California Senator Diane Feinstein has a letter, presumably from Mrs. Christine Blasley Ford, which we must suppose delineates inappropriate behavior on the part of SCOTUS nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Since Mrs. Feinstein guards the letter like it was her life savings, there is nothing left but speculation to guide us as to its actual content.
Having coached teenage boys in high school baseball, I saw a great deal of interaction between them and high school girls. Some of the boys were no doubt sexually active; just as certain, all wanted to be. Hormones tend to dictate the desire to mate with the opposite sex; we won’t discuss the desire to mate with the same sex in this missive. The point is, and no doubt has been since the cave men, that teenage boys want to have sex with teenage girls; often the desire is mutual.
Now turning to the letter Mrs. Feinstein claims makes all the specific accusations. Without actually reading the letter, we are left to suppose what it might in point of fact delineate as pertains to details. And details of a sexual encounter are the important factors to consider. In considering the possible contents of the letter, I am left wondering who invited who into the bedroom to engage in the sexual encounter. Since it is safe to presume that Judge Kavanaugh didn’t drag Ms. Blasley through a room full of partying kids, it is intuitive that the event started as a desire to have consensual (with the willing agreement of the parties involved) sex.
Since Mrs. Beasley Ford now claims some lingering deep seated trauma effect from the encounter, obviously either he or she, presuming the event occurred, changed his or her mind. Perhaps she feared becoming pregnant and changed her mind. Perhaps he was unprepared by failing to have a condom, feared that she would become pregnant and changed his mind thereby making her feel rejected. We don’t know!
What common sense should tell each of us that doesn’t possess an agenda in this debate and would only like to know the truth is that the letter contains something Mrs. Feinstein doesn’t want the members of the Judiciary Committee and the public at large to see and evaluate. In a judicial process, hiding exculpatory evidence taints the process and makes the person hiding the evidence guilty of conspiracy.
The Brady Rule, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), requires prosecutors to disclose materially exculpatory evidence. Brady material or evidence includes any evidence favorable to the accused—evidence that goes towards negating a defendant’s guilt, that would reduce a defendant’s potential sentence, or evidence going to the credibility of a witness. Anyone who thinks Judge Kavanaugh isn’t on trial just doesn’t understand the process which the Democrats are using to derail his nomination.
When this dog and pony show is concluded, we will probably know just about as much about this incident or non-incident as we do now. People who want Kavanaugh’s nomination derailed will be happy or sad depending on whether he is or isn’t confirmed. People who think this is nothing more than a final unbelievable Hail Mary effort to derail the process will be unpersuaded to the contrary.
What any thinking individual can glean from this circus is that the entire process smells like a fish market which ran out of ice two days prior to our visit.
Have a good week. Bill Shuey is a freelance writer in Murphy, North Carolina.
