McCarthyism': Dershowitz Says Dems Set 'Terrible Precedent' With Kavanaugh Allegations
"This kind of sexual McCarthyism is a terrible, terrible precedent," said Dershowitz, arguing that sexual assault claims should be taken
seriously but a witness possibly making up a statement "out of whole cloth" must also be taken seriously.
Dershowitz was referring to reports that Leland Ingham Keyser told FBI investigators she was urged to clarify her statement by Monica McLean, a former
FBI agent and friend of Christine Blasey Ford.
Ford said Keyser was at the party where she alleges Kavanaugh attacked her in a bedroom, but Keyser told the Senate Judiciary Committee she doesn't
know Kavanaugh and had no recollection of being at a party with him.
IMO, for the majority of Kavanaugh supporters, this is the primary reason. I know for me, it was that she had no supporting evidence from anyone but
herself that this event happened, and that Brett Kavanaugh was the perpetrator. I don't put blind belief into anything in my life. When it comes to
criminal charges of any kind, I actually believe in innocent until proven guilty regardless of the venue (i.e. trial vs "job interview"). I'll explain
In a job interview, as a hiring manager (which I have been in the past) I would not accept any baseless accusations of a derogatory nature about the
candidate unless there was actual proof from more than a single person making the claim. See, that is what references are for as part of that process.
Granted, a list of references coming from the candidate will always be the best they can provide, it is within the interviewers realm to decide if the
reference is telling the truth based upon the questioning that is done.
In the Kavanaugh case, the references he provided all were glowing praise for him (not a surprise). However, the references provided by his accuser,
Dr. Ford, to a person did NOT agree with her accusation. Her "best friend" at the time of the alleged event even mentioned in her sworn statement that
she never even met Kavanaugh at all. That statement (which the MSM usually fails to include in their reporting) means this event, in her opinion did
not happen since she has never met him.
Is it plausible that Dr. Ford mistook her attacker?
Is it plausible that her memory is faulty, considering many of the other details were also vague or non-existent?
The only thing Dr. Ford stated in her testimony that was "indelible in her hippocampus" was the laughing.....NOT the face. Even though she testified
that she was 100% sure it was him. Really, not indelibly burned into your hippocampus?
I do not believe we should live our lives blindly believing anything from anyone without getting both sides of a claim and getting all the actual
facts. Emotion is great in it's place, but IMO it's place is not in judgement of legal matters.
I agree with Mr. Dershowitz here that if we do go down this route, we are making a grave decision for our future....in every aspect of our lives.
edit on 10/5/2018 by Krakatoa because: fixed spelling errors