Truth, Whole Truth, and Nothing But Truth

I'll get to the point of the title of this post toward the end. But first, let me say that I intend - and sincerely hope - that this is my last post on the topic of the Kavanaugh confirmation debacle. Whether it actually is depends in part on how far the Democrats go in their never-ending refusal to accept outcomes not in their favor. Also, depending on what comes before the Court in the coming years, I may mention Justice Kavanaugh from time to time in the context of his role in key decisions made by the Court. But I hope the sordid and sad process that unfolded over the last several weeks is behind us all.

First, let's get my thoughts on the allegations against Justice Kavanaugh out of the way, once and for all. The simple truth is that none of us will ever know what, if anything, happened to Christine Blasey Ford when she was in high school. Anyone on either side of the issue that claims otherwise is delusional and foolish. We were not there; we do not know.

I don't disbelieve her because I'm some woman-hating chauvinist pig. In a recent post, I clearly stated that my tendency is to initially believe the accuser. I can't necessarily say that I disbelieve her at all. But what I can say, with authority, is that the witnesses to the events of that night whose names she herself provided not only have no recollection of the alleged event, but have no recollection of a party during which it could have happened. The named witness closest to Dr. Ford goes so far as to say she's never met Brett Kavanaugh.

Out of deference to those whose sensibilities I might offend, I won't go so far as to say whether I believe or disbelieve Dr. Ford at all. However, to the extent I might disbelieve her, let's just say that the reasons would be related to the timing of her allegations, the lack of corroborating evidence, her testimony, and her recollection of events.

The FBI investigation was criticized by the left for being incomplete. Chief among the complaints was that the FBI did not interview Dr. Ford's "beach friends" to whom she recounted her story. Let's unpack that.

Let's say that I claim that I was a victim of a crime when I was in high school. My recollection of many of the details surrounding that allegation are unclear, and my testimony regarding what I do recall is fraught with inconsistencies and outright falsehoods (such as the assertion that brain chemistry eliminates the possibility of false identification, which has been refuted in numerous cases and is patently absurd).

However, I do recall several people being present when the alleged incident occurred. The problem is that none of them recalls ever having been present at a time when such an incident could have happened.

So many years later, I tell several friends that this happened to me. The only thing they can corroborate is that I told them that this thing happened.

Given that the contemporaneous witnesses whose names I provided have no recollection of any circumstance under which the alleged incident could have occurred, and my own fuzzy recollection of when, where, how, etc., what's the point of interviewing people that I told my story to some decades later?

Here's an analogy. Someone committed a crime against me when I was in high school. My three best friends were there, and while they didn't witness the event, I allege that they were at the scene of the alleged crime. Yet none of them recalls ever having been all together with all the players I named at any scene where any such crime could have occurred, and one of them - my best friend - claims to have never met the person whom I claim was there, and committed the crime.

So I also say that, decades later, I told several of my new friends that this had happened to me, so many years ago. What can they corroborate? Nothing more than that I told them it happened to me. Given that the people I said were present at the time were unable to corroborate the incident I allege, what good is the testimony of people I told my story to many years later, who didn't even know me when the alleged incident happened? The FBI doesn't have unlimited resources to chase down stories that do nothing to corroborate an alleged incident.

If we are at a point where uncorroborated allegations are accepted as iron-clad evidence, then I wonder why Hillary Clinton hasn't been indicted, and why Barack Obama wasn't disqualified from being President for having not been born in the U.S. Interestingly, liberals had no issue with the rule of law that presumes innocence until proven guilty in those cases. Those same liberals wanted to assume Brett Kavanaugh guilty until proven innocent.

The reason, of course, is two-fold. First, it has to do with sore loser syndrome. Democrats lost the election, but they can't accept that. Since the day Donald Trump won the 2016 election, Dems have been calling for impeachment (on no grounds), alleging collusion with the Russians to steal the election (without a shred of evidence), and clamoring for elimination of the electoral college (which bit them in the butt in 2000 and 2016, but they're the electoral college's biggest fans when it works in their favor).

Then, when Trump nominated not one, but two judges to the Supreme Court, the Dems pulled out every dirty trick in the book, and some that hadn't been written yet, to try to block those appointments. (Remember Spartacus!) To be fair, the GOP also played dirty with the Merrick Garland appointment. That's part of the reason the Dems went low on the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh nominations: tit for tat. The other reason is Roe v. Wade, as I've noted before.

It's interesting to me that all the machinactions of the party of sore losers during the Kavanaugh confirmation process did little to change the outcome. Instead of Judge Kavanaugh being confirmed by a vote of 53-47, which was the likely outcome before Dr. Ford's allegations were leaked by the Democrats, he was confirmed by a vote of 50-48. And that would have been 51-49 had one GOP senator not been walking his daughter down the aisle at the time of the vote, and had a GOP colleague not voted "present" in deference to his doing so.

My final observation regarding those who are inclined to believe the accuser in the absence of any corroborating evidence: it frightens me to think that those people may someday be called to jury duty. God help us all.

On to Feinstein. Her Democrat colleagues rallied around her and said she'd have never leaked Dr. Ford's letter to the media, exposing Dr. Ford's identity against her wishes and subjecting her to the scrutiny and embarrassment she suffered. Even some GOP senators, including Lindsey Graham, stated that they did not believe Feinstein was the leaker.

Fair enough. Let's just say this, since I work in the field of risk management consulting for credit unions. If an employee of my credit union intentionally leaks my personally identifiable information (PII) to a third party who then uses that information to defraud me, the credit union and that person are criminally liable for my losses.

Now, let's say that the credit union and its employees do not intentionally release my PII, but they are careless in safeguarding it, and it's breached. They're still liable for my losses, for reimbursing me for identity theft protection, and they're subject to civil litigation and reputation risk when I light them up on Facebook and in the media for being careless with my information.

Feinstein was given a sacred trust by Dr. Ford, to safeguard her identity. Somehow, that got leaked. No matter how you slice it, Feinstein did not take sufficient care to safeguard Dr. Ford's identity. She did not take sufficient steps to prevent it being leaked, even if she did not leak it herself. (Think about it: Chairman Grassley was able to ensure that the results of the FBI investigation were not leaked.) Therefore, no matter who ultimately leaked the information, Feinstein carelessly let it happen. She is culpable. She is liable. Dr. Ford should sue her for the many millions Feinstein is worth.

Okay. Now that Judge Kavanaugh is Justice Kavanaugh, there's been no small amount of speculation that, if the party of sore losers wins back the majority in the House and the Senate, he'll be impeached.

Poppycock.

First, they'd have to prove him guilty of some impeachable offense. Given the lack of any credible corroborating evidence against him, that's highly unlikely. And impeachment would require a two-thirds majority of the Senate voting for it. Even if the Dems win back the Senate - which they're unlikely to do at this point, having so damaged their own credibility and so mobilized independent and GOP voters against them - there's no way in hell they get a two-thirds majority. Case closed.

Much has also been made (by the left) of what will be Justice Kavanaugh's legacy on the Court. Will this cloud forever hang over his head? Will he be forever tainted by Dr. Ford's allegations?

Let's just say this: no one would have brought up Anita Hill in regard to Justice Thomas this year were it not for Dr. Ford's allegations. This debacle will fade into the dustbin of history just as the debacle surrounding Justice Thomas' confirmation did. And those who think differently, self-righteous as they are, probably couldn't name the rest of the Justices on the Supreme Court, save for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the patron saint of liberal judicial activists and the heroine of those who don't know jack about the law or the Supreme Court. The left will move on to some other hair-on-fire topic by the time the mid-term election results are in.

Now to the question of how Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation may tilt the Court. Note this: not one liberal has ever complained when the Supreme Court was stacked with liberal, activist judges. Not one. No, that's perfectly fine with them. But now that the Court appears to be slanted toward the conservative side, they're all up in arms with cries of, "But the Court is supposed to be balanced and impartial!"

Hypocrites.

And still, they have little to fear. As I noted in a previous post, there's hardly any correlation between the party of the President who nominated a judge to the Supreme Court and the decisions that Justice makes. Justices appointed by Republicans were among the majority in the landmark Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges cases (both of which should never have been decided by the Supreme Court, having been states' rights issues).

So there's no reason to fear that Roe will be overturned. But I hope it is, because it should be; it's a states' rights issue.

Okay, so now let's get to the topic of the title of this post. During, and in the aftermath of the Ford-Kavanaugh hearing, there were many references to "her truth." Sen. Cory "Spartacus" Booker thanked Dr. Ford for speaking "her truth." In the aftermath, I've seen many revelations of "my truth."

Let me break this to you gently: there is no such thing as "your truth," "my truth," "her truth," or "his truth." (Curiously, I've seen no references to "his truth." Is truth in the present environment a strictly feminine attribute? Is today's reverse sexism so complete that truth is the exclusive domain of females? What if I'm a woman, and have gender reassignment surgery to become a man. Do I sacrifice my preeminent domain over truth?)

You may not have been called upon to testify in an arbitration case or a courtroom proceeding, but I have. However, at a minimum, surely you've watched an episode or two of "Law and Order," which in today's devoid-of-education world, makes you an expert.

Have you ever heard a witness in a courtroom proceeding asked, "Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give is your truth, your whole truth, and nothing but your truth, so help you God?"

The answer is absolute: no, you have not. Witnesses, complainants and defendants are sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help they God.

There's a reason for that: there is only the truth. There is not your truth, or my truth. There may be your story, your version of events, your testimony. But there is only one truth, the truth. That is the basis for the rule of law, and it requires corroboration. Period.

************************

Bonus round: Kanye West.

Look, I don't like rap music, so I'll never be a Kanye fan. However, I respect his right to his views as much as I respect Taylor Swift's right to her views. (For the record, while I like some country music, I don't like her stuff either; I have a hard time being a fan of any artist who requires pitch correction.)

And on the topic of Taylor Swift, before we give her too much credit for the tens of thousands of voter registrations that followed her endorsement of a Democrat candidate for office, lets point out that she made that endorsement on the day that registration closed in about 20 states - in other words, those registrations had more to do with a deadline than with Taylor Swift. And that's a good thing; God help us all if the voting public takes its cues from a celebrity.

Don Lemon of CNN chuckled when one of his guests, commenting on Kanye's support of President Trump, said that "this is what happens when Negros don't read." Similarly, Mr. Lemon chuckled when another guest called Kanye the "token Negro of the Trump administration." And Mr. Lemon later called Kanye's meeting with the President "a minstrel show."

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Lemon is the only African-American host of a show on CNN. If, say, Sean Hannity of Fox News called Mr. Lemon the "token Negro of CNN," or called his CNN segment "a minstrel show," he'd be fired, and for good cause. Yet Don Lemon gets a pass from the left, and from his employer.

Even though he's clearly the biggest racist on television today.