Double Standards in the Kavanaugh Debate

By Stefan M. Kløvning

The hearings of Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations and SCOTUS Justice Nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s defence on Friday begot a political debate that could not have been more politically polarized. Many Democrats believe Mrs Ford speaks the truth and that Kavanaugh is lying, and many Republicans believe the opposite. With such conflicting viewpoints and the firm stances by both Mrs Ford and Mr Kavanaugh, journalist and documentarian Tim Pool opined that the tweets about the event “show that we live in different realities.”

For others, however, their views on the matter appears to be more neutral. Even President Trump, for instance, said that he thought Mrs Ford appeared credible, but that he had no intentions of replacing Mr Kavanaugh with another nominee, presumably following other’s line of thought (such as Kavanaugh’s own) that they don’t dispute Mrs Ford was sexually assaulted at some point, but that it may have been a case of remembering the wrong identity of the assaulter after the 36 years that have passed since the alleged incident.

Notwithstanding the fact that the allegation concerns an incident almost four decades ago, there are many problems with the narrative of Mr Kavanaugh sexually assaulting anyone at that time.

  1. None of her alleged witnesses (Leland Ingham, P.J. Smyth and Mark Judge) recall the event. Mrs Ford said that she doesn’t “expect that P.J. and Leland would remember this evening. It was a very unremarkable party … And Mr Judge is a different story. I would expect that he would remember that this happened.” That none of them recalls the gathering or such behaviour by Kavanaugh as Ford describes, doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen, but it does mean that she has no evidence to corroborate her claim and that we must solely rely on her testimony. What’s more is that not even the person who drove her home that night has yet come forward.
  2. 87 women who have known Mr Kavanaugh during his time in high school, college and/or career have come forward in support of Kavanaugh, claiming that the allegations against him are radically inconsistent with their experience with Kavanaugh. From their perspective, he “treated women with nothing but total respect and decency,” “is one of the most decent, honorable, good-hearted people I know” and “is a man of high integrity and character. I’ve never seen him be anything but a true gentleman in all aspects of his life.” Again, all these women’s experience doesn’t deny the possibility of a one-time or few-times incidences of sexual assault, but it would be quite strange and incomprehensible if one disrespected another woman (or several women) so much that he would do something like this, and yet having respect for other women to the degree that they admire him enough to say statements such as quoted above. Additionally, as Kavanaugh pointed out in his opening statement, they did so to protect his reputation despite being fully aware that they were going to be ridiculed and targeted for it.

These are perhaps the two biggest problems with the narrative, though there are more, but for the unconvinced, let’s temporarily set the rule of “believe women” with the accuser’s testimony being the only “evidence” necessary. We can now do a test to see if the people currently outraged against Kavanaugh are politically motivated or not.

If you’re outraged against Kavanaugh now, are you also outraged against

  • Former President Bill Clinton, who was accused of sexual assault by Juanita Broaddrick in 1999, and of sexual harrassment by Paula Jones;
  • Current New Jersey Democratic Senator Cory Booker, who admitted to having groped an “intoxicated female friend” in high school in 1984;
  • Democrat MN Representative Keith Ellison, who was accused by Amy Louise Alexander and Karen Monahan of domestic abuse;
  • Former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, though further back in time is currently by many considered to be a favorite U.S. President or at least on the top of the list, who appointed Hugo Black, a former Ku Klux Klan member, as SCOTUS Justice in 1937, and later justified his decision by opining that “a man’s private life is supposed to be his private life.”

If you aren’t, have you considered the reason why these should get special treatment? Why they shouldn’t be subjected to the same rules and principles that is now used against Mr Kavanaugh? But the Progressive Democrats didn’t seem to care so much about the revelations of Cory Booker and Keith Ellison’s behaviors as with him. It would be politically inconvenient to do so, because they believe them to have the morally correct political stances. Political convenience appears to be the main reason of the major spectacle against Kavanaugh, especially considering how they ignored his calendar as an alibi and rather fixated on the mysterious term “alumnus” used about another girl, and is now ignoring his points in his opening statements on Friday and rather fixating on the tone he used. His tone may have legitimately sounded inadequate for many concerning a nominee as Supreme Court Justice, but one must remember that this is after (1) being accused of being a rapist and an irresponsible heavy drinker, (2) having half the country turn against him after decades of public service, and (3) himself and his family receiving threats on a regular basis.

It’s now decided that a full FBI investigation into the allegations will be performed over the next week, which the Democrats proclaim Republicans should be open to if they want to “clear his name.” One may wonder if they are going to find anything more than they did the last six background checks. Many Republicans claim that this is merely an effort to extend the nomination process as long as possible. For instance, the FBI expected it to take about a year to finish the report on the Las Vegas shooting on Oct. 18 2017. “Now that’s a long time for some people, but speaking for the FBI, that’s light speed, all right?” Special Agent in Charge Aaron Rouse said. One may say there’s a difference between the two, and they’d be right. The shooting was investigated soon after it happened, and the incidence occurred in public; the alleged sexual assault is being investigated 36 years later and (if true) occurred in private. Former FBI Assistant Director Bill Gavin said, however, that it was plausible that the investigation could be finished by the end of the week if the case were solely limited to investigating Mrs Ford and Mr Kavanaugh. Still, if they’re the only participants, he expected them to stand by their statements and would not get much more information to light than already is. He also said it was unlikely that they would come to a conclusion of who is being more likely to tell the truth, and that the FBI doesn’t clear any names, it just presents the information they find.