn’t have the excuse that she wasn’t paying attention. No senator should have that excuse. But Senator Collins held herself out as having studied the matter.

Moreover, it was clear that she had studied the matter closely. She had reviewed it closely enough to try to cover up the evidence of Justice Kavanaugh’s guilt. She had studied things carefully enough to make a series of dishonest and deceptive arguments designed to justify voting to confirm the evidently guilty Brett Kavanaugh. Senator Collins had studied matters closely enough to concoct reasons to claim that Dr. Ford is delusional while pretending to be sympathetic to women who are victims of sexual assaults.

The implications of Senator Collins’ dishonest defense of Justice Kavanaugh are profound

Senator Collins used her status as a woman to advance a series of dishonest arguments in defense of Justice Kavanaugh, who she had multiple reasons to recognize is guilty of sexually assaulting Dr. Ford. She actively participated in a coverup of the evidence of his guilt – actually, she chose to lead the cover-up by making her speech.

Senator Collins branded a woman, who is, in fact, a victim of sexual assault, as delusional. She accomplished that despicable act by using a series of arguments she had to know are not only baseless but false.

The coverup of the evidence of Justice Kavanaugh’s guilt was validated and succeeded largely due to Senator Collins’ efforts. It would have been much more difficult for a man to have successfully engaged in the same despicable conduct.

The Republican coverup led by Senator Collins obscured many vital facts that follow from Dr. Ford’s presence on July 1, 1982

As a consequence of the successful coverup, Senator Collins ignored and led others to ignore the evident implications of Dr. Ford’s presence at the July 1, 1982 event:

  • Justice Kavanaugh’s July 1, 1982 calendar entry is inaccurate in that it omitted Dr. Ford.
  • He had a reason to omit Ms. Keyser as well if she was there – the same reason as for his omission of Dr. Ford.
  • Almost all of Dr. Ford’s detailed recollections of the house-party where she was assaulted are provably accurate. The lone exception is one memory that is uncorroborated but not disproven – that Ms. Keyser was also present. So, the likelihood that Ms. Keyser wasn’t there is negligible.
  • Justice Kavanaugh’s omission of Dr. Ford and Ms. Keyser from his July 1 calendar entry was purposeful since he testified how very precise and thorough he was in keeping his calendar.
  • The purpose of their omission was to hide the fact that Dr. Ford was present on July 1, 1982. That omission constitutes a contemporaneous admission of guilt in July 1982 that he sexually assaulted Dr. Ford.
  • In addition to the lies that were evident in realtime during his confirmation hearing, Justice Kavanaugh lied in virtually all of his responses and statements concerning Dr. Ford’s sexual-assault allegation.
  • There are three separate proofs that Justice Kavanaugh is guilty of sexually assaulting Dr. Ford. Those include his two admissions of guilt in 2018 and 1982. See Blogs #3 and #4, respectively. The third proof of his guilt is described in Blog #2 and follows from the unquestionable fact that Dr. Ford was at the house-party. So, he is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Each one of the three proofs of his guilt would be enough to support a criminal conviction.
  • The non-recollection claims of Justice Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge concerning the event described by Dr. Ford must be dishonest and are interdependent. Neither could have lied without confidence that the other would as well. So, Justice Kavanaugh engaged in a conspiracy to hide the fact that Dr. Ford was present on July 1, 1982.  
  • Justice Kavanaugh believed that none of the other witnesses would acknowledge recalling the event described by Dr. Ford. Since the house-party provably occurred, that belief could have only existed if he also believes that all of the other witnesses are his co-conspirators.

Senator Collins’ conduct in summary

In summary, Senator Collins’ defense of Justice Kavanaugh was dishonest and despicable, viewed at the time. She ignored and hid the evidence that supports Dr. Ford’s accusation, while falsely claiming there was no corroboration for Dr. Ford’s account. The senator cited irrelevant or dishonest bases to question Dr. Ford’s story, which was provably credible based on objective corroboration that the senator worked to obscure.

Most heinous, Senator Collins slimed Dr. Ford, a sexual assault victim, by suggesting she is delusional. The senator absurdly argued that Dr. Ford just imagined the event at which she described being sexually assaulted and that Dr. Ford just imagined being sexually assaulted by Justice Kavanaugh. Yet, Senator Collins had to know that the arguments she used to make that argument were not only baseless but false.

Senator Collins’ feigned sympathy for Dr. Ford did nothing to lessen the outrage she committed through her conduct. In my personal view, she exacerbated that outrage by trying to have it both ways. She committed the ultimate betrayal of the #metoo movement, by dishonestly defending the evidently guilty Justice Kavanaugh while pretending to be a staunch supporter of its goals.

Moreover, Justice Kavanaugh was not only evidently or likely guilty of sexually assaulting Dr. Ford, viewed at the time. He is provably guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

Looking Forward

Blog #7B will take a look at the Republicans’ conduct from a broader perspective, i.e., beyond just examining Senator Collins’ actions.

Leave a comment