Judge Brett Kavanaugh has a clean background — a point which is most troubling for the Democrats, who are trying to make a case from Christine Blasey Ford’s dotted, foggy memories that his supposed sexual assaulting past ought to halt his Supreme Court nomination in its path.
Their problem is: The allegations don’t match. Logically speaking, the type of sexual seediness Ford is alleging doesn’t match up against a lifetime of Kavanaugh clean.
This is not to say that reputable men can’t commit heinous sexual crimes.
But it is to say they usually leave a trail. It’s not just one assault — and then, 36 years of nothing. They usually leave a trail of sexually assaulted victims or, at the very least, a trail of complaints and allegations of sexual assaults, harassments and crimes.
Time magazine ran a cover story in May that queried just that, in its headline: “Can Bad Men Change? What It’s Like Inside Sex Offender Therapy.”
The writer of the piece went inside a session of court-ordered sex offender therapy, attended by eight men — one convicted for molesting his stepdaughter, another for exposing himself to 100-plus women, another for statutory rape, yet another for engaging in improper online chats. And included in the story was this line: “[T]herapy — when paired with tough parole restrictions — can significantly reduce the chance of reoffending, according to the American Psychological Association.”
That means the untreated, unpunished male sex offender will more than likely repeat his sex offense.
That means Kavanaugh, who’s never — at least, not that it’s publicly known — undergone therapy for the type of sex assault he’s been alleged of committing, should have scores of other victims. Statistically speaking, that is. Psychologically speaking.
John Conyers had several sexual harassment allegations leveled against him, leading to his resignation from the House in December. Same for Bob Filner, before he was forced to resign his mayoral seat in San Diego in 2013 amid numerous allegations of sexual harassment. Same for Dan Schoen, a former member of the Minnesota State Senate — he resigned in December after three women, including a fellow state legislator, accused him of sexual harassment. Same for Anthony Weiner, the legislative apple of the Democrat Party’s eye — before he was forced to resign his House seat and abandon his mayoral bid for New York City on the heels of numerous sexting issues involving several females, including a teenage girl.
The list could go on — and actually, it could jump to the Republican Party, as well. But the overall point is this: Those who commit crimes, particularly sex-related crimes, don’t generally commit their crimes in a bubble.
They don’t generally commit one offense and move on, completely rehabilitated, never to do sexually wrong to another again.
They leave a trail. They have a past. They offend, then re-offend. They may hide it for a while, but in the end, their records speak volumes.
Where’s Kavanaugh’s past? His proven past, that is. His proven, documented, police-record criminal past, not just the one that’s appeared over the span of a few weeks, at the help of the Democratic Party.
It wasn’t until his Supreme Court nomination that Ford’s allegation came to light, followed in short succession by one from Deborah Ramirez, alleging the nominee of exposing himself to her at Yale University, and another from Julie Swetnick, accusing Kavanaugh of improper sexual misconduct at parties at Georgetown Preparatory School.
All three women have testimonies that are problematic.
But even a cursory look at the situation — the allegations, largely unproven she-said finger-points; the realities of the political designs of the Democrats; the utter lack of evidence; the supporting letters and statements from men and women alike for Kavanaugh; and, of course, the unchanging denials of wrong-doing from the nominee himself — reveals illogical inconsistencies.
If Kavanaugh were indeed guilty of what he’s accused, wouldn’t there be some trail of sex-tied crimes in his past?
Wouldn’t his previous FBI background checks and professional and career vetting have come up with something — something? Anything at all? Complaints, at least? This is the guy who helped write the Ken Starr report, for goodness sake. He’s been around, very publicly, for a very long time.
The curious lack of sexual assault-tied allegations, arrests, prosecutions and criminal histories of Kavanaugh’s background — his decades of professional work in the public eye — is a troubling asterisk on what’s now being slung his way, courtesy of Ford, courtesy of the left.
Truly, Democrats ought to tread lightly. So, too, do Kavanaugh’s accusers.
There’s a fine legal line between seeking the truth and slander. And absent evidence, absent any proof — absent any grounds to show Kavanaugh is a sexual criminal, as alleged — the “what goes around, comes around” moment that may come, maybe sooner than later, may not be so comfortable for the most dug-in of the accusers.
It’s one thing to want the truth. It’s another, both morally and legally, to trample, shred, destroy and toss in the trash the reputation of a man and his family in the process — particularly if nothing crops up to justify the trashing.
• Cheryl Chumley can be reached at email@example.com or on Twitter, @ckchumley.