“When you have no facts, you smear. Even if they “win”, you have forever smeared them.” Kiva Canyon.
Super Bowl Sunday is the most violent day of the year for domestic abuse victims in the United States! The assertion was started in 1993 by a coalition of women’s groups to gin up the fight against domestic violence. They cited “studies” that proclaimed domestic abuse increased during the Super Bowl weekend, but it simply wasn’t true. The hoax, once started, permeates the Super Bowl to this day. Such is the power of legitimacy that a “coalition of women’s groups” can bring to a subject. Their favorite targets? Football (a violent sport) and politics (a violent sport).
Women’s “groups” and “causes” have significant sway over football, an All American sport, where they employ the politics of personal destruction. Ask Greg Schiano, who was named the new football coach at the University of Tennessee last year until a smear campaign derailed his hire and he returned to Ohio State to serve penance for his non-crime. Urban Meyer, also of Ohio State was shamed, then punished, for having an employee who battered his wife. Unsaid is whether any of the 46,246 OSU professors and staff or student body of 45,946 currently have charges pending against them. If so, what is being done to them?
In politics, the Anita Hill smear against Justice Clarence Thomas worked all those years ago, albeit Justice Thomas was still confirmed. The smear on Justice Thomas remains to this day, denigrating a man whose ascension to the Supreme Court should be a Great American Success story. Matthew Dowd, ABC chief political analyst, recently tweeted that Justice Thomas was a “sexual predator” based on what happened 25 years ago. Dowd seeks to redefine sexual predator to include sexual harassment, cheapening real victims of real sexual predators.
Now Judge Kavanaugh is the focus of “coalitions of women’s groups” with the goal being to stop his nomination for the Supreme Court. You have relentlessly heard that Prof. Ford wished to remain anonymous. That is obviously untrue. On July 6, she contacted her Congresswoman, Rep. Eshoo, because she couldn’t figure out how to reach her Senator she said. She’s a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine, yet she can’t figure out how to contact a U.S. Senator? On the same day, she contacted the Washington Post and said she “shouldn’t be quiet” about her allegation as she identifies Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and PJ as a “bystander” as complicit in her assault.
On July 10, she again contacts the Washington Post, inquiring why they haven’t contacted her. She thereafter talks to Emma Brown, the Washington Post reporter. She delivers a letter to Sen. Feinstein’s office on July 30, asking for confidentiality. Feinstein writes back, promising not to release the letter without explicit consent. Ford speaks with Feinstein personally, and is then referred to Debra Katz, the harassment attorney and DNC operative, the first week of August. Ford takes a bizarre polygraph at Katz’s urging. A variety of other meetings happen and then the Washington Post runs the story, the one they started working on when Prof. Ford contacted them on July 6th. Yet she claims she wanted the allegation to be confidential? There was never anything confidential about it, that was a ruse to make her seem like an innocent victim.
The polygraph she took at her lawyer’s suggestion was also blown to gigantic proportions which leads me to believe she tends to exaggerate things. She testified that she felt like the test took way longer than she anticipated and that she had to tell her entire life story. And that might have been her perception, but that is not the polygraph examination. There is a pre-test interview, which is very relaxed, with no wires hooked up, where the examiner just goes over what the polygraph is about and gets the “back story” and previews the questions to be asked. Then she was hooked up and asked TWO questions! Yep, two. Then she is unhooked and given a post-interview exam. She clearly believed that the polygraph was strenuous, but it was a mere two questions. I’ve never seen a two question polygraph test, that seems bizarrely abbreviated. Yet she found it difficult.
When the “anonymous” complaint of Prof. Ford was sent to the FBI, it was apparently deemed to be unverifiable with the information revealed in the letter and no action was taken. So in order to smear Judge Kavanaugh, the letter was leaked by someone. Many believe that it was Sen. Feinstein, but she denies it and for some reason, I believe her. I believe it was someone in Prof. Ford’s camp (her lawyers? her Democrat friends?) who became dissatisfied with the lack of publicity the smear campaign had garnered. So the story went viral.
Judge Kavanaugh defended himself eloquently at first, simply saying it was not true. Then more allegations came rolling in. I particularly applaud the woman who claims she went to about 10 Kavanaugh rape parties before she was finally the victim. That’s taking one for the DNC team to make that ridiculous of a claim. So more nut jobs come out and blow any sense of credibility for the #MeToo movement. However, Judge Kavanaugh became a bit more combative in the defense of his integrity, to the chagrin of those who had already said they weren’t going to vote for him anyway. I tend to forgive his being upset at the assault on his family and character. That is not judicial temperament, that is human nature. I suggest that anytime you bring a judge’s family into a courtroom soliloquy, you will probably get a “non-judicial” response out of the judge.
Real victims of real current crimes will see what happened to Dr. Ford and think twice about filing a report. Prosecutors will likewise worry that the “background check” on a sexual assault victim will be a problem if it can go back 35 years. I think the complaint by Dr. Ford and her resulting treatment will set back prosecuting real sex offenders by light years. That’s a problem.
The second problem is that regardless of how it goes, Judge/Justice Kavanaugh will forever be tarnished as a result of this campaign. Public service will suffer because these high profile smear campaigns will result in more and more people not venturing into the rough and tumble sport of politics. But it’s been rough and tough since 1776 and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
There is no Kiva Canyon, to whom I attributed the quote at the head of the column. The quote was made up. But now it will live forever on the Internet. Such is the power of print.