by Wayne Simmes:
First, let me tell you that I am not a psychiatrist or a psychologist. All I have is an opinion and that is something that everyone has and mine is no more important than anyone else. From my headline, I imagine that most of you folks can see which side I am going to come down on this subject.
I assume that most people know what subject I am referring to, but just in case let me clarify. In an effort to fill a vacant Supreme Court seat, our President, Donald Trump, nominated Brett Kavanaugh. While most honest people felt that Justice Kavanaugh is a highly respected jurist and immensely qualified for the position, Democrats announced they would not support his nomination even before he was named.
Justice Kavanaugh went through extensive questioning by both sides of the aisle and it was becoming more and more likely that he would be confirmed to the position by a vote along strict party lines. No Democrat would vote for him until the Republicans had all supported him and then perhaps a few, fearing their election prospects would be hurt, would vote in his favor.
At some point in this process, last July, Democratic Senator, Dianne Feinstein, alleges that she got a letter from someone from Kavanaugh’s youth, who claimed that Kavanaugh tried to sexually assault her. Feinstein did not bring this allegation to the attention of the rest of the Senate or did she mention it when she was questioning the Justice. Instead, she held onto this information until all other options had been exhausted. Then when the Senate was ready to hold the vote, she brought this information to light. Even then she did not produce the letter or mention the name of the accuser.
When she was asked why she did not bring this to light earlier she said it was to protect the identity of the accuser. Then miraculously, the name of the woman was printed in the Washington Post. The leaker was not named but few people had the information so one must assume it was someone close to Feinstein that decided this woman’s name was not to be protected.
Only then did a lawyer, claiming to represent, Christine Blasey Ford, make a statement that her client was willing to testify about the alleged attempted assault. In fact, she said that Ms. Ford was anxious to have her voice heard on the matter.
Then the Senate sent an invitation to the woman, asking her to testify on the matter. They further said that the testimony could be in public session or in private session, whichever the woman preferred.
Then another attorney, now claiming to represent, Ms. Ford, said that her client would not testify before the Senate until after a FBI investigation was conducted. Now, most people might find that to be strange since Kavanaugh has undergone no less than 6 FBI investigations, the last of which would have been this year when he was nominated to the Supreme Court. It also makes me wonder why this woman would want another investigation before getting her story out to the public. Is she hoping to get some information so that she can form her story to fit that narrative? Normally an accuser does not need to have additional information provided before she testifies.
Of course, we know why the Democrats would be pushing for a lengthy investigation before a vote to confirm Kavanaugh. They are hoping against hope that they can push this matter off until after the midterm elections. While I think the chances of them retaking control of the Senate is slight, that is their best hope of stopping a conservative Justice from being confirmed, and any hope is better than no hope. Now, I am not saying that Ms. Ford is a knowing dupe of the Democrats. I do find the timing of this allegation highly suspect, however. Supposedly this alleged attack took place sometime in 1986, although Ms. Ford cannot tell us exactly when in 1986 or precisely where it supposedly took place. Her excuse for that is that she was so traumatized by the incident that her mind blocked it out. Only when she was undergoing therapy many years later did the memory come back.
Now while I will not say that she is lying about the incident. But I am highly skeptical of suppressed memories coming to light from therapy. And I am extremely skeptical that something as minor as a drunken boy trying to remove a girl’s clothing at a party would be so traumatizing that it would cause memory loss. I doubt that any of us could find a woman that at some point in her life did not have a male try to remove her clothing. And almost none of them would have found the incident to be so horrible that they would have suppressed the memory. Keep in mind, she was not raped or did he succeed in removing her clothing. The worst thing she can say is that he got on top of her at some point, although she does not say how that happened or how she got away from him. Apparently, her memory was only restored to that point and no further.
We also do not know how the therapist managed to get this information out of her horrified mind. Was it from hypnosis, perhaps? If so, could a post-hypnotic suggestion been planted? Is there nobody else that thinks that if you wake up in a therapist’s office, with memories you never had before, that perhaps it was because the therapist put the idea in your head?
And when this memory came flooding back, how exactly did she remember that it was Kavanaugh and not some other classmate. How, long did it take for that piece of the puzzle to emerge? Did the therapist ask probing questions about who she might have known at that time? Did they view old high school yearbooks and talk about different people she might have had interactions with. Is it possible that she could have heard Kavanaugh’s name on a news program and linked it with her youth? Did she read a newspaper account that might have mentioned his name or a magazine article about him? Or did she perhaps have a dream about him that was so vivid that it stuck in her mind?
Dreams can be so persuasive that they seem to become reality when you think of them later. I remember when I was a young bot, assigned by my father to throw down hay for the cows that I had a dream about a giant in the haymow. That dream was so terrifying and so real that my father had to almost beat me to get me to go into that mow to throw down the hay. If I had undergone therapy at that point I am sure I would have been quite sure that there was a real giant in that haymow.
I am sure that all of you have had dreams that seemed so real you remember them later as events that happened and not just dreams.
There are myriads of reasons why Ms. Ford believes what she is telling Feinstein is the truth. But, there are also many reasons why I believe that she is mistaken. The first reason is that this is the only incident, anyone has come forward with, alleging such behavior from Kavanaugh. Men who are predisposed to be rapists do not try it once and then become model citizens. Normally, there would be a string of women who could come forward and say that he was a predator. Instead, there has been a steady stream of women who have come forward to testify that he was as near a perfect man as one could be.
Another odd thing is that Ms. Ford also remembers that there were two other people present and yet both of those people deny being there or ever seeing Kavanaugh act in that way.
This is not a court of law, it is the court of public opinion. I have heard a lot of opinions that women do not lie about these types of things. I am sure there are thousands of men who have been falsely accused and later exonerated that would disagree with that idea. My opinion is that the preponderance of evidence says that Ms. Ford is mistaken. I have no reason to believe that she is lying. Perhaps she does have some ax to grind with the justice. But that has not been brought to light.
But I also have no reason to believe that Judge Kavanaugh is lying either. What little evidence we have has been provided by people who have known him for years. Other than Ms. Ford, not one of them has said anything derogatory about the man. Oh, the Democrats have tried to sully his character, for the most part in a failing effort. But, that is to be expected. The Democrats hate anything remotely associated with our President. They are so vindictive that they destroyed a good and honorable man, Ronny Jackson when he was put forward to head the Veteran’s Administration. They would do anything to derail the Trump train. And I would not put it past Feinstein or any other Dem, to fabricate a story to stop Kavanaugh’s nomination. I believe that Feinstein should be compelled to produce the email with all the pertinent information still in tack so that we could see if such an email actually existed and if so where it came from.
The sad part of this and countless other stories is that someone can point an accusing finger at anyone else and never be held accountable when they are proved to be wrong. Because of some archaic law that says that unless you can prove they have malice, people in the public eye cannot sue and win defamation lawsuits. Instead of the accuser having to prove their allegations it is now up to the accused to prove he or she is innocent. And that is the standard that the Democrats want to apply to Kavanaugh. Although there is not one shred of evidence other than this woman’s cloudy recollections that may or may not have been put into her mind in therapy, the Democrats want us to take her word and ignore all the positive things that have been said about him and ignore his years of public service as well.
It is time to end this farce and confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.