#7C Blasey Ford was “bensoned” to protect guilty Kavanaugh

[wpseo_breadcrumb]

By George H Butcher III

Table of Contents for Blog Post #7C

Guy P. Benson published a baseless and disingenuous article to help hide the evidence that corroborates Ford’s sexual-assault allegation against Kavanaugh

To “benson” verb: “to make baseless and disingenuous arguments to deprive a sexual-assault victim of redress against a guilty predator.” As in, “Senator Collins bensoned Christine Blasey Ford to justify her vote to confirm guilty Brett Kavanaugh.” Synonym: to “collins.”

The term “benson” is named in recognition of the conduct of Guy P. Benson, reflected in his article discussed herein. The synonym “collins” is named in recognition of the conduct of Susan Collins reflected in her speech to the U.S. Senate defending Justice Kavanaugh against Dr. Ford’s accusation.

Such an action, i.e., bensoning or collinsing a sexual-assault victim, has impacts that extend beyond the individual victim. That action supports a miscarriage of justice, which adversely impacts the broader #metoo movement.

The point of view of this entire discussion is a conversation with you, Mr. Benson, about your conduct. Both you and Senator Collins bensoned Dr. Ford to protect the provably guilty Brett Kavanaugh.

The effects of bensoning a sexual-assault victim

Mr. Benson, your article discussed below played a critical part in a con job that has been perpetrated on the American people and press. The purpose of the con job is to convince the public and press that there is no corroboration for Dr. Ford’s allegation against Justice Kavanaugh. The broader objective of the con was to support his confirmation by the Republicans despite his guilt of sexually assaulting Dr. Ford.

Your article helped to cover up the fact that Dr. Ford was at a July 1, 1982 house-party at which she testified that Justice Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. If the July 1 event is the one where she described being sexually assaulted, then Justice Kavanaugh’s July 1 calendar entry would corroborate virtually all of Dr. Ford’s recollections of the event where she was assaulted.

In your article, you made baseless and disingenuous arguments that there is evidence showing the July 1, 1982 event is not the house-party described by Dr. Ford. There is no such evidence, and you made no such showing. But you boldly made the false claim that you did provide such evidence, and, due to that claim, your article contributed to the outcome that Justice Kavanaugh was confirmed despite his guilt.

So, Mr. Benson, you didn’t just re-victimize Dr. Ford when you bensoned her with your article. Your dishonest defense of guilty Brett Kavanaugh contributed to a miscarriage of justice that adversely affects women broadly.

Your disinformation in defense of Justice Kavanaugh

The drivel that earned you the description above is your October 1, 2018 article in Townhall entitled “Unraveled: How a Democratic Senator’s Theory About Kavanaugh’s 1982 Calendar Totally Fell Apart.” In the article, you argued that the July 1, 1982 house-party described in Justice Kavanaugh’s calendar couldn’t possibly be the event where Dr. Ford was sexually assaulted. You were responding to an argument made by Senator Whitehouse during the hearing on September 28, 2018.

I use the term “drivel” because the arguments in your article are illusory. They provide no rational support for your conclusion, and they mainly appear to be disingenuous. Moreover, they are meaningless given that there is proof Dr. Ford was at the July 1 event. Your arguments in no way counter or contradict that proof.

You ignored multiple common-sense bases on which any competent observer should have recognized the correctness of Senator Whitehouse’s conclusion – that the July 1, 1982 house-party is the event described by Dr. Ford. Oh, I’m not suggesting you are incompetent, far from it.

Rather, I believe that your disinformation was consciously part of a campaign and conspiracy to distract the public from Justice Kavanaugh’s readily apparent guilt.  In other words, you used your skills and platform as a journalist to assist the Republicans in covering up the evidence that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford on July 1, 1982, in a second-floor bedroom at Tim Gaudette’s house in Montgomery County, Maryland.

How did the discussion reach this point?

This blog post is Blog #7C in my series of blog posts about the Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings. Blogs #1 to #7B are already complete.

I didn’t anticipate that this discussion would be part of the series. I added Blogs #7C and #7D once I discovered the pivotal role that you, Mr. Benson, played in the coverup by the Republicans of the evidence of Justice Kavanaugh’s guilt. Your role was pivotal because your article directly sought to undermine the crucial piece of evidence and the person who pointed out its relevance.

I will provide explanations in Blogs#7C and #7D of each of the critical issues relating to a discussion of your article. Most, if not all, of those issues are covered in my previous blog posts in the series. However, Blogs #7C and #7D collect all of the relevant discussions in one place.

The contents of Blogs #7C and #7D

This Blog #7C will describe the multiple sources of corroboration for Dr. Ford’s allegation. Those include the multiple sources of proof that she was present at the July 1, 1982 house-party. The corroboration also includes two sources of evidence that directly establish Justice Kavanaugh’s guilt of sexually assaulting Dr. Ford. So, Mr. Benson, your claim that there is “zero corroborating evidence” to support Dr. Ford’s accusation is nonsense.

There is evidence showing that Dr. Ford was at the July 1 house-party, far beyond any reasonable doubt. So, there was never a possibility that you or anyone could have presented evidence showing that the July 1 event isn’t the one she described. Yet, you loudly and falsely claimed in your article to have demonstrated that the two events are not the same.  

Blog #7D will discuss the specific elements of the con job you helped to carry out. It will also include an evaluation of the arguments you made. You claimed those arguments prove the July 1, 1982 house-party is not the event recalled by Dr. Ford. However, your arguments don’t survive even minimal scrutiny.

The nine key details described by Dr. Ford

Dr. Ford described the following nine details of the house-party where she was sexually assaulted:

1. The general location: two-story house in the Bethesda area, with a narrow stairway leading to the second floor where a bathroom and bedroom were located
2. The general timing: summer of 1982
3. Brett Kavanaugh was present 
4. Mark Judge was present
5. P.J. Smyth was present
6. At least one other male was present
7. The underage attendees were drinking beer
8. Dr. Ford was present
9. Leland Keyser was present

Details one through seven above all correspond to the event described in Justice Kavanaugh’s July 1, 1982 calendar entry. Details eight and nine do not appear in his calendar entry.

No one else could have informed Dr. Ford of those details or even admits to recalling the event she described. She disclosed all of the listed items before either the existence or content of Justice Kavanaugh’s calendars became known.

Thus, there is no credibility issue relating to the source of Dr. Ford’s knowledge of the details of the event she described. She reported the same information both in the opening statement of her testimony, which she submitted in advance and in a September 16, 2018, Washington Post news report. So, she knew them from her own recollection.

The omission of Dr. Ford is not evidence she wasn’t there, but an admission of guilt

It should have been evident to any thoughtful observer that the omission of Dr. Ford and Ms. Keyser could have been intentional, as Senator Whitehouse suggested. It should have further been apparent that, if Dr. Ford was at the July 1 event, then Justice Kavanaugh falsified his calendar to hide that fact.

The act of falsifying his calendar would have constituted a contemporaneous admission of guilt by Justice Kavanaugh in July 1982. That was apparent to me in real-time during his testimony on September 27, 2018, and was no doubt evident to many other observers as well.

There is proof that Dr. Ford was at the July 1, 1982 house-party, as described immediately below. So, Justice Kavanaugh did falsify his calendar entry by not including her as a party attendee. That omission constitutes an admission that he sexually assaulted Dr. Ford, just as she alleged.

Common-sense proof #1: The July 1, 1982 house-party is the event described by Dr. Ford

 Justice Kavanaugh’s calendar shows no other event that could remotely fit Dr. Ford’s description. And the July 1, 1982 event substantially fits her description. So, it is necessarily the event that she described with the caveat addressed below.

The two discrepancies – the omissions of Dr. Ford and Ms. Keyser – were within Justice Kavanaugh’s control and could have been intentional. So, they don’t indicate that the July 1 event is not the one Dr. Ford described.

The claimed non-recollections of the July 1 event by witnesses who were there are also not probative of anything. Those claims simply indicate that those witnesses’ memories are unreliable or that they were dishonest about what they remember.

So, what would it take to overcome the inference that the two events are the same? That would be virtually impossible, as explained below.

The two events are only not the same if Dr. Ford fabricated or imagined the house-party where she described being sexually assaulted. First, there is no rational basis for that suggestion. In fact, the idea is irrational, even though it was relied on by Senator Collins as she bensoned Dr. Ford to justify her vote to confirm Justice Kavanaugh.

Moreover, even without any complex analysis, the number of corresponding details of her description and his calendar entry eliminates any possibility that Dr. Ford fabricated or imagined the event she described. So, she was there on July 1, 1982.

Common-sense proof #1 is simple and obvious, and there is no counterargument

This is an example of a common-sense proof that provides a certain and unimpeachable conclusion. So, the effort to come up with conflicting evidence was intellectually silly, actually delusional.

That effort was Mission Impossible since it is certain that the July 1 house-party is the one she described and that she attended the event. My assessment of the futility of your efforts is confirmed by the quality of your arguments, as detailed below.

Common-sense proof #1 is so simple and obvious that no competent observer in the Senate or the media could claim not to have understood it. Your failed efforts to identify a basis for contradicting the obvious conclusion have confirmed that there is no such basis to be found.

Given the certainty that the July 1 party is the event described by Dr. Ford, it should have also been apparent to any awake observer that Justice Kavanaugh falsified his calendar to omit her from the list of party attendees. Each such observer, including you Mr. Benson, should have understood that omission to represent a contemporaneous admission of guilt by Justice Kavanaugh in July 1982.

Common-sense proof #2: Dr. Ford was at the July 1, 1982, house-party

The fact that Dr. Ford was at the July 1, 1982 house-party is also provable both using common sense and by performing a statistical analysis. The common-sense approach works because the probability that Dr. Ford was not there is extremely low, and it is easy to discern its order of magnitude.

Dr. Ford identified by name three boys who were at the event where the assault occurred. Justice Kavanaugh’s calendar confirms that each of them was present on July 1, 1982. So, what would the probability be that Dr. Ford could have guessed that any specifically-named boy was at the event if she hadn’t been there? Let’s take Justice Kavanaugh.

There is no particular connection between Justice Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford that would have limited the size of the universe of boys into which he fits. They didn’t go to the same school, and they didn’t belong to the same country club. They weren’t even the same age or in the same year of high-school.

The probability of Dr. Ford identifying Kavanaugh would have been a fraction of 1%

So, if Dr. Ford had just been randomly guessing which boy to say was at the event where she claimed to have been sexually assaulted, there would have been hundreds of boys who were potential candidates. So the chance of her randomly selecting Justice Kavanaugh as having been present would have been a fraction of 1%.

But she correctly named all three boys as having attended the event. So, just using common-sense and simple math, the likelihood that Dr. Ford was not at the house-party is no higher than the probability that she could have correctly guessed the names of the three boys. That probability is a fraction of 1%.

Thus, the probability that Dr. Ford was at the July 1, 1982 house party is more than 99%. That meets the legal standard for proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she was there.

The conclusion that it is more than 99% likely that she was there is based only on the information that she knew about the house-party. It doesn’t even reflect the fact that she testified she was at the event she described. Taking account of both considerations results in the conclusion that it is effectively certain that Dr. Ford attended the July 1, 1982 house-party.

The common-sense proof that Dr. Ford was at the July 1, 1982 house-party is obvious and compelling

The common-sense conclusion that Dr. Ford was at the July 1, 1982 house-party is so obvious and compelling that I never bothered to do a statistical analysis until June 2020. The common-sense proof should have been sufficient for any senator or media observer to conclude that Dr. Ford was at the July 1 event, with very high confidence.

The results of the statistical analysis described below, support the assessment that the common-sense proof should have been enough. The statistical analysis shows that there is effectively a 0% probability that Dr. Ford was not at the July 1, 1982 party.

Given the high confidence that Dr. Ford was at the July 1 party, it should have also been apparent to any awake observer, including you Mr. Benson, that Justice Kavanaugh falsified his calendar to omit her from the list of party attendees. Each such observer should have understood that omission to represent a contemporaneous admission of guilt by Justice Kavanaugh in July 1982.

A statistical analysis concerning Dr. Ford’s presence on July 1, 1982

Blog #2 describes a statistical analysis of the probability that Dr. Ford was not at the July 1, 1982 house-party. The analysis uses the probabilities that she could have guessed all seven details for which her description and Justice Kavanaugh’s calendar entry are in alignment.

In that analysis, individual probabilities were assigned to each of those seven listed details. Each probability represents the likelihood that Dr. For could have guessed that detail if she hadn’t been at the house-party. The lowest assigned probabilities (i.e., for the items that it is least likely she could have guessed) are for Dr. Ford’s ability to have guessed the names of Justice Kavanaugh, Mr. Judge, and Mr. Smyth.

Randomly identifying a specific attendee would have involved three guesses: that there was another attendee, the gender of the additional attendee, and the name of the attendee. A probability of 1 out of 2 (or 50%) was assigned to both the guess whether there was another attendee and the guess about gender.

As described in the discussion above of the second common-sense proof, the probability of correctly selecting the name of a specific boy would have been far less than 1 out of 100, i.e., a fraction of 1%. However, the statistical analysis only assumed the probability of her guessing the name of a particular boy is 1 out of 30.

So, the analysis significantly overstates the probability that Dr. Ford could have guessed details one through seven from her list. The likelihood that she could have guessed those details is also the probability that she was not at the house-party.

The probability that Dr. Ford was not present at the house-party is effectively 0%

Despite taking a conservative approach to the assignment of the individual probabilities, the calculated probability that Dr. Ford was not present at the July 1, 1982 party is less than one-hundred-thousandth of 1%. Moreover, that calculation is based solely on the details that she recalled.

That calculated probability doesn’t even take account of her testimony that she was at the house-party. Taking account of both considerations, we should view it as certain that Dr. Ford was present at the July 1, 1982 house-party, together with her two alleged assailants Justice Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge.

The existence of objective proof that the events are the same helps clear up an important confusion

There was an interesting report in Politico on October 4, 2018, as follows:

“But a member of Ford’s team said the California-based professor — who was not interviewed by the FBI for its inquiry — ‘would have told them that she never considered July 1 as a possible date, because of some of the people listed on his calendar who she knew well and would have remembered.’”

“She would have also told the FBI that it was just a regular summer night for everyone else who was there,” the member of Ford’s team added. “There would have been no reason for them to remember it.”

Ford would have ruled out much-scrutinized Kavanaugh calendar date, her team says, by Elana Schor

However, we know that it is certain the two events are the same. So, taking that into account, let’s look at the implications of Dr. Ford’s two distinct thoughts described in the Politico article.

Her two thoughts are in opposition to each other. Her first thought was that others would have remembered. Alternately, she thought they had no reason to remember. Her alternate thought was an attempt to explain the inexplicable since her first thought reflected her actual belief.

Dr. Ford’s confusion is another hallmark of the fact that she is candid. She is also a very kind person, in that she has a hard time thinking poorly of her former friends and acquaintances.

That is possibly naïve, which I don’t say as a criticism, but in recognition of what a genuinely wonderful person she is. Dr. Ford even made excuses for Justice Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge. She was happy to believe that they were inebriated when they attacked her and that such condition was the explanation for them attacking her.

Dr. Ford had been the victim of a conspiracy all along

But an objective look at the facts is not so kind to her former friends and acquaintances.

First, the sexual assault on her was not the product of an impulsive drunken escapade. It was planned in advance and had to have involved people in addition to her two direct assailants from the beginning. The rationale for that conclusion will be covered in Blog #10.

But there are two even more compelling reasons to believe that she is the victim of a conspiracy among most or all of the other party attendees. The evidence indicates that Justice Kavanaugh thought in July 1982, when he omitted Dr. Ford from his calendar, that all of the other party attendees were his co-conspirators. Otherwise, his omission of Dr. Ford would not only have been pointless and would have been incriminating evidence.

The evidence likewise indicates that when Justice Kavanaugh testified on September 27, 2018, he believed that all of the other party attendees were his co-conspirators. There is no other way that he could have been confident none of the other attendees would provide support for Dr. Ford’s testimony.

It is not my conclusion that they are all conspirators; that is what Justice Kavanaugh clearly believed. The evidence of that belief is detailed in Blogs #4 and #5A. And it is unlikely that he could have been confused in his view.

Anyone who was a conspirator in either 1982 or 2018 has not forgotten the July 1, 1982 house-party. Thus, it is almost certain Dr. Ford’s first thought is correct – that her friends would remember – and her second thought is wrong – that the others had no reason to remember. They have more of a reason to remember than she would have possibly conceived.

There are two types of corroborating evidence that support Dr. Ford’s allegation

The two types of corroborating evidence which support Dr. Ford’s allegation are, first, evidence that she was at the July 1, 1982 house-party and, second, evidence that directly supports the conclusion that Justice Kavanaugh is guilty of the sexual assault. There is corroborating evidence of both types that provides support for her allegation.

Evidence that proves Dr. Ford was at the July 1, 1982, house-party

The first type of corroborating evidence is the similarities between (1) the details described by Dr. Ford of the event where Justice Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her and (2) the details of the July 1, 1982 house-party in his calendar. Those similarities underlie both the common-sense and statistical proofs described above.

The three proofs, based on those similarities, establish that it is certain Dr. Ford was present during the July 1, 1982  event. So, not only does such corroborating evidence exist, but the quality of corroborating evidence is robust. There are no issues or credibility which could be used to question whether she was there.

The various arguments made to question whether Dr. Ford was at the July 1, 1982 house-party are meaningless when examined in the light-of-day. Blog #2 contains a discussion of those arguments. They don’t affect the certainty provided by the corroborating evidence that Dr. Ford was at the party.

Everyone who thought that Kavanaugh was guilty had a rational bias for that belief, based on the visible corroborating evidence

Moreover, the importance of those similarities was evident in real-time as Justice Kavanaugh testified on September 27, 2018. So, I say to everyone who has believed that Justice Kavanaugh is guilty of sexually assaulting Dr. Ford, you always had a sound logical basis for your belief, based on readily observable similarities between the two events that he and she described. The claims of Kavanaugh-supporters that there is no corroborating evidence to support your beliefs were always just disinformation and BS.

Justice Kavanaugh’s corroborating admissions of guilt

The second type of corroborating evidence is facts that directly support the conclusion that Justice Kavanaugh is guilty. His 1982 admission of guilt by falsifying his July 1 calendar entry to omit Ford, is an example of the second type of corroborating evidence. But I don’t automatically assume that casual observers were immediately aware of his 1982 admission, even though many observers no doubt did notice it during his testimony.

However, Justice Kavanaugh also made another admission of guilt in his September 2018 confirmation hearing testimony. This second admission doesn’t rely on having prior knowledge of his guilt. It doesn’t even rely on having concluded that Dr. Ford was at the July 1, 1982 house-party.

A material lie told to evade responsibility for a crime can be treated as an admission of guilt. Justice Kavanaugh told a blatant lie when he answered “No” to the following question. “Is  there  anything  [in your calendars that could  even  remotely  fit  what  we’re  talking  about,  in terms  of  Dr.  Ford’s  allegations?”

That his statement is a lie is unmistakable, and the lie is material and purposeful. His July 1, 1982 calendar entry substantially fits Dr. Ford’s description. And it is the pivotal piece of evidence.

Justice Kavanaugh’s answer was immediately evident to be a lie in real-time as he testified. And no knowledge of the facts was required to understand that it was a lie, beyond what was evident by listening to Dr. Ford’s testimony and his testimony.

Everyone who thought that Kavanaugh was guilty had a rational bias for that belief, based on the visible corroborating evidence

So every observer of the proceedings had to know that his statement was a lie. And every observer of the proceedings should have viewed his lie as an admission of guilt, i.e., as corroborating evidence for Dr. Ford’s accusation.

So, I say to everyone who has believed that Kavanaugh is guilty, you always had an additional sound logical basis for your belief, based on the corroboration visibly provided by Justice Kavanaugh’s September 2018 admission of guilt. The claims of Kavanaugh-supporters that there is no corroborating evidence to support your beliefs were always just disinformation and BS.

The Republicans chose to confirm Justice Kavanaugh despite the overwhelming corroborating evidence

The fact that the Republicans chose to confirm Justice Kavanaugh despite his 2018 admission of guilt has no bearing on the evidentiary significance of the admission. It does, however, say a lot about the Republican Senators who voted to confirmed him.

For example, Senator Collins justified her vote by arguing that Dr. Ford is delusional. The senator implied that Dr. Ford imagined the house-party where she described being sexually assaulted. The senator further implied that Dr. Ford just imagined that Justice Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. Yet, Senator Collins had to be aware of Justice Kavanaugh’s 2018 admission of guilt, since it was impossible to miss.

Senator Collins explicitly stated that there is no corroborating evidence to support Dr. Ford’s allegation, which is refuted by his 2018 admission of guilt. And the senator must have been aware of common-sense proof #1 – that the event described by Dr. Ford was the July 1, 1982 house-party – if she gave any honest thought to the evidence. By giving her speech, Senator Collins represented that she had given the subject a great deal of thought.

There are three independent proofs of Justice Kavanaugh’s guilt

There are three independent proofs of Justice Kavanaugh’s guilt of sexually assaulting Dr. Ford. Those proofs of guilt are summarized in Blog #1. They are fully explained in Blog #2, Blog #3, and Blog #4. We’ve briefly covered two of the three proofs of his guilt – his admissions of guilt in 2018 and 1982.

Blog #3 fully describes Justice Kavanaugh’s 2018 admission of guilt through his false and deceitful testimony relating to Dr. Ford’s allegation. That analysis doesn’t take account of the other evidence of his guilt. It relies only on his false and deceitful testimony that is visible by just considering his confirmation hearing testimony.

Blog #4 describes his admission of guilt in July 1982 by the omission of Dr. Ford from his July 1 calendar entry, even though she was provably there. There is no explanation for him to have falsified his calendar entry to hide Dr. Ford’s presence if he hadn’t sexually assaulted her.

Blog #2 describes the third proof of guilt. It follows directly from the fact that Dr. Ford was provably at the July 1, 1982 house-party.

In brief, the probability that Dr. Ford told the truth about being at the July 1, 1982 house-party but then lied either about being in the second-floor bedroom with Justice Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge or being sexually assaulted by them is effectively non-existent. The only reason for her to have come forward is that she was in the bedroom with them and that Justice Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.

There is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Justice Kavanaugh’s guilt

Any of the three proofs of guilt described above would be sufficient to sustain a conviction if Justice Kavanaugh were charged with the sexual assault. Each such proof, including Dr. Ford’s corroborated testimony,  would constitute evidence beyond a reasonable doubt sufficient for a jury to convict.

The evidence of Justice Kavanaugh’s guilt doesn’t need to be discovered or collected. It already exists. And none of the proofs is dependent on the credibility of Dr. Ford or any other witness.

For example, the conclusion that there is no possibility that she would have told the truth about being at the house-party and then lied about being in the bedroom isn’t based on her credibility. That conclusion is based on an understanding of human nature and the absence of any other conceivable motivation for Dr. Ford to have come forward to testify about Justice Kavanaugh’s conduct.

Taken together, the three proofs of Justice Kavanaugh’s guilt constitute evidence far beyond any reasonable doubt. They include his two admissions of guilt, thirty-six years apart, and a direct proof of guilt that is effectively certain.

You’ve contributed to the continued revictimization of a real victim of sexual assault

More important than your unjustified ridicule of Senator Whitehouse, you aided and abetted Justice Kavanaugh in continuing to victimize Dr. Ford with his false denials and his absurd claim that he’s the real victim. The person you aided and abetted is provably a criminal many times over.

Justice Kavanaugh lied more than thirty times in his testimony on September 27, 2018, specifically about Dr. Ford’s accusation. That is counting only a portion of his lies directly related to her sexual-assault allegation. For example, it only includes one of the many times that he falsely stated that other witnesses had refuted Dr. Ford’s accusation.

It does include the many times that he falsely claimed he is innocent of Dr. Ford’s accusation. On several of those occasions, he blasphemously invoked God to buttress his lie.

The proof beyond any reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the sexual assault is described above. So, my characterization of him as a provable and prolific criminal isn’t reasonably debatable.

Justice Kavanaugh’s claim that he is the victim, which you supported, is an outrage

The claim by a violent sexual predator that he is the true victim is an unimaginable outrage. Since Justice Kavanaugh is provably guilty, he committed that outrage against Dr. Ford. Moreover, he did so publicly on national television and with no remorse.

Mr. Benson, after the confirmation proceedings, you have continued to revictimize Dr. Ford by making the false claim that there is “zero corroborating evidence” to support her allegation. Nothing could be further from the truth. But, that false claim has become a mantra for many Republicans to misuse repeatedly in various political arguments.

Your revictimization of Dr. Ford goes beyond the fact that your arguments are a crock

Your argument that there is no corroborating evidence is totally wrong, as explained above. But even if that were true, it would only be meaningful if there were some reason to believe that Dr. Ford either fabricated her allegation or is delusional. The absence of corroboration is not evidence of innocence.

The despicable and false implication – that Dr. Ford is delusional – is what you and your colleagues have been purposefully implying all along. But no rational human being would have believed that to be true after her testimony on September 27, 2018. That goes double after the existence of the July 1, 1982 house-party became known, with its similarities to her description. So, why have you been implying it, when you had to know it is false?

It doesn’t require an understanding of the certainty that Justice Kavanaugh is guilty to know the claim that Dr. Ford is delusional was not only baseless but false. And you could only imply it because you and your co-conspirators obscured the significance of the calendar evidence that corroborates Dr. Ford’s story.

My critique of you is not harsh. It’s well deserved based on substance and equities

Above I referred to your arguments as “baseless and disingenuous,” and I referred to your article as “drivel.” Lest anyone think that I’m being unkind to you, in the article you referred to Senator Whitehouse as “Inspector Clouseau,” for his thoughtful analysis about the July 1, 1982 house-party. And you described his provably correct conclusion in your article as a “half-baked notion,” based on arguments you made in your article that don’t even deserve to be described as analysis.

To use your description, Senator Whitehouse’s conclusion, which you ridiculed, is that Justice Kavanaugh “provided the world with documentation that he actually did attend [the] very party he’s repeatedly denied being at.” That is an irrefutable fact, as demonstrated above.

I don’t even know how to make the harshness of my criticism correspond to what you deserve. I will simply note that I had to repeatedly re-read your article because I was sure that there must be some scintilla of substance that I was overlooking and needed to address. Alas, I never found any substance.

Your singular accomplishment and your culpability

Your accomplishment

You belong in the record books, sir. Guy P. Benson played a critical role in arguably the best and most successful con job that has been perpetrated on the American people with the help of members of the news media. Your part in the con job was your statements that (A) “Ford was not assaulted at Timmy’s party on July 1, 1982,” because “virtually none of the details match with Ford’s description” and (B) Dr. Ford’s accusation is an “uncorroborated allegation.”

Both statements reflect the opposite of reality. But you trumpeted them as the truth using your platform as a journalist. Because of your media platform and your role as a journalist, you made an essential contribution to the success of the Republican con job.

Ironically, the quality of your analytical work wasn’t that good, as described in Blog #7D. So, your part of the con job really shouldn’t have worked.

But you were attempting the impossible. Moreover, your boldness was unmatched in ridiculing Senator Whitehouse and his demonstrably correct conclusion without any trace of a legitimate rationale.

Your culpability

Importantly for your success is that you were working with the best. The same con job – that there is no corroborating evidence for Dr. Ford’s allegation – is one of the best and most successful cons ever perpetrated on the American public by the Republicans. And that’s tall cotton!

The contributions of other parties to the success of the con job are or will be detailed in Blogs #7A, #7B, #7D, #8A, and #9. For example, Blog #7A describes Senator Collins’ leadership role in the execution of the con job. Blog #8A will describe the broad participation of Republican pundits in supporting the con job. Blog #9 will describe the essential contributions made to the con job by Rachel Mitchell.

Your culpability isn’t reduced by the fact that in a saner world, your efforts would have failed. Nor is your responsibility reduced because the con’s success was mainly the product of the efforts of your co-conspirators.

You devoted your platform as a journalist to contribute to a conscious deception being perpetrated on the American people by the Republicans, in my view. And that deception re-victimized Dr. Ford and adversely impacted the #metoo movement and women generally.

Looking Forward

Blog #7D will discuss the two components of the Republican con job. It will also evaluate your specific arguments that the event described by Dr. Ford could not be the July 1, 1982 house-party.