The van­ished ves­tiges of ci­vil­ity

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary - BY CHARLES HURT

Th­ese are lonely times. The whole world, it seems, is talk­ing past each other, not lis­ten­ing. What­ever ves­tiges of ci­vil­ity were left af­ter the 2016 elec­tion have van­ished. Peo­ple are openly judged as trash and liars — en­tirely based on their gen­der.

Which is kind of strange, con­sid­er­ing that gen­der is sup­posed to be so fluid th­ese days. Per­haps the world would calm down if we just all went the way of Bruce Jen­ner.

Though, tech­ni­cally speak­ing, as a species I don’t think the ex­per­i­ment would last for very long. Or maybe that’s the point.

If all men would just be­come women, hu­mans would pre­sum­ably no longer be able to pro­cre­ate. (Ladies, you have not quite ren­dered us use­less yet!) And then hu­mans would die off like the greedy di­nosaurs we are and the planet would be left to the peace­ful, righ­teous and just an­i­mals.

TRIG­GER WARN­ING: If this is what you think you want, do NOT watch footage of wild an­i­mals on the Serengeti. It is sav­age jus­tice where might makes right. It is more ap­palling than Har­vey We­in­stein’s cast­ing couch or for­mer Pres­i­dent Bill Clin­ton’s in­tern pro­gram. It’s even worse than a toga keg party at Yale Law.

We are so bro­ken to­day that every­body says last week’s Se­nate Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee hear­ing fea­tur­ing Judge Brett M. Ka­vanaugh and his ac­cuser did not change a sin­gle mind. That is not true.

My mind was en­tirely changed by the gut-wrench­ing tes­ti­mony of Dr. Chris­tine Blasey Ford.

Go­ing in, I thought she was a ly­ing op­por­tunist who popped up on the scene at the very last minute to de­rail Judge Ka­vanaugh’s nom­i­na­tion to the Supreme Court. By her own ad­mis­sion, the first time she ever ut­tered the man’s name to some­one else was when she thought he might get nom­i­nated to the Supreme Court.

When she spoke, how­ever, I could not help but find her be­liev­able — if a bit daffy.

Then Judge Ka­vanaugh spoke. He was ev­ery bit as con­vinc­ing. Un­der­stand­ably, he was fu­ri­ous over the in­jus­tice of be­ing ac­cused of some­thing he knows he did not do. (De­spite the bab­bling of Democrats on the com­mit­tee, rage against in­jus­tice is a GOOD qual­ity in a judge, not a bad qual­ity.)

So, what do you do when you have two be­liev­able wit­nesses de­scrib­ing starkly dif­fer­ent ver­sions of events from nearly 40 years ago? You look at all the other ev­i­dence.

From the out­set, Judge Ka­vanaugh is at a dis­ad­van­tage since he has to prove a neg­a­tive. Even worse, the ac­cu­sa­tion against him doesn’t even come with a date or a lo­ca­tion.

Still, Judge Ka­vanaugh comes off as a bet­ter wit­ness be­cause Dr. Ford’s tes­ti­mony — as earnest as it seemed — is rid­dled with holes and sad­dled with in­con­sis­ten­cies. Even worse, Dr. Ford’s story has al­tered over time.

Who was there? Where? How many peo­ple? Was the guy she was “go­ing out with” at the time there or not?

And then there are the tricks of me­mory. Surely, trau­matic in­ci­dents burn more deeply. But this is a per­son who could not even an­swer who is pay­ing her le­gal bills.

And we are ex­pected to trust her pre­cise me­mory from 36 years ago and use that me­mory to ut­terly de­stroy a man who has spent his en­tire adult life build­ing an im­pres­sive ca­reer and im­pec­ca­ble rep­u­ta­tion?

At the very, very, very least, we should sum­mon the spirit of the late Se­nate Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee Chair­man Arlen Specter, who fa­mously in­voked Scot­tish Law to find im­peach­ment charges against ex-Pres­i­dent Bill Clin­ton “not proven.”

Only this time, the ver­dict would ac­tu­ally fit. Con­tact Charles Hurt at [email protected]­ing­ton­times.com or on Twit­ter @charleshur­t.

AS­SO­CI­ATED PRESS

Chris­tine Blasey Ford

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.