It’s not as if there’s so much to teach in crim law at Yale that you need all those classes, right?
Of course, there may be some students who prefer to receive the education they paid for, but perhaps they don’t yet realize that people will die and that they ought to “otherwise engage” in a hearing. To do otherwise would make them complicit, right? Continue reading
In fairness, Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyer, Debra Katz, deserves applause. She’s got the guts to push, despite her only leverage being the thin thread of empty rhetoric about bullying a “sexual assault survivor” by giving her client, a grossly belated witness, the opportunity to testify she requested. Impressive.
Iowa senator and chair of the Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, however, made himself into the butt of an old joke by extending, for the fifth time, the deadline for Ford to make her call.
Churchill: “Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?”
Socialite: “My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course… ”
Churchill: “Would you sleep with me for five pounds?”
Socialite: “Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!”
Churchill: “Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.”–Winston S. Churchill (or not)
The nature of discussion surrounding the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford has been on an odd trajectory, and with all due credit to her lawyers, her supporters and the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, they’ve managed to pull off a miracle. The problem, you see, is that Ford is a witness. She’s a witness who refused to come forward when the time was right to do something, if there was something to be done. And now, we’re discussing the reasonableness of her demands.
Since when do witnesses get to make demands?
Then, when Blasey and her lawyers balked at Republican terms — asking, entirely reasonably, that the F.B.I. first examine her story — Republicans acted as if she was being irrational and going back on her word.
Most of us don’t spend much effort thinking about something we wrote a dozen years ago which, in the light of day, was wrong. But then, Radley Balko, to his enormous credit, isn’t most of us.
About 12 years ago, I wrote my first piece of investigative journalism. It was for Reason, about the case of Cory Maye. I’m proud of my work in that case, but one line in my story has increasingly irked me in the years since. It’s this one:
But for the fact that DNA evidence has proven, conclusively, that things too obvious for dispute are false, the testimony of an eyewitness would remain the gold standard. The witness would get misty-eyed, turn to the defense table as the jurors watched with bated breath, point her finger and exclaim, “I can never forget that face. It was him!” There would be gasps. Conviction was certain.
Except we’ve learned from voluminous empirical studies, from post-conviction DNA tests, from sad meeting of putative crime victims and the innocent guy who sat in prison for decades because she was certain he was the one when he wasn’t, that eyewitnesses are so very certain of their beliefs, and so very wrong. There is no evidence more damaging, because of its strength and unreliability, as eyewitness identifications.
And now, in this freakish moment when it serves the cause to rehabilitate eyewitness IDs after years, decades of effort to end our adoration of bad evidence, the evidence responsible for so many wrongful convictions is once again beloved. The New York Times brings us the new darling of evidence, the memories of the sexual assault victim. Continue reading
Maybe it was taken for granted that appointment to the Supreme Court would be the crowning glory on a distinguished legal career, such that the youthful age of a nominee wouldn’t be gamed to seize control for too many decades. Maybe it was the expectation that these geezers wouldn’t live that long anyway. But regardless, life tenure was the choice made in the Constitution for Supreme Court justices.
Is this the source of our current insanity, doing anything and everything to undermine the integrity of nominees to the Court because they’re there for life?
No other major democracy has lifetime appointments to its highest court. Only the United States does, and it creates all kinds of problems.
Senator Dianne Feinstein didn’t demand a hearing to air Christine Blasey Ford’s significantly belated accusations. She demanded an F.B.I. investigation instead, which would not only serve to delay the confirmation vote for Brett Kavanaugh, perhaps until after the midterm elections when the Democrats could possibly gain a majority in the Senate and pull off a Merrick Garland of their own, but offered the best possibility of making something real out of claims that were not going to stick.
After all, if the FBI came up empty, then the Dems were no worse off than they are now. And if they managed to find some additional corroboration, some witness, someone willing to leap into the fray and say something to add to the mix, they were ahead of the game. But Senate Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley wasn’t having it, although he did, with pressure from his side, agree to hold a hearing to air Ford’s allegations. And Ford’s attorney said she would testify. Until she didn’t.
The letter from Ford’s lawyer to Grassley calls for a “full” FBI investigation, as if it’s a witnesses place to call for anything from the Committee. It then rolls blithely through the regular litany of excuses and rationalizations that have become de rigueur with the #MeToo crowd, carefully crafted to overcome all normal expectations of witnesses, in general, and purported sexual assault “victims,” in particular. The word “purported,” and the quotes around “victim,” are used very deliberately: claiming victimhood isn’t being victim. Believe the facts, not the “victim.” Continue reading
Giving University of Michigan associate professor of American culture (whatever that means) John Cheney-Lippold the benefit of the doubt, he is a sincere believer in the BDS movement. He’s allowed, no matter how simplistic the notion may be that the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians can be reduced to good v. evil. Nobody ever said that being an academic precluded a person from being dumb.
But when his belief crossed into the world of his student, was this a fair expression of his academic freedom or a denial of hers?
Perhaps based on my questionable advice, the Senate Judiciary Committee will reopen the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing to take additional testimony from Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh. Whether they will take the next step and have examination conducted by competent counsel rather than blathering senators is unknown, but if ignored, will likely turn this into an astoundingly absurd and pointless spectacle, worse even than the hearing held thus far.
In advance of the hearing, wacky rumors, arguments and insinuations are flying. Kavanaugh has denied that it happened, without equivocation. Some Republican senators are questioning whether it would matter in any event, which is being taken as a double-edged conspiracy gambit to cover Kavanaugh in the event his denial fails to save the day. And, indeed, it appears that progressive forces are determined to undermine the validity of any denial.
Judge Kavanaugh has flatly denied any wrongdoing. “I did not do this back in high school or at any time,” he said in a statement. Continue reading
When it was nothing more than the anonymous taint of a 35-year-old claim of sexual abuse, entirely unmentioned until after hearings were concluded and only raised by the beleaguered Senator Dianne Feinstein in a “secret” letter to the FBI unceremoniously leaked to the public, it was a desperation tactic, unworthy of anything more than a blanket denial. After all, if it was real, if there was anything worthy of the Senate’s or public’s attention, Feinstein’s failure to mention it before would have been outrageous.
Would the senator who failed to get the endorsement of her own party neglect to mention that a nominee to the life-tenured post on the Supreme Court tried to rape a woman in high school? Would she say nothing that he lied to the Judiciary Committee?
Feinstein’s claim was that she sought to respect the accuser’s desire for anonymity. After all, isn’t that more important than vetting a Supreme Court nominee, particularly after the efforts to falsely smear him with vapid cries of perjury? The Dems were beyond desperate to find some way to derail this nomination. Desperate people do desperate things. Continue reading
