The question that the one-week delay for yet another investigation of whether Brett Kavanaugh is a serial sex offender is what happens if nothing is found. Let’s go back over what we know and what we can conclude.
We know that the Democrats are trying to advance an argument that Kavanaugh enjoyed drinking beer so much that he committed the act that Christine Ford has charged him with. The question then becomes will the FBI find other examples of Kavanaugh’s engaging in anti-social behavior as a result of having too much to drink AND what happens if they do not find any such record?
There is a presumption, which I think is based on well-establish psychological principle, that people who commit anti-social behavior don’t do it once in their lives and then stop. Sex offenders, in particular, are known to escalate the seriousness of their behavior if not stopped by some form of intervention. Initially it might be exposure, but then it can move on to physical contact and eventually to rape.
Unless the FBI finds at least one other such incident in Kavanaugh’s past, the likelihood that he did what Ford charges him with is vastly reduced. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen; but the chances are extremely slim. It would also raise the question for those who believe Ford: You think he’s guilty of attacking Ford. Okay, but does your attitude towards his qualification to serve on the court change if it was his one and only such incident or are you willing to destroy his career over something that happened one time when he was a teen-ager?
Right now the weight of testimony from people who knew Kavanaugh in high school and at Yale is overwhelmingly in his favor. For people who do not listen to Rush Limbaugh, here’s the transcript of a call from a woman who was a classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale from 1983-1987:
RUSH: Jenny in Wyoming. Welcome. I’m glad you called.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks for all you do.
RUSH: Thank you. Thank you very much.
CALLER: So I thought it was important that I call in because just by coincidence I was at Yale the same year as Brett Kavanaugh, and I was even in the same residential college that he was a member of —
RUSH: What year are we talking about here?
CALLER: So from 1983 through 1987.
RUSH: And you were in the same residential college?
CALLER: Yes. So that —
RUSH: What does that mean for us dropouts? What is a residential college?
CALLER: (chuckles) They assign people to colleges. There’s twelve colleges at Yale, or now there’s one more. At the time there were twelve, and there’s about 120 at each college and it just subdivides the grouping of the students so that they know each other more closely. They live in the same dormitories —
RUSH: Okay, residential. It’s where you live. Okay. I just wanted to make sure.
CALLER: Yeah. They get to know each other fairly well.
RUSH: Right. Okay.
CALLER: So if I had to describe Brett Kavanaugh that I knew from 1983 through 1987, I would describe him with one word as “kind.” He is kind, he is gentle, he was gracious, he was thoughtful. He was never somebody I would ever think of as a quote “partier.” He was a good man, and I’m just offended that all of this coming out. I don’t associate that at all with the person that I knew.
RUSH: Were you afraid of him?
CALLER: He was very soft-spoken, very, very thoughtful.
RUSH: Were you ever afraid of him?
CALLER: Never. Never! He was gentle. A sweetheart.
RUSH: Well, how…? You had to know him pretty well, I mean, to make a judgment that he was gentle and a sweetheart. You wouldn’t say that about somebody you would see walking on the quadrangle. I mean, you’d have to know them a little bit.
CALLER: Right. No, we weren’t close friends or besties or anything like that. You know, he was just another person in this group of 120 that all kind of know each other. You’re the in dining hall together and —
RUSH: Let me ask you this. Okay, 120 people. Were any of them, as you recall…? Was there any scuttlebutt, reputation, winks and nods, whispers, “Be careful of this Kavanaugh guy? The guy, he’s a snaky, sneaky, looks like this. But don’t be in a room alone with him”? Was there ever anything like that?
CALLER: Absolutely not. And if there had been, I would have known because it was a small group of people. No! He was just a normal, nice guy.
RUSH: So all of this that you’re hearing about him, it has to sound like nothing you experienced or knew. It has to sound strange and almost incomprehensible?
CALLER: Exactly. I even had two reporters contact me. The Huffington Post called me yesterday and it’s so strange ’cause I live in Wyoming out in the middle of nowhere and reporters do not usually call me of all people. (giggling)
CALLER: They’re trying to get dirt on him. I’ve had this happen once over the summer, and the person who called — the reporter — in the middle of the summer, when I wasn’t able to give her any dirt, she started to lead me, just like leading the witness. She started suggesting terrible things that I should say about him, and when I wasn’t able to do that she started leading me down the road. “Can I say anything negative about the groups that he participated in, you know, the clubs that he was a part of while he was at Yale?” Again, I wouldn’t say anything negative about them as well. I didn’t have anything negative to say but he was really offended. The reporters are calling me, of all people, to get negative things to come up with, and it really makes me suspicious that these women who are coming forward have had something similar to them done to them as well, that somebody’s leading them and spurring them on and urging them.
RUSH: You said you had a call from the Huffing and Puffington Post yesterday?
CALLER: I did.
Brett Kavanaugh must either be the most extraordinary leopard––capable of changing his personality, or Christine Ford must be mistaken in terms of what happened or who was involved. I cannot see any other way to explain the evidence provided by people like his Yale classmate.
This woman’s testimony, by the way, puts to bed the Ramarez women’s story which was already suspect since the NY Times could not find any corroborating evidence for and was unwilling to publish when it first became public.
Time will tell, but let’s focus on one more point. What if the investigation does NOT turn up anything that corroborates Christine Ford? Will the Democrats throw in the towel and allow a vote without trying to brow-beat Senator Flake or others, or will they fight for another delay? If the latter, how can we not conclude that the handling of this entire matter from the moment Ford’s letter arrived in Diane Feinstein’s office to this week’s vote to delay was politically motivated and had little if anything to do with their supposed support for the “survivor?”