Un­for­get­table saga

Houston Chronicle Sunday - - OUTLOOK -

Elu­sive truth

Re­gard­ing “Re­pub­li­cans sig­nal sat­is­fac­tion with FBI re­port” (Na­tion/World, Fri­day): We are cur­rently writ­ing an ugly chap­ter in our na­tional saga. With­out re­gard to whether Judge Brett Ka­vanaugh is seated on the Supreme Court, his nom­i­na­tion and the push­back against it will leave last­ing scars on our po­lit­i­cal and ju­di­cial sys­tems. If left un­re­solved the al­le­ga­tions brought against Ka­vanaugh will cause ir­repara­ble harm to the na­tion.

As it stands now we have his truth, Chris­tine Blasey Ford’s truth but not the truth. Both sides have highly vo­cal sup­port­ers vo­cif­er­ously de­fend­ing what they per­ceive to be the facts but lack­ing ev­i­dence to sup­port their po­si­tions. If our tra­di­tional ap­proach to ju­rispru­dence is to be re­gained and main­tained, this co­nun­drum must be solved.

How­ever, it will not be un­rav­eled by the leg­isla­tive branch of the govern­ment nor in the court of pub­lic opin­ion.

Our only hope for reach­ing the truth lies in the ju­di­cial sys­tem. Each per­son who has sub­mit­ted sworn af­fi­davits or tes­ti­mony in the Ka­vanaugh con­tro­versy must be brought be­fore a grand jury and have their state­ments prop­erly vet­ted.

A seated Jus­tice Ka­vanaugh, if found to be in the wrong, could be im­peached and then brought up on crim­i­nal charges. If oth­ers are found to be guilty of per­jury or other of­fenses they would face what­ever con­se­quences the law dic­tates. Some­one is not be­ing truth­ful and their lies are tear­ing this na­tion apart.

This con­tro­versy can­not be al­lowed to con­tinue. The dan­gers to our coun­try are too real and too grave for this to be swept un­der the rug. Rick Fontes, Waller

Im­pose lim­its

There should be at least one stip­u­la­tion at­tached to the ap­point­ment of Judge Ka­vanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Given his for­mal, in­ju­di­cious … “re­venge on be­half of the Clin­tons” at­tack on Se­nate Democrats in his pre­pared state­ment be­fore the Se­nate Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee, Ka­vanaugh must swear to re­cuse him­self from any and all cases that re­late in any way to Hil­lary or Bill Clin­ton or to any­one for­mally reg­is­tered as a Demo­crat. Bart Busker, Hous­ton

Ironic par­al­lels

Re­gard­ing “Third per­son ac­cuses priest of as­sault” (City/State, Fri­day): Based on the ar­gu­ments be­ing em­ployed to dis­credit the sex­ual mis­con­duct al­le­ga­tions levied against Judge Brett Ka­vanaugh, shouldn’t we also stead­fastly refuse to be­lieve any and all al­le­ga­tions made against al­leged preda­tory priests?

Many of the al­leged sex­ual abuse vic­tims have waited years, if not decades, be­fore com­ing for­ward to tell their sto­ries, ex­actly as Chris­tine Blasey Ford did. And when a priest de­nies the al­le­ga­tions, ex­actly the same as Ka­vanaugh’s de­nial, guilt or in­no­cence boils down to a “he said, she said” sit­u­a­tion.

Also, ac­cord­ing to Pres­i­dent Trump’s ar­gu­ment about the harm these ac­cu­sa­tions do to men ac­cused of sex­ual mis­con­duct, doesn’t the priest have his life and ca­reer ru­ined by the mere men­tion of an al­le­ga­tion? Fear of some­day be­ing ac­cused of sex­ual abuse may de­ter men from en­ter­ing the priest­hood.

There ap­pears to be a dou­ble stan­dard when vic­tims of sex­ual abuse at the hands of preda­tory priests are be­lieved but Ford is not. Michael Swan­son, Hous­ton

Com­pelling only

I am tired of talk­ing heads on TV, in­clud­ing many Re­pub­li­cans, re­fer­ring to Chris­tine Blasey Ford’s tes­ti­mony to the Se­nate Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee as cred­i­ble.

The def­i­ni­tion of cred­i­ble is “of­fer­ing rea­son­able grounds for be­ing be­lieved.”

As we know from the re­cently re­leased FBI sup­ple­men­tal in­ves­ti­ga­tion re­port, there are no such grounds.

Ford’s tes­ti­mony may be com­pelling, but it is not cred­i­ble. Jon El­men­dorf, Hous­ton




Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.