A Lynching in the Senate

“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” –

Lavrenti Behria, head of Stalin’s secret police.

 

There’s a reason why legal proceedings, both civil and criminal (with a very few exceptions such as for murder), are subject to statutes of limitations, meaning that such court proceedings must be initiated within a prescribed and limited time frame.

The reason is because as time passes, evidence disappears or is no longer attainable; people’s memories of events fade and become unreliable; witnesses move away, becoming impossible to find, or they simply die off.

Further, in our legal system the burden of proving the offense, criminal or civil, lies with the accuser—the prosecutor or plaintiff. The defendant doesn’t have to prove his innocence; he enjoys a presumption of legal innocence that must be overcome.

But we seem to have entered an era that proves why there’s an actual need for statutes of limitations. This is an era of hysterical accusation, as typified by the #MeToo movement, in which any allegation of impropriety at any time in a person’s past has the potential of destroying that person’s life without benefit of the protections of any legal proceeding at all. It’s mob-sanctioned character assassination and personal destruction.

This is reminiscent of the Salem Witch Trials, in which completely fabricated and fantastical accusations by hysterical teenagers was enough to condemn women to death unless they could prove their innocence of the accusations, an impossibility. Basically, a lynch mob.

We saw something similar in the 1980s when a completely unfounded hysteria swept the nation about children in preschools being subjected to satanic rituals, including human sacrifices, all of which led to the infamous McMartin Pre-School trials, in which the defendants were ultimately exonerated and the nature of the hysteria finally understood.

The latest iteration of this phenomenon is Senator Dianne Feinstein’s incredibly cynical and despicable act of accusing Judge Brett Kavanaugh of committing the criminal act of sexual assault well over 30 years ago while he was in high school, an accusation she leveled during the last day of the committee hearings concerning his appointment as a Justice to the Supreme Court.

If she knew about this claim for months, as she’s said, why did she wait so long to bring it to light? If this is anything other than a Hail Mary attempt to derail the confirmation process, why didn’t she raise the matter much earlier, when it could have been addressed in an orderly fashion? Why, after examining the “evidence”, did the FBI decide not to pursue the matter?

Why did the alleged “victim” wait literally decades before telling anyone about this assault? Why didn’t she report it to the cops at the time, or at least her parents? She claims Kavanaugh was drunk. How do we know it wasn’t she who was actually drunk, this whole thing being just a figment of her fevered imagination?

Both Kavanagh and his friend – who would be an “accomplice” to this “crime” – have stated that the incident never happened. Why shouldn’t we believe them? How does Kavanaugh prove something didn’t happen over 30 years ago? Why should he have to, since that flies against all the foundational precepts of our justice system? Scores of his high school contemporaries have stated that they don’t believe the accusation, and that it doesn’t conform with his personality. Why should anyone believe the sole accusing “victim” over all the others who have made statements about the matter?

As I said, this is why we have statutes of limitations; so we don’t have a “show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” society.

Think about it. How would you like to wake up one morning and find out that some kid you went to high school with three decades ago has, out of the clear blue sky, falsely accused you of committing a major felony all those years ago? And that to top it off they were making the accusation to local reporters, maybe right here in The Signal for example, so that all your friends and neighbors, relatives and business associates, would have that accusation staring them in the face over their morning coffee.

Well, that’s exactly what happened to Brett Kavanaugh thanks to the shameless manipulations of Feinstein.

This is the closing run of the Dem/socialist clown car that they’ve driven through this whole confirmation process. I thought Kamala Harris and Cory “Spartacus” Booker were absurd, but Feinstein’s managed to take the cake with this.

Remember this when it comes time to vote on November 6th.

 

 

©Brian Baker 2018

 

(Also published today in my local newspaper, The Signal)

 

Advertisements

21 comments on “A Lynching in the Senate

  1. Nee says:

    I was 14 and babysitting when the 28 year old son of the parents came by and groped me. I told my mother, and the stepmother who told me that I must have misconstrued that “X” grabbed by boobs from behind and made a lewd comment. I had two choices. He said, she said– or even though it was scary, walk away and forget it. I walked away…because eventually as mother mother said, he would get caught. He did. 40 years later, I can tell you exactly what I wore, how long my hair was, the barettes that were in it and the show that was on television. So for this woman to make a claim with no actual details? Nope. Sorry. For every unpleasant situation I have ever been in, I can recount every detail. And this is another page in the book of the democrats and my saying: It works for them until it doesn’t. Kavanaugh will be confirmed and the dems will melt like the wicked witches they are. Does anyone remember that Clarence Thomas talked about pubic hair and Anita Hill had him investigated for harassment? Was that the beginning of the “snowflake” era? JHC. YJCMTSU.

    • BrianR says:

      I’m sorry to hear that you went through such an experience. It sounds awful, and I’m sure was terrible for such a young girl. As the parent of a daughter, I know I would have been furious. NOBODY messes with my little girl, even today, and she’s in her 30s (though if any heavy lifting were to be required, I’d let her husband do it now!).

      That having been said, the rest of your comment goes right to the heart of the issue. If nothing else, her lack of specific detail invalidates her accusation. But then, this whole thing is nothing more than a cheap political stunt aimed at derailing the confirmation, or at least delaying it until after the midterm elections.

      I agree with you. The GOP should move this thing forward and get Kavanaugh confirmed ASAP.

      • Nee says:

        I was not really affected by the event in any way other than being scared in the moment. It will always be unbelievable to me that people are willing to destroy another person 30+ years later, no matter what the reason. I just read a story about a former Colonel who was about to make General, David Riggins from 2017. Look it up. It is batshit crazy! The accuser was clearly not of sound mind.

      • BrianR says:

        Nee, thanks for reffering me to the Riggins case. I’d never heard about it so I found an article in Stars & Stripes (appropriately): https://www.stripes.com/news/us/retired-colonel-wins-8-4m-lawsuit-against-woman-who-blogged-that-he-raped-her-1.482514

        Frankly, I think that’s what Kavanaugh should do; file a slander suit against his accuser. But I think the political atmosphere, in addition to his own gentlemanly (at least as far as I’ve seen) manners will keep him from doing that.

    • Lee says:

      Hi Nee –

      I am so sorry you experienced that…no one should…ever.

      But here’s my question…how do you know that Dr. Ford doesn’t have the same detailed memories that you do…because she hasn’t made it public? She hasn’t spoken publicly about it yet. As someone who experienced this, I hope you maintain an open mind when she does get her opportunity to speak, whether in an open or closed courtroom.

      This has never been about party and whether you believe her or not because you think she is trying to derail a nomination for political reasons…this is about humanity and whether you believe someone with this in his past and the ability to lie about it is best for our Supreme Court.

      Remember…in 1987, when Reagan nominated Douglas Ginsberg and he was removed from the process when it was learned he lied about his use of marijuana as a college student. He lied. It wasn’t as much about the drugs as it was the lying. That is the biggest hurdle to overcome…lying…as a justice…in a lifetime appointment.

      BTW, go back and watch Ms Hill’s testimony…it was about A LOT more than pubic hair and the treatment she received at the hands of the Senate was disgusting.

      Good day,

      • BrianR says:

        Apparently this ended up in my spam folder. I just found it there, and “unspammed” it.

      • Juan says:

        You are so wrong when you say this isn’t about party…it is ALL about party. If it wasn’t then Feinstein would have brought it up way earlier and it could have looked into before the hearings. Democrats don’t care about humanity or this woman, they care about Roe V. Wade. This is a hail mary smear campaign. You cannot get away with making accusations and not backing them up! That is not how the legal system and procedure work.

        With something this serious, you cannot just say that she looks and sounds credible. Now Ford is making demands for her testimony? She is asking for the defense to go first (how is he supposed to defend without knowing what he is accused of?), and that she not be cross-examined…WHAT?

        She is a Dr. Presumably a smart woman…what did she think would happen by sending the letter to the Dems? That they were just going to let this go?

        To be fair, and I am really trying to be fair…I think she believes in her heart of hearts something happened. That I am sure of. In a matter this important, it would be unethical and immoral to take a person’s word at face value. If it happened a year ago…maybe. 36 years ago, with not being sure where or when…, not a chance!

      • Nee says:

        Lee-
        I don’t know, but by all reports she does not have memory of key details. And, if she wanted to remain anonymous, then why not send the letter directly to the FBI? She had to know as an activist that her name and “story” would get leaked as a means to an end. And now, she claims she is afraid to fly? BS. Grassley said he would go to her so, what IS the truth? She has put demands where there should be none. Just show up, tell it, because at this point, it is he-said, she-said. And the democrats are hoping it ruins Kavanaugh.

        Tell me why they didn’t want to hear Juanita Broderick’s story, or Kathleen Willey. I have a friend who worked at WH from the 90’s though the 2000’s. People can’t handle the truth over their fairy tales. And some people lie, don’t they?–to save their ass from not being able to own their own mistakes.

        At 17, if this were groping or attempted rape in a drunken circumstance and it was WJC, do you think we would hear the “That was HS antics” line? He’s been exemplary (cough) ever since. Yes. And please tell me where these people now adopt sudden morality when they are paying off those they harrassed for their silence? I just don’t buy her story, her memory and the manipulation by the democrats of this person seems to be unnoticed and the GOP is getting shit for it? Nope. Not right. She’ll get her say, but not on her terms. The terms of the judiciary. Period.

        As for Ms. Hill? That’s all I could recall because to me it was a non- issue but made into one…I have been privy to this kind of talk in the military as enlisted with officers. If everything a CO ever said or one of my senior NCO’s were taken at face value over the comraderie and sometimes vulgar nature? By all rights, then any touch or word I could add up would all have equaled groping or sexual harassment and would have had me locked up in a mental unit. I’m smarter than that. I understood one thing. The minute someone’s body language or words ate at me, I either asked them to draw the line or I got the hell out of dodge and moved on. It is that simple. At some point if you know you are not going to engage, you can speak up or you can whine for the rest of your life how effed up it was by some words.
        Let’s talk about “lying”. It does not mean what it once did, since Bill Clinton was re-elected. Lying hasn’t mattered since all of this stuff went down with emails, DOJ, FBI, either This must be our new “Normal”. May the best liars “win” so they can destroy the republic for power. Ginsburg should not have lied, because it was not a teen or collegiate folly, it was when he was a faculty member. We aren’t really going to know who is lying in this case 36 years later, but I’m telling you, It’s my opinion that Ford is a liar.

  2. Kathy says:

    Feinstein didn’t give a second thought to Kavanaugh’s reputation, his family, nothing, when she sent that letter to the FBI and it was later supposedly leaked. It doesn’t matter to her or any of the Dems if they ruin a man in the process of reaching their goal, and that is to stall this confirmation as long as possible. Their hatred is for Trump and poor Kavanaugh was just the tool they used this time.

    Now the skank is saying she’ll testify, but only under certain conditions and not on Monday. More stalling. I hope to God Grassley sees this for what it is, but likely not. He and the others will be cowed into allowing the delay, in order to ‘be fair to both sides.’

    Was she bought off? Soros money? I don’t know, but I’d say it’s likely, and I hope she chokes on that expensive wine she bought with it.

    • BrianR says:

      I agree with every word you said, with the exception that I don’t think the stall tactics are gonna work. I think if the lyin’ ho doesn’t show up on Monday, it’s game over for her, and the nomination proceeds.

      Even flakey Jeff Flake’s on board with that.

      • Kathy says:

        I really hope you’re right, but the way things are unraveling right now, I’m not so sure. Recently she said Monday is out of the question but she can be there later and has issued conditions for her testimony and they say Grassley is considering them. Between the Dems with the sledge hammers and the rollover Rs, it’s turning into a 3-ring circus. That’s why I said the stall tactics are working. Remember who we’re working with here – what is it you called them? The PSP?

        http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/20/sources-kavanaugh-accuser-christine-blasey-fords-team-wants-questioning-only-from-senate-panel-and-kavanaugh-must-go-first.html

        And it’s not just Fox, the same stories are all over the place…disgusting.

      • BrianR says:

        Well, her “demands” really are nothing more than transparent delay tactics. That’s the entire Dem/socialist strategy: delay the process until the mid-terms.

        This is all a great big nothingburger, and frankly, everyone knows it. It’s as transparent as glass, and I don’t think Grassley or the committee are going to go along with it. Especially given Fineswine’s sitting on it since July.

        They all know that no matter what they offer or do, the socialists will simply keep moving the goal posts.

        For the accuser — the lyin’ ho — it’s either s*** or get off the pot.

  3. Hardnox says:

    The whole thing is beyond childish and absurd. The Left have shown us all who they really are. They are children in adult bodies.

    The reason Feinswine waited is that she needs a boost in her reelection prospects plus the collective efforts of the Left to derail Kavanaugh ran out of gas. They have less than nothing.

    Kavanaugh will be approved provided Grassley does the right thing. I believe he’s had enough of the BS.

    The left has already declared that they will continue investigating Kavanaugh even if he gets confirmed, and even if he doesn’t. They don’t want him on the lower court either.

    Meanwhile, the left ignores every “confirmed” sexual misdeed committed by their brethren. Hypocrites all.

    Personally, I don’t think any of the opposition to Kavanaugh is about Rove v Wade. It’s a dog whistle for lemming consumption. The entirety of the entrenched political class is scared shitless of what comes next and that is indictments of their ranks regarding the misdeeds beginning in 2009 to present. Bet on it.

  4. Hardnox says:

    Btw, where do I file a sexual harassment claim against Hillary Clinton? I once saw a pic of her in a swimsuit. I now have permanent eye and possibly psychological damage.

  5. Hopeful says:

    Hi Brian. Did you watch the entire Kavanaugh hearing? I did. I do believe that something happened to Dr. Ford. It could have been a horrible, realistic dream, or maybe what she described happened really did happen to her. However, I do NOT think that Brett Kavanaugh had anything to do with what happened to Dr. Ford. Not only has EVERY witness that Dr. Ford supplied denied the account, but Dr. Ford’s best friend from high school also stated, UNDER THREAT OF FELONY, that she didn’t even know Brett Kavanaugh. Additionally, Brett Kavanaugh was meticulous at keeping his calendars with his activities and the friends he hung out with on a daily basis, and with 2 exceptions, it would have been impossible for him to be at a weekend gathering the entire summer of 1982, when the supposed assault took place. Finally, Brett Kavanaugh was extremely credible, and his testimony was compelling and totally believable.

    Now today, I also watched the Senate Judicial meeting, and I was at first ok with Jeff Flake asking for a 1 week delay for the FBI to investigate because I naively thought that if the FBI could clear Kavanaugh’s name, it would be better for Kavanaugh & that reasonable Democrats, along with the American people, would feel more comfortable that no stone was left unturned.

    But, just when I thought it would be ok, I watched Robert Patillo, a Democratic Strategist on Neil Cavuto’s show today. I was absolutely stunned with what he said. I was so shocked that I kept rewinding & listening so I could write down his remarks. Here is what I transcribed:

    September 28th on Fox News Neil Cavuto show:

    Robert Patillo, Democratic Strategist answer to Neil’s question exemplified EXACTLY what the Democrats are doing.

    Neil’s question: “Do you take Democrats at their word that they can live with a week long FBI Investigation…Will the investigation be enough for Democrats?”

    Robert Patillo responded: “Well, I think we have to trust in the FBI & trust in the Department of Justice and their ability to determine the facts in this case. What I think the Republicans should do is take this as an opportunity to withdraw the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh & bring in an actual person, who will be able to unite the country. What is so special about Judge Kavanaugh that any other person” (cut off by Neil Cavuto)

    Cavuto called Patillo on his comments, telling Patillo that “this is a mockery. You’re asking for an FBI investigation & then all of a sudden, by the way, the person they are investigating and the allegations they are investigating, drop it because we want the guy out.”

    Patillo then said (with Cavuto cutting him off where I show dots): “Well look, I’m fine with the investigation; I just want to make sure it is through, but at this point…what is the benefit to Republicans pushing Kavanaugh at this point?… It is about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. From Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony yesterday, he can never rule on anything involving the Clintons, the Clinton Foundation, anything involving campaign finance because he said it was part of a conspiracy” (Neil keeps interrupting, but Patillo keeps talking and when Neil tells Patillo he is being silly, Patillo responds) “it is not being silly because he has already shown he has a bias against these individuals. So yes, let’s have the investigation but let’s try a better Justice to be up there.”

    Patillo’s comments are beyond pathetic, and God help us if the majority of Democrats feel this way…no due process…an uncorroborated accusation from more than 30 years ago can destroy one’s life…and the determination to resist everything and anything a sitting President does because you don’t like him.

    • BrianR says:

      Hi, Hopeful.

      You may or may not know that I was a Special Agent when I was in Army Intelligence. My point being that this whole “investigate by the FBI” is a complete load of BS. I know. I used to do background investigations (BIs).

      All it’ll result in, AT THE MOST, is a bunch of Agent Interview Reports stating the same things we heard in the committee hearings: a bunch of he-said she-said testimony about a COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTED ACCUSATION made by her, with absolutely zero substantiating evidence.

      At which point the damned socialists will turn around and delay again by demanding that Kavanaugh submit to a polygraph or some other form of harassment, with their only goal being to delay this appointment FOREVER.

      They have no good faith at all. The idea’s absurd. I’ve always held the left in contempt, but this episode has evolved it to hatred. Maybe that’ll mellow in time; we’ll see.

    • BrianR says:

      BTW, there’s a reason I referred to the McMartin Preschool case in my column. Look the case up, and look up the phenomenon known as “false memory”.

      IF Ford truly believes happened to her what she claims, I STRONGLY suspect that’s what’s happening here.

  6. CW says:

    The malevolence and corruption of Democrats’ attack on Brett Kavanaugh is magnified tenfold when you consider that all this – the wicked strategizing, the abandonment of standard American principles, and the willingness to stigmatize an innocent man for life – is all for the shameful objective of having a SCOTUS that will forsake its duty to uphold the Constitution. That’s something to be proud of, eh? It’s either that or it’s purely for spite against Donald Trump, which is equally abhorrent.

    This whole episode underscores what conservative bloggers have known and said for years: that the Left has no conscience and that there is no sacrifice too great for this country to make to advance their selfish agenda. If need be they would burn the country down to the ground for the sake of gaining power over us; but for now they’ll settle for destroying our foundation.

    • BrianR says:

      Well said, CW. I fully agree.

      The Marxists know that their only hope of advancing their agenda is by imposition through the courts, because they can’t do it through the regular legislative process. Thus their desperation to keep the courts under their control.

      As to “burning the country down”, it’s my opinion that doing exactly that — in different words — is exactly their goal anyway. Remember Obozo talking about “fundamental change”?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s