Related topics

Kavanaugh,Ford testimony trauma: Darcy cartoon

September 28, 2018 GMT

Kavanaugh,Ford testimony trauma: Darcy cartoon

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona sex-crimes prosecutor who questioned Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and briefly, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, told GOP Senators the evidence she heard wouldn’t be enough to obtain a search warrant, let alone prosecute Ford’s sexual assault claim against Kavanaugh, according to the New York Times.

The Judiciary Committee hearing on Ford’s sexual assault allegation against Kavanaugh did provide emotional and riveting testimony from the California professor and U.S. Supreme Court nominee.

Both Ford and Kavanaugh broke down, choking back tears multiple times as they made their case to Senators on the Judiciary Committee, demonstrating the heavy toll the assault allegation has taken on their lives.

Ford’s compelling testimony demonstrated  and validated why it was so important to hear her recount the sexual assault allegation, and its impact on her life, in person.


After Ford’s powerful testimony, I didn’t think there was any way Kavanaugh’s nomination would survive.  But Kavanaugh made a strong and emotional case that it should with his testimony, following the questioning of Ford.

Kavanaugh actually broke down more often than Ford, in his opening remarks, and answering questions.   You’d never know that from watching the coverage from MSNBC and CNN, who, along with their pundits, focused on Kavanaugh’s defiance.

Critics of Kavanaugh argued his defiance proved he didn’t have the judicial temperament to be on the Supreme Court.   That’s absurd.

Kavanaugh was no more defiant than Clarence Thomas was during the Anita Hill hearing.  Thomas called his hearing a “High Tech Lynching.”   Kavanaugh has already proven he has Judicial temperament with his highly praised and respected tenure as a sitting Federal Judge.

Passionate defiance from Kavanaugh was more than justified.  His “job interview” had turned into a partisan, character and career assassination show trial for Democrats.

If any of the people criticizing Kavanaugh’s defiance had their life and the life of their family implode over what they believed were false accusations, and political hit jobs, they would be as defiant as Kavanaugh was.

Feinstein was hearing loser.

The person who I thought came off looking bad wasn’t Kavanaugh, it was Sen. Dainne Feinstein.  It had already been known that Sen. Feinstein  sat on the Ford allegation for months after Ford sent her a letter in July, but the testimony brought out more information showing Feinstein contributed significantly to the toxic mess the confirmation process has become.

Feinstein knew about the Ford allegation when she had met privately with Kavanaugh, but said nothing to him about it.

Feinstein knew about the Ford allegation during earlier Kavanaugh hearings held by the Committee, but didn’t inform her fellow committee members or ask Kavanaugh about it.


Feinstein recommended lawyers for Ford to hire.  One of Ford’s lawyers is co-chair of an anti-Kavanaugh organization and has been a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton and the DNC.

Feinstein claims she didn’t divulge Ford’s allegation because she was protecting Ford’s desire to remain anonymous.   Yet it’s clear Ford’s name was leaked by Democrats.

The only people who knew about Fords letter were Sen Feinstein and Rep Anna Eshoo and their staffs.

Yesterday Feinstein denied her staff leaked Ford’s name, instead suggesting one of Ford’s friends might have.   That’s shameful of Feinstein.   Ford’s friends have made it clear they’ve been wanting to protect her from the press onslaught, not leak her name to them.

Reasonable Doubt?

Both Ford and Kavanaugh made strong cases for themselves.  Ford believes 100% it was Kavanaugh who assaulted her.  Kavanaugh denies 100% he assaulted Ford, pointing to the fact that the four witnesses Ford named don’t corroborate her story.

It’s possible to believe both.  It’s possible to believe Ford and still support the confirmation of Kavanaugh.

Senator’s will be weighing the allegation of a woman whose psychological makeup requires her to have two front doors, against Kavanaugh’s well regarded record as a federal judge.

They will be weighing allegations about a 17-year-old Kavanaugh against the resume of an adult Kavanaugh who passed six previous FBI background checks.

They will be weighing the accounts for three accusers, some of whom are already being discredited,  against the over 85 women who have vouched for Kavanaugh.

They will be weighing  the accusation that he was reckless drunk with failing memory against the fact that he got into Yale Law school, graduated, became a federal judge so highly regarded he was routinely considered a Supreme Court candidate.    

There is no doubt something traumatic happened to Ford. So traumatic she has to have two front doors because of assault induced anxiety and claustrophobia. 

Since her only corroboration is her spotty memory, and she suffers psychological issues, by her own admission, there are justified reasons to doubt it was Kavanaugh. 

Mitchell said this case couldn’t be prosecuted.  Four named witnesses don’t corroborate the claim.  Ford doesn’t know the location, day or year it occurred.   But if Kavanaugh was tried, would he be acquitted because it wasn’t proved he assaulted Ford beyond a reasonable doubt?   I think he would be.

Reasonable doubt may get Kavanaugh acquitted in a trial, but it might not get him confirmed.   The Committee will hold its vote this morning on advancing the nomination to a floor vote.  Kavanaugh acknowledged in the hearing he may be defeated in the final vote.   Odds are, he’s right.  And odds are Trump will then nominate a Judge more conservative than Kavanaugh, preferably a woman, who Democrats will start digging for dirt on.   Rise and repeat the muddy confirmation process.