Thursday's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee marked a historic moment in our nation's evolution over the past three decades. In 1987, when confronted with uncomfortable allegations that a prominent judicial figure had engaged in repeated acts of sexual harassment, an all-male Senate Judiciary Committee sided with the man and dismissed the woman's allegations against now-Justice Clarence Thomas.
Christine Blasey Ford bravely came forth Thursday with credible and lucid recollections of a sexual assault she said was committed by now-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. The U.S. Senate must not repeat the injustice of 1987. As much as President Donald Trump wants to dismiss Ford's testimony as a Democratic "con game," it was impossible to watch her emotion-filled appearance Thursday and shrug it off as a cheap political ploy to defame a good man.
This woman, at age 15, underwent a life-altering sexual assault in which, she says, Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge engaged in "uproarious laughter" at her expense — "two friends having a really good time with one another" while Kavanaugh allegedly smothered and groped her. Some might wave the experience off as boyhood antics, but consider the lasting damage that the assailant inflicted on her.
The memory was "indelible," Ford said. She spent years, if not decades, recovering emotionally and trying to put her own life back on track. Who knows to what heights life might have taken her had this nightmare not happened.
Kavanaugh, who came from a privileged and protected background, boozed and breezed through his college and law school years, a path that led him to become one of the nation's most respected jurists. His life stayed firmly on track. Kavanaugh has held fast to his denial of her allegations.
On Thursday, he tearfully and emphatically proclaimed his innocence.
One of them is lying.
Ford took a polygraph test and passed it. Perhaps Kavanaugh should as well.
Ford was clearly nervous and trying to choke back tears during her testimony, but her GOP questioner, Rachel Mitchell, failed to poke significant holes in her narrative. It was authentic and convincing enough for the Senate at least to put this confirmation process on hold pending a more extensive investigation. Two other women have vivid descriptions of Kavanaugh's allegedly drunken escapades and sexual misbehavior.
Kavanaugh concedes only that he was "no angel" during the period in question. People who knew him say he drank heavily and became aggressive when drunk.
Should his reputation and entire judicial future ride on a rushed, partisan decision by a deeply divided Senate? Or would it serve everyone's best interests, especially Kavanaugh's and Ford's, to slow down and investigate the allegations more thoroughly?
Considering the extremely high stakes, the only reasonable option is to assign this case to the FBI and delay a confirmation action until clearer answers surface.
REPRINTED FROM THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
View Comments