Kavanaugh Hearings a Good Reason to #WalkAway
I attended high school in the late 70s. I remember a lot of general things about that time in my life. I remember how I felt, some of the people, general incidents. I can tell a few pretty good stories, but I will miss some of the details.
My childhood was not all fun and games. I had a few traumatizing events. I can tell you more details about these incidents. I remember them vividly. I might miss a few small details, but the meat of the story will be intact. There are details about these incidents that stick out in my mind, some that might surprise you.
Science will tell you that traumatic events are clearer in your mind than general memories.
When I heard the accusations from Christine Blasey Ford toward Brett Kavanaugh, several thing struck me. The lack of details for instance. If this event was so traumatic, why does she not remember more details? News reports indicate she can’t even remember the location, the year, how she got to and from the home, or how many people were involved.
Additionally, the details that she has provided have changed. Details include what clothing she was wearing (blouse or swimsuit?), and when the incident happened (was it during school or the summer break?).
The inconsistencies stretch to the therapist notes that she provides. She apparently told a therapist in 2012 that four boys – not two – were in the room during the alleged incident. Ford told the newspaper this was an error by the therapist. This would, in my opinion, place the therapist credibility on the line. If a therapist cannot get the details correct as to what a patient relates, then how can they treat the patient? It does not lean to validity.
Her statements include that she was treated, medically, for this trauma. If that were the case, the medical professionals would have be required to report the incident to law enforcement. There would have been an investigation, at the very least a report would have been taken and still be on record. There is nothing.
Furthermore, she has named 4 people in her accusations. All have denied knowledge of, and attendance at, this party. No one knows what she is talking about. This is a powerful point, as she has no physical evidence to back up her claim. Witnesses would go a long way to validating her statements.
When an accusation is made from 36 years before, there needs to be some sort of evidence. There is no crime scene to look at. No witnesses to talk to. No physical evidence at all.
She waited 30 years to discuss it with a therapist, and did not name the suspect at that time. She told the therapist differing details, and perhaps did not remember doing so. Now, she claims the therapist got it wrong.
Christine Blasey Ford is a Democrat activist. She first talked about this assault in 2012. What was happening then?
Mitt Romney was doing very well against Barrack Obama. Up until the last few weeks, Romney had a very good chance to win the election. The chance was so good that the democrats, and the main stream media, were starting to panic at who Romney might nominate to the Supreme Court. It was at this time Brett Kavanaugh’s name was first brought up.
When Romney lost the election, it seemed the threat of a conservative Supreme Court was gone. The risk of a Kavanaugh appointment faded back into the woodwork, as did, apparently, Ford’s need of therapeutic help for her sudden memories of the attack.
Brett M. Kavanaugh is a judge who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is often described as the second most important court in the country. This accusation, if proven, could see him removed from this appointment. Why would someone wait until Kavanaugh is nominated to a higher position to make the accusations public, if they were true?
Maybe we should consider the other principal’s involved?
Ford’s attorney, Debra Katz is another Democrat activist who spoke in public defense of Bill Clinton against the accusations by Paula Jones. She also said that former Minnesota Democratic Senator Al Franken should not resign.
Dianne Feinstein reportedly held the letter from Ford since July. She questioned Kavanaugh during the confirmation hearings, yet refused to question him on these issues. This makes the case of an orchestrated 11th-hour attempt to undermine the process by deception.
Why haven’t the Democrats applied this standard across the board? Start with Juanita Broaddrick. They absolutely refuse to investigate or believe this woman was raped by Bill Clinton, though her story has been in the public eye for decades.
How about Karen Monahan? Her story is in the news now. She accused U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., of domestic abuse, including providing evidence detailing the abuse allegedly caused by the congressman.
Is it because Ellison is the Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee and is currently running for Attorney General in Minnesota that Monahan’s story seems to be being swept under the rug?
We now ask, what is on the Supreme Court docket that the Democrats are worried about? Is it only about Roe v Wade?
A peek at the upcoming docket shows us Sherwin-Williams Co. v. California, a case concerning lead paint liability after 70 years. Can sellers of a legal product may be held liable for causing a public nuisance, decades after engaging in activity that was lawful at the time? This could hold severe problems for manufacturers and sellers of all products in this country.
ConAgra Grocery Products Co. v. California is also on the docket with a related case.
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District is a case in which a former high school football coach was fired for kneeling in prayer on the football field. This case has serious First Amendment implications.
The American Legion v. American Humanist Association asks whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross ?
The docket is full. Many of the issues that are coming before the court are issues the Democrats would like to see in their favor. So is Roe v Wade the only issue at play, as many suggest?
The #MeToo movement has emboldened women to come forward with stories of abuse. I applaud people that can overcome traumatizing events from their life, however, I still advocate that some form of evidence must accompany these revelations if they are to be used against a person. A ‘He said-She said’ argument has never been the standard in law, and should not be used today.
Currently, I am following the #WalkAway movement that highlights those that have fled from the Democrat Party due to their agenda being the priority over the people in the party. I claim membership in this movement, as I was a registered Democrat up until 2008.
My final question is: Do you need evidence to destroy someone? We should absolutely demand evidence. We must hold everyone accountable for their actions, not just the suspects but their accusers as well. This is how our country was laid out, and this is the standard that guides our principles.
This case is all about Constitutional rights. His and hers. The only ones that cannot fathom this concept do not believe in our system of government.
We are NOT a democracy, ruled by mob justice. We are a Constitutional Republic, governed by the rule of law.
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: Paypal.me/RedoubtNews