[wpseo_breadcrumb]

By George H Butcher III

Table of Contents for Blog #8A

REPs conned America into believing there’s no corroboration of Ford’s accusation about Kavanaugh by using their system for rejecting victims’ sexual-assault allegations

Republicans conned the American public and press into believing there’s no corroborating evidence for Dr. Ford’s sexual-assault accusation against Justice Kavanaugh. But that’s the opposite of reality! So, how did they do it?

They have a comprehensive systematic approach for rejecting victims’ sexual-assault allegations against their nominees. And their systematic approach is misogynistic to its core!

The victim of their con job was not Dr. Ford alone. The victims also include women as a group and anyone who supports the #metoo movement.

How did they do it?

So, how did the Republicans create the magic? How could they have created the illusion that there is no corroborating evidence for Dr. Ford’s accusation when that’s the opposite of reality? What was their motivation for obscuring the existence of corroborating evidence? Even ignoring the corroboration of her story, what rationale did they use to ignore Dr. Ford’s highly credible testimony? And how did they take account of Justice Kavanaugh’s frequent and material falsehoods?

The answers are reflected in the Republicans’ multidimensional systematic approach for undermining and rejecting victims’ sexual-assault allegations. The contours of their comprehensive systematic approach are visible in the Republicans’ actions during the Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings.

Their system includes repeatable elements that are intended to ensure that Republican nominations will not fail due to allegations of sexual misconduct. Their systematic approach reflects both misogynistic views of Republicans and a commitment to acting on them.

Blog #1 described five pillars of their systematic approach. But there are ten identifiable components of their system for undermining and rejecting sexual-assault allegations!

The worse the nominee, the better their system works

There is an important and perverse caveat about the effectiveness of their systematic approach. The effectiveness of the system in defending against the victim’s allegation, in any particular instance, is significantly influenced by the nominee.

The more dishonest and despicable the nominee is in denying the allegation and smearing his victim, the higher the probability that the Republicans will confirm him. Thus, Justice Kavanaugh is the perfect candidate for the application of their systematic approach. He denied, and he lied about everything. Also, he implied that his victim is delusional, all without a scintilla of conscience or remorse.

How did we get to this point?

This is Blog #8A in my series of blog posts. Blogs #1 to #4 describe the proof that Justice Kavanaugh is guilty of sexually assaulting Dr. Ford. Blog #2 describes the definitive proof that Dr. Ford attended the July 1, 1982 house-party. Blog #3 and Blog #4 explain his admissions of guilt in 2018 and 1982, respectively.

Blogs #5A, #5B, and #6 describe evidence that Justice Kavanaugh is the leader of a conspiracy among most or all of the other July 1, 1982, house-party attendees. Upcoming Blog #10 will provide additional context about that conspiracy.

Blogs #7A and #7B discuss the coverup by the Republicans of the evidence of Kavanaugh’s guilt of the sexual assault, and the impacts of the coverup. Then Blogs #7C, #7D, and this Blog #8A describe the critical roles played in their systematic approach by members of the right-leaning news media.

This Blog #8A and Blog #8B explain how the Republicans create the magic. They describe the tools the Republicans used to create the illusion that there is no corroborating evidence for Dr. Ford’s sexual-assault allegation when that is the opposite of reality. Those tools comprise the Republicans’ comprehensive systematic approach for undermining and rejecting sexual-assault allegations.

Blog #9 will focus on a critical component of the system. That component involves the use of purportedly independent experts to undermine a victim’s accusation. In the Kavanaugh proceedings, for example, the Republicans had crucial help in advancing their con job from a prosecutor they supposedly hired “to present her independent assessment” of Dr. Ford’s allegation.

The ten pillars of the Republicans’ comprehensive systematic misogynistic approach

The ten identifiable components, elements or pillars of the Republicans’ systemic approach for undermining and rejecting sexual-assault allegations are listed below.

  1. Attempt to persuade the victim to keep the allegations private. Claim the interest in privacy is to protect the victim. If the investigation can be conducted in private, the victim’s allegation can be rejected without any consequence.
  2. Distort or obscure the facts to dishonestly undermine the victim’s credibility. First, they obscured the evidence that Dr. Ford was at the July 1, 1982 house-party. Second, they used baseless and false arguments to claim that the event she described didn’t happen.
  3. Ignore or obscure evidence of the nominee’s guilt. For example, ignore the nominees’ blatant lies, which should be viewed as evidence of guilt. They also ignored the implications of the fact that Dr. Ford was at the July 1 house-party. Those implications include that Justice Kavanaugh omitted Dr. Ford from his July 1 calendar entry.
  4. Claim that the emotion and intensity of the nominee’s testimony are indicia of credibility that are equivalent to the accuser’s calm, coherent, and credible testimony.
  5. Identify an unreasonable evidentiary standard for rejecting a judicial nominee (who is merely a job applicant), such as more-likely-than-not. But don’t actually use that standard.
  6. Admit to using an even more unreasonable evidentiary standard for rejecting the nominee, by applying a presumption of innocence
  7. Use a report by a criminal attorney to further distort the process. Hire a sex-crimes prosecutor to create the illusion of honesty and fairness concerning sexual-assault allegations. Use a female to create the impression that the prosecutor will be honest and empathic toward the victim.
    • Construct the prosecutor’s report as a partisan hit job on the victim and the Democrats.
    • Surreptitiously use an even more inappropriate standard of proof for rejecting the nominee, by having the prosecutor’s analysis use the evidence standard for a criminal conviction – beyond-a-reasonable-doubt
    • Have the prosecutor use the clearly inapplicable criminal evidence standard to make weak or baseless arguments, for questioning the victim’s credibility, seem relevant.
    • Use the prosecutor’s report to reinforce the distortion of the facts previously created, to undermine the victim’s credibility, and to support the efforts to ignore or obscure the evidence of the nominee’s guilt.
    • Use the prosecutor’s report to claim that the victim’s claim is unusually weak dishonestly.
  8. Attack the process of scrutinizing the nominee and evaluating the sexual-assault allegation, as though the process is unfair to the nominee and threatens the fabric of the republic. Invent imaginary damage to the nominee from not getting confirmed.
    • The purpose of inventing damage to the nominee is to create a false equivalence between the interests of the country in getting the selection right and the interests of the nominee in being confirmed.
    • This component, like the manipulations of the evidence standard in elements 5, 6, and 7, seeks to create a systemic advantage for the accused nominee versus the victim.
  9. Utilize women to execute the most despicable aspects of the systematic approach.
  10. Have members of the press report dishonestly or deceptively to distract attention from or repair weaknesses in the nominee’s defense. For example, in Justice Kavanaugh’s case, a glaring flaw is that his calendar provides corroboration for almost all of Dr. Ford’s recollections of the event where she was assaulted. Mr. Benson attempted to repair that flaw by creating the illusion that the July 1, 1982 event is irrelevant.   

After this blog post was published, I realized there is an eleventh pillar of the Republicans’ systematic approach. That component is the manipulation of FBI investigations to undermine sexual-assault victims’ allegations. The manipulation of the FBI investigation to undermine Dr. Ford’s allegation is discussed in Blog #8C.

Each of the ten pillars is visible in the Republicans’ conduct during the Kavanaugh proceedings

Each element described above in the Republican’s systematic approach was used or attempted to be used by them in the Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings. The only component that they completely failed to implement was keeping Dr. Ford’s allegation private, element #1.

If Dr. Ford’s allegation had been solely addressed in private, there would have been no way for the public to become aware of:

  • Justice Kavanaugh’s provable guilt of sexually assaulting Dr. Ford,
  • His blatantly false testimony regarding Dr. Ford’s claim and other matters, or
  • That Republican senators’ voted to confirm him knowing he was guilty.  

Keeping her allegation private was their first objective. And they diligently tried to do so. Thus, the Republicans were pissed off that her accusation was addressed in public.

My previous blogs have covered components 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10 of their systematic approach. Elements 2 and 4 to 7 of their systematic approach are covered in this blog. Pillar 7 of their systematic approach is fully detailed in Blog #9.

Component 9 of their approach is illustrated by the roles of Senator Collins and Ms. Mitchell, as described in Blogs #7A and #9. Element 10 of their systematic approach is covered by Blogs #7C, #7D, and this blog post. Finally, the critical role played by the nonpartisan press in enabling the Republicans’ conduct is described in Blog #12.

The Kavanaugh proceedings were a successful test run of the Republicans’ systematic approach

The Kavanaugh confirmation was, in effect, a test run of the Republican’s capacity to undermine and reject sexual-assault allegations against their nominees. That test run has to be evaluated as an unqualified success.

They confirmed a nominee to the Supreme Court who is provably guilty of having committed a violent sexual assault and of repeatedly giving false and – deceitful testimony in denying the allegation. Yet, their conduct wasn’t even the subject of any significant reporting or investigation reporting by the leading news media outlets.  

The Republican argument that an accused predator’s denial is credible because of its emotion needs to be retired

Justice Kavanaugh’s testimony was emotionally unhinged. It was alternatively described as “emotional and aggressive” and as “volatile and belligerent.” Yet, Republicans broadly made the baseless argument that his emotion and intensity connoted credibility, as a reasonable reaction to being falsely accused. They all made the argument with seeming sincerity and straight faces despite the manifest evidence of his dishonesty.

Nathan J. Robinson’s analysis of Ford’s and Kavanaugh’s credibility

The best discussion I’ve found about the credibility of Justice Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford is in an article in Current Affairs by Nathan J. Robinson, entitled “How we know Kavanaugh is lying.” Mr. Robinson’s article was published on September 29, 2018.

So, his article, like many other articles about Justice Kavanaugh’s prolific lying, was available long before the Republicans voted to confirm him on October 6, 2018. More importantly, the evidence of Justice Kavanaugh’s dishonesty had to be directly visible to all of the senators and to any sophisticated observers, including everyone in the media.

Mr. Robinson’s comprehensive analysis cited many individual situations in which he assessed Justice Kavanaugh’s testimony as false or as a lie. He ultimately concluded, “Alright, so Kavanaugh is a proven serial liar whose shocked, innocent presentation was obviously an act.” (Emphasis added.)

In contrast, Mr. Robinson’s assessment of Dr. Ford’s credibility was as follows:

“What most impressed me about Ford was not that she stayed calm, but that she gave the answers an honest person would tend to give. By this I mean that she did not, as Kavanaugh did, try to avoid conceding even the slightest fact that might appear to affirm the other side’s story. Instead, she freely admitted facts that she knew would “help” Kavanaugh. She offered corrections to her original letter, even though she knew that these could be construed as “changing her story.”

“But I am not actually trying here to prove that Christine Blasey Ford is telling the truth, even though I don’t think Kavanaugh or the Republicans have produced good arguments against her. The idea that her testimony is disproven by the calendars or the witness statements is false.” 

So, the article concluded that Dr. Ford’s credibility was undamaged and that Justice Kavanaugh’s credibility was in tatters. Given the facts that produced Mr. Robinson’s assessment, any presumption of innocence would have been overcome if the Republicans were honest. And they should have concluded that Justice Kavanaugh was more-likely-than-not guilty and voted not to confirm him.

Mr. Robinson’s take on the emotion of Kavanaugh’s testimony – it isn’t an indicator one way of the other

Mr. Robinson accepted the notion that “emotional denials are what we might expect from an innocent person who was wrongly accused.” Referring to Kavanaugh, Mr. Robinson also stated that “If he didn’t do it, then his indignation and disgust is justified.” He also stated, “And if Kavanaugh was innocent, he might well find himself uncontrollably sad, angry, and embarrassed.”

But Mr. Robinson was not supporting the Republican argument that Justice Kavanaugh’s testimony was credible because it was emotional. Instead, he was rejecting the argument that Kavanaugh’s testimony lacked credibility because it was emotional and angry.

Mr. Robinson proposed that “Instead of looking at the manner in which the two witnesses spoke, we need to look at the facts of what they actually said.” After doing so, he concluded that Dr. Ford’s testimony showed indicia of credibility and that Justice Kavanaugh is a “serial liar.”

Kavanaugh’s testimony destroyed the Republican argument and also proved the Republicans were dishonest in using their argument

Justice Kavanaugh’s testimony proves that emotional denials are not an indicia of credibility. In his case, it was counter-indicative of credibility. Hence pillar 4 of the Republican’s systematic approach needs to be retired.

Retired means the nonpartisan press should openly mock and reject future attempts by Republicans to resurrect that baseless argument. It never made any sense. And Republicans have already used it to confirm two Supreme Court justices who were visibly guilty as alleged, since their accusers were clearly telling the truth.

My personal belief is that most adults learn growing up that no one will give any extra credence to an emotional denial or accusation. So, in giving their testimony, honest adult witnesses avoid making such emotional statements and focus instead (as Dr. Ford did) on visibly making an effort to give honest and accurate testimony. Kavanaugh made no such effort.

Mr. Robinson further observed about Kavanaugh’s testimony, “I am sorry to keep piling up instances of perjury, but there are so many of them to go through.” Ironically, Robinson was only identifying selected lies. He was only counting a portion of the instances in which Justice Kavanaugh committed perjury.

That Justice Kavanaugh was giving false testimony is unmistakable. So, the Republican politicians, journalists, and pundits who claimed to believe his testimony, because of his emotional intensity, couldn’t have rationally believed what they were saying. What was readily visible is inconsistent with anyone thinking his testimony was credible.

Mr. Robinson cited some of Justice Kavanaugh’s more material lies, which should have been visible to all

Blog #3 describes instances where Kavanaugh’s lies are directly material to Dr. Ford’s sexual-assault allegation. Those include lies about the evidence and lies about the event Dr. Ford described where she was assaulted.

Mr. Robinson directly addresses his statement that “I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation.” His assessment is “that’s obviously false, because the type of gathering he says he did attend is exactly the kind she describes.”

Concerning a crucial lie, Mr. Robinson stated:

“So when Kavanaugh says none of the gatherings on the calendar include the people Ford says, and implies that Ford was just conjuring names of people he would never gather with, that’s false. In fact, she cited a small gathering with P.J. and Judge before he released his calendar confirming it.”

Mr. Robinson also addressed Justice Kavanaugh’s statement that, “All the witnesses who were there say it didn’t happen. Ms. Keyser’s her longtime friend, said she never saw me at a party with or without Dr. Ford…” Mr. Robinson’s assessment, “THIS IS A BALD-FACED LIE.”

The lies referenced above were not hidden or inscrutable. They should have been readily apparent to any awake observer.

Justice Kavanaugh’s testimony confessed what he knows about Republicans 

Justice Kavanaugh’s testimony confessed what he believes about Republicans. And he’s in a position to know. This is analogous to what his actions confessed about the July 1, 1982 party attendees.

Justice Kavanaugh gave testimony that was both emotionally unhinged and blatantly and pervasively false because of what he knows about Republicans. If he believed the Senate Republicans would honestly evaluate Dr. Ford’s accusation, his testimony wouldn’t have reflected either characteristic.

Justice Kavanaugh knew he was the beneficiary of an amen chorus of Republicans that would pretend his emotion and intensity connoted credibility, when all of us learn growing up that it doesn’t. So, a normal adult who gave such unhinged testimony would be an aberration.

If anyone had any doubt whether such testimony connotes credibility, Justice Kavanaugh’s false testimony proves that it doesn’t. And that proof is irrevocable.

Justice Kavanaugh also knew that Republicans would ignore the fact that he is visibly a serial liar. Mr. Robinson’s article confirms the assessment by Macleans cited in Blog #7B. “Kavanaugh lied and lied and lied. He lied so obviously that the point seemed to be ‘Please notice how much I’m lying.’”

He couldn’t have engaged in that conduct without knowing that Republicans as a group would ignore his pervasive lying, even though such behavior is inarguably disqualifying to be a judge at any level. In effect, Justice Kavanaugh confessed to being aware of the existence and effectiveness of the Republicans’ systematic approach for rejecting sexual-assault allegations. So, he knew that his transgressions would be successfully covered up.

Many Republican pundits provided support for the Republican con job that they had to know was dishonest

In his article, Mr. Robinson cited the view of a prominent Republican pundit, Noah Rothman, about the credibility of Dr. Ford and Justice Kavanaugh.

“Some concluded that they didn’t know what to conclude. Noah Rothman of Commentary said that “Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s pain was real and searing” and “the line of questioning pursued by a criminal prosecutor hired by Senate Republicans failed to effectively undermine her credibility” but that Kavanaugh “argued forcefully that the condemnation of him and his family over a rumor with no contemporary corroborating evidence in its favor would be a monumental injustice, and he’s correct.” The hearing, Rothman said, resolved nothing about the facts.”

Mr. Rothman fully acknowledged that Dr. Ford’s testimony was credible. That was a common view across the mainstream media spectrum. Mr. Robinson’s analysis explains why that view of Dr. Ford’s credibility should be universal.

Mr. Rothman

The quoted article by Mr. Rothman is from Commentary Magazine and dated September 28, 2018, the day after the hearing in which Ford and Kavanaugh testified. It is entitled, “The Tipping Point.”

Mr. Rothman has appeared with some frequency on cable news shows that I watch. My interpretation of his brand is intelligent, insightful, partisan commentary.

But my impression has been that his commentary is consistently smartly deceptive. His commentary in the article supports that view. It is a work of art in deceptive journalism, in my view.

Mr. Rothman’s viewpoint, assuming a true he-said, she-said dispute

There are several aspects of Mr. Rothman’s commentary that I find bizarre, even assuming he had no knowledge of Justice Kavanaugh’s lack of credibility or of the other evidence that supports Dr. Ford’s allegation. That assumption conflicts with reality. So, it’s just for the sake of argument and understanding.

Rothman made bizarre wording choices

First, Mr. Rothman referred to Dr. Ford’s accusation as “a rumor.” He did that even after witnessing her admittedly credible testimony. That’s bizarre.

Mr. Rothman referred to Dr. Ford’s accusation as a “condemnation of” Justice Kavanaugh’s “family.” He attributed the words to Justice Kavanaugh, but he embraced them – “and he’s correct.” That’s bizarre. Even more so, because the wording is Mr. Rothman’s, not Kavanaugh’s.

In his article, Mr. Rothman states that:

“Americans have been asked to serve as a mock jury to adjudicate what is, ultimately, a criminal allegation. But they’re doing so in a political venue. That has proven gravely unfair to everyone involved. The American public is simply not equipped to sort through the raw, unverified accusations with which they’ve been presented. They were offered no corroborating evidence yesterday to substantiate or undermine either party’s claim.”

 Whatever he’s arguing, it’s bizarre. You mean women shouldn’t come forward with sexual-assault allegations? So their complaints shouldn’t be heard to protect the public from feeling inadequate? So their claims should only be addressed in private or pre-qualified for public dissemination?

Mr. Rothman began the article with the statement, “The hearings resolved nothing. Arguably, they made everything worse.” His assertion that the hearings resolved nothing is both bizarre and incorrect.

His statement that no corroborating evidence was “offered” is either inaccurate or deceptive. Justice Kavanaugh provided the corroborating evidence – his July 1, 1982 calendar entry.

Ford’s and Kavanaugh’s testimony on September 27 was very revealing. Almost everything in my entire series of blog posts was revealed in the September 27, 2018 hearing. The same is true of everything in Mr. Robinson’s article.

He wants to protect people from having the opportunity to think for themselves

Mr. Rothmen’s statement about the American public is also bizarre. The jury was the Senate, which was considering a job applicant. In that context, it was not a criminal allegation. And President Trump could have simply come up with another candidate for the job.

Mr. Rothman doesn’t give the public enough credit. The public was capable of making a reasoned assessment of Justice Kavanaugh’s suitability as a candidate for the job, given the ready existence of other alternatives.

For example, the public is perfectly capable of understanding that a Supreme Court justice or federal judge would serve for life once confirmed, with the potential of doing immense damage. So, judges fall within a special category. Thus, where there is a serious and credible misconduct allegation against a judicial nominee, the rationale thing to do is to find another applicant.

It’s Republicans who don’t want to accept that simple principle. And they refuse to determine and acknowledge the facts honestly. What obstructed the public’s ability to make an informed assessment about Justice Kavanaugh was the Republican con job in which Mr. Rothman participated, as described below.

His argument about injustice is bizarre

Mr. Rothman embraced the position that it would have been a “monumental injustice” for Justice Kavanaugh not to get the job as a lifetime appointee to the Supreme Court “without contemporary corroborating evidence.” That is bizarre, even assuming he could have honestly believed the case was a he-said, she-said dispute. Witness testimony in 2018 would not qualify as contemporaneous corroborating evidence.

Moreover, given Dr. Ford’s credible testimony, it’s bizarre to argue that it would have been an “injustice” for Justice Kavanaugh not to have gotten the job as a Supreme Court justice. That still assumes Mr. Rothman could have believed Kavanaugh’s testimony was also credible.  

Even with those assumptions, his position is bizarre, no matter how many Republicans make the argument. Actually, the extremity of its bizarreness is proportionate to the number of them who make the argument.

If Kavanaugh didn’t get the job, it would have been unfortunate for him as a person, whether or not his rejection was deserved. But a “monumental injustice” or “injustice,” it would never be. There is no entitlement to because a Supreme Court justice, or even to become a judge.

His perspective involves the invention of injuries to a nominee who isn’t confirmed

The notion that it’s a “monumental injustice” to be rejected for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court based on a credible sexual-assault allegation is beyond bizarre. The notion that it would even be an “injustice” is bizarre.

If not confirmed, Justice Kavanaugh would have continued with his role as a federal appellate court judge. That is not even a bad outcome. It’s just a disappointment.

Mr. Rothman also referenced similar views of other Republicans. He said, “For Judge Kavanaugh’s defenders, the idea that a sterling legal career can be destroyed by unsubstantiated allegations about events that supposedly occurred in childhood is a precedent that must be forcefully resisted.”

Both Mr. Rothman’s view and the quoted view fit within component 8 of the Republicans’ systematic approach for undermining and rejecting victims’ sexual-assault allegations. Both views involve imagined injuries to the nominee from not getting the job.

Basing an argument on imaginary injuries isn’t rational. But Mr. Rothman and Kavanaugh’s other defenders have a rational reason for relying on an irrational argument. They are seeking to create a false equivalence between the interests of the country, in selecting a suitable nominee, and the interests of the nominee in getting the job.

This is similar in effect to the Republicans’ manipulation of the evidence standard applied in assessing a victim’s allegation. The false equivalence would create a systemic advantage for the accused nominee versus his victim.

Mr. Rothman’s viewpoint accounting for reality

His minimalist argument about Kavanaugh’s credibility

Although he made the most barebones possible argument, Mr. Rothman did explicitly claim that Justice Kavanaugh’s is credible. He said, “What we have today is what we had on Wednesday—two conflicting testimonies from two earnest witnesses who have been subjected to a horrifying ordeal.” (Emphasis added.)

The single word “earnest” is such a minimalist statement about his credibility that one might think Mr. Rothman was trying to avoid the topic of Justice Kavanaugh’s credibility. But he did irrationally put Justice Kavanaugh’s credibility on par with Dr. Ford’s.

On first reading, I thought that Mr. Rothman’s use of the phrase “argued forcefully” in the earlier quote (from Mr. Robinson’s article) was intended to suggest that Justice Kavanaugh’s testimony was credible because it was forceful. However, upon another reading, Rothman’s use of “forcefully” doesn’t relate to Kavanaugh’s credibility, but to an argument that he attributed to Kavanaugh about contemporary corroborating evidence.

Mr. Rothman had to be aware that Justice Kavanaugh’s testimony is not credible

Mr. Rothman is highly intelligent and capable, as are most, if not all, of his fellow Republican pundits. He and they are also well-read about the news.

So, it’s unbelievable that Mr. Rothman was unaware Justice Kavanaugh’s testimony was riddled with knowingly false statements, any one of which should have been disqualifying. Mr. Rothman wouldn’t even have needed to rely on the analysis of others. He would have observed it directly.

Accordingly, Mr. Rothman’s explicit and implicit assertions that Justice Kavanaugh is credible were dishonest in my view. Also, given Justice Kavanaugh’s evident dishonesty about Dr. Ford’s allegations, he could hardly have been viewed as a victim, other than of his own conduct.  

Mr. Rothman had to know the significance of the July 1, 1982 calendar entry

Also, Mr. Rothman couldn’t have missed the significance of the similarities between Dr. Ford’s description of the event where she was assaulted and the July 1, 1982 house-party described in Justice Kavanaugh’s calendar. He couldn’t have missed it, in my view, even without the benefit of Senator Whitehouse’s presentation about those similarities. Mr. Rothman’s article may in fact have been written before Senator Whitehouse made his presentation on Kavanaugh’s July 1 calendar entry.

Common sense proof 1 is straightforward. The similarities between the two events are apparent. Also, no other event on Justice Kavanaugh’s calendar remotely fits Dr. Ford’s description. So, it’s certain, in my opinion, that Mr. Rothman knew the two events are the same unless Dr. Ford fabricated or imagined the party where she was assaulted.

And having gotten that far in the proof, it’s unthinkable that Mr. Rothman could have missed that the similarities between the two events eliminate the possibility that Dr. Ford’s event was fabricated or imagined. So, Mr. Rothman had to know that Justice Kavanaugh’s July 1 calendar entry corroborates virtually all of Dr. Ford’s recollections about the house-party where Kavanaugh assaulted her.

Thus, Mr. Rothman’s assertion that there was no corroborating evidence for Dr. Ford’s allegation was knowingly false in my view. Note that Kavanaugh’s calendar even represents contemporaneous corroborating evidence.

Mr. Rothman’s action’s like Mr. Benson’s supported the Republican con job

Since he had to know better about his false assertions, Mr. Rothman’s reporting effectively supported the Republican con job on the American people, in my opinion. And his role in supporting the con job wasn’t just passive – as in a failure to report on the unacceptable Republican conduct.

He actively claimed that Justice Kavanaugh was credible and that there is no corroboration for Dr. Ford’s testimony when both are false. He also referred to Justice Kavanaugh having been subjected to a “horrifying ordeal,” like Dr. Ford. And he portrayed Kavanaugh as just as much of a victim as Dr. Ford.  

Thus, the role Mr. Rothman played relates to component ten of the Republicans’  systematic approach, in my opinion – doing dishonest or deceptive reporting which distracts attention from or repairs weaknesses in the nominee’s defense against a sexual-assault allegation.

Mr. Rothman’s role in supporting the con job is representative of most or all Republican pundits

My assessments above about the dishonesty of Mr. Rothman’s claims about credibility, victimization, and corroboration don’t just apply to him. They likewise apply to all of the Republican pundits who asserted either that Justice Kavanaugh was mistreated, that his denials were credible, or that there was no corroborating evidence for Dr. Ford’s allegation. That likely encompasses all or nearly all of them.

If any of those pundits were to claim that they weren’t aware of Justice Kavanaugh’s dishonesty, or that they weren’t aware the July 1, 1982, calendar entry represents corroborating evidence, they would be insulting everyone else’s intelligence. The reasons for my conclusions about other pundits are the same as my reasons discussed above concerning Mr. Rothman.

Moreover, the same assessments apply to each time any of those statements about credibility or corroboration have been repeated by such pundits over the almost two years since the September 27, 2018 confirmation hearing. In each instance in which any such pundit dishonestly made such a statement, they were actively supporting the Republican con job in accordance with component 10 of the Republicans’ systematic approach for undermining and rejecting sexual-assault allegations, in my view.

They have knowingly revictimized Dr. Ford, repeatedly

In doing such dishonest reporting, those pundits were knowingly revictimizing Dr. Ford and were supporting Justice’s Kavanaugh’s outrageous claim that he’s the true victim. Moreover, they were supporting and taking part in the Republican’s misogynistic system for undermining and rejecting the accusations of sexual assault victims.  

So, the moral rot represented by Justice Kavanaugh’s conduct and the system which ensured his confirmation is widespread. It is not confined to a renegade subgroup within the Republican Party, like the fifty-three Republican senators.

The rot reflects misogynistic attitudes and conduct that exist broadly within the whole party. It makes no difference morally whether a particular pundit actually has misogynistic views or whether they just willingly support such positions that they do not share.

No doubt many Republican pundits don’t connect their actions (in pretending that Justice Kavanaugh was credible and in pretending there was no corroboration for Dr. Ford’s allegation) to the damage they have done and are doing, collectively. That damage is both to Justice Kavanaugh’s victim and to our broader society.

“We can believe Ford and confirm Kavanaugh”

The heading is the title of an article in RealClear Politics by Anneke E. Green dated October 3, 2018. Ms. Green’s article is enlightening for multiple reasons, including for her peculiar conclusion.

Ms. Green states that she is a feminist and believes Dr. Ford, who has no reason to lie. She also states that she knows Justice Kavanaugh and believes him as well. Her counter-intuitive conclusion was that Kavanaugh should nevertheless be confirmed.

Ms. Green’s conclusion that Justice Kavanaugh should be confirmed would survive scrutiny in my view if either of the following two things were true. The first thing is that a choice had to be made between two difficult or weighty opposing alternatives – the lesser-of-the-two-evils analysis. The second thing is that her view of both Kavanaugh and Ford as credible was supportable – the mutual credibility analysis.

But neither of those things is true in this instance. So, Ms. Green’s conclusion that Justice Kavanaugh should have been confirmed was unsupportable, in my opinion.

The lesser-of-the-two-evils analysis

Two weighty opposing decisions might exist, for example, if a choice had to be made between two political candidates and parties. Such a decision inherently involves a choice between two political perspectives and value systems. So, the choice could have significant consequences unrelated to the sexual-assault allegation.

Accordingly, a decision might reasonably be made by a voter (even one who cares deeply about the issue) to overlook a possibly credible allegation based on a lesser of two evils analysis. That conclusion even applies to President Trump, for whom there is no doubt about his conduct because of the number of accusers and because he confessed on tape. Yet, in 2016, voters only had two meaningful choices and had to choose between them.

So, Trump’s alleged and admitted conduct couldn’t automatically be viewed as disqualifying him to be President. In 2016, individual voters had to weigh his certain sexual misconduct versus their other political priorities.

Taking the risk of confirming an unsuitable Supreme Court justice is a weighty decision and is to be avoided. But not confirming a nominee and instead finding an alternative nominee does not qualify as a weighty decision. That alternative could have been accomplished with relative ease and without consequence.

So, a lesser-of-the-two-evils analysis did not apply to the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh.

Ms. Green’s rationalization doesn’t make sense

In explaining her support for confirming Justice Kavanaugh, Ms. Green stated that:

“It is wrong for Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to become a question of whether women deserve to be believed. If the #MeToo movement demands blind adherence to the idea of supporting women regardless of facts, then it has become no different from the patriarchy that has always said women are weaker and less-than. Women have the right to be evaluated according to objective criteria for truth, not coddled and protected because scrutiny might hurt our feelings.”

But beyond that, being nominated for the Supreme Court or opposing a nominee should not be a one-way ticket to having one’s character assassinated, as has happened to both Ford and Kavanaugh. Neither should be treated as pawns — as women have been for centuries.

Ms. Green’s argument is unfathomable, except as a failed attempt to rationalize criticizing the Democrats. When she wrote her article, Dr. Ford had testified and had been cross-examined by Prosecutor Mitchell. So, it was already a given that her testimony was credible and deserved to be believed. Dr. Ford had already met the standard of truthfulness and didn’t need to be coddled and protected from scrutiny.

Also, Dr. Ford came forward because of her own deeply held concerns about Justice Kavanaugh’s suitability. She was not a pawn.

The pertinent question was whether Justice Kavanaugh was demonstrably suitable for the job for which he was nominated. And it was clear that he was the one who needed to be coddled and protected from scrutiny, which Ms. Green appears to have been attempting to do.

The mutual credibility analysis

Ms. Green may know Justice Kavanaugh and respect him on that basis. But only by existing in another reality could any observer have been unaware of his dishonest testimony. So, in my opinion, she couldn’t have honestly believed that Dr. Ford and Justice Kavanaugh were both credible witnesses.

She could have sincerely believed Kavanaugh was credible by deluding herself. But I don’t count that as an honest belief. The fact that she had a whole political party of accomplices in the pretense that Kavanaugh was credible doesn’t mitigate her individual responsibility, in my view, any more than it does with Mr. Rothman.

Even if Justice Kavanaugh had been similarly credible to Dr. Ford, Ms. Green should have applied the principle discussed above for dealing with judges. Where there is a serious and credible misconduct allegation of any type against a judicial nominee, the rational thing to do is to find another applicant.

The role of Ms. Mitchell’s report in producing Ms. Green’s viewpoint

Having just said there is no mitigant, I’m now going to contradict myself slightly. Ms. Green seems to have relied to a great extent on Ms. Mitchell’s report. She cited Ms. Mitchell’s absurd conclusion that “Dr. Ford’s account was ‘even weaker’ than a he-said, she-said” case.”

So, Ms. Green speculated that Dr. Ford has PTSD, which is a nuanced version of the claim that Dr. Ford is delusional. I also think it is inconsistent with the assumption that both witnesses were credible. It is also inconsistent with Dr. Ford’s demonstrated credibility through her testimony. Moreover, it ignores both the fact that there is corroboration for Dr. Ford’s testimony and Justice Kavanaugh’s obvious dishonesty.

Ms. Green, like Mr. Rothman and every other competent Republican commentator and pundit, had to have been aware of the July 1, 1982 house-party and it similarities to Dr. Ford’s description. So, only by willfully not thinking could she have been unaware that there is corroboration for virtually all of Dr. Ford’s recollections of the event, in my view.  

For those who relied on Ms. Mitchell’s report, it was just a mechanism for pretending not to have thought enough to recognize the obvious, in my opinion. The Republican powers-that-be made it easy for individuals, like Ms. Green, to delude themselves by subcontracting their thinking to Ms. Mitchell. For many reasons that will be detailed in Blog #9, that would have been both a very bad idea and also indefensible.

Reliance on Ms. Mitchell cannot be accepted as an excuse for the adoption of unsupportable positions. That Ms. Mitchell’s report is materially flawed should have been visible to all competent observers.

Looking Forward

Blog #8B will describe the ways in which the Republicans manipulated the rules they apply in evaluating sexual-assault allegations so they could reject Dr. Ford’s accusation against Justice Kavanaugh, and virtually all other such accusations. It will also discuss the cumulative impacts of the Republican’s comprehensive systematic approach for undermining and rejecting sexual-assault allegations.

Leave a comment