Trump has One of the Writers on His Side

  President Trump has been widely ridiculed for suggesting the Fourteenth Amendment does not grant birthright citizenship. He shouldn't be. Disagreed with, yes; Ridiculed, no.
    One of the writers of the amendment agreed with him.
    Jacob M. Howard, arguing for inclusion of the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," said the Fourteen Amendment, "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."
   There you have it: According to Howard, those getting citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States . . . who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of (such people)."
   It appears clear that Howard, in getting the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," inserted into the amendment intended the law to do exactly what Trump wants it to do: Exclude children born here of "alien" parents.
   You may argue that if you read the amendment, no, it doesn't exclude birthright citizenship (and I will), but you should not believe Trump does not have a good argument. With no less than one of those who helped draft the amendment on his side, Trump's belief holds substance. Disagree with him -- though we may -- we should acknowledge Trump's argument has basis. The weight of Howard's words will have to be taken in the balance if this ever goes to court. (And, it most likely will.)
  I will add this, however: That one of those on the committee for the Fourteenth Amendment felt this way, does not mean they all did. Others might have felt differently, but allowed the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," to be included because they did not feel they achieved what Howard was intending. And, even if the others did agree with Howard, if the words say one thing, that is what they say, regardless of what you intended. If you wanted birthright citizenship, you should have used words that parrot those that Howard used in his speech. Just come out and say it, perhaps the wording being,  "Citizenship is not automatically extended to those born in the United States to parents who are not citizens themselves."
   Say what you mean, if you want it to mean what you mean.

(Note: Edited 11/1/18)

In the NFL National Anthem Controversy, it's Shoot the Messenger

   Here is the message: Blacks are being subjected to an inordinate amount of police violence. And, who are the messengers? Answer: Colin Kaepernick and the NFL kneelers.

   Shoot the messenger? You might argue that it is justified. You might argue that not standing for the National Anthem is a separate issue of its own. But, still, the messenger is being shot. And, in more ways than one. Not only are the kneelers attacked for not standing, people question why they don't give more to civic causes, and accuse them of only doing this when they are in the public spotlight. Kaepernick is pretty much accused of being a communist.

   Shoot the messenger? There is no doubt that is what is going on.

Society Teaches its Own, and then it Fails to See its Work

   These words are traceable. We can see the similarity in them in things we, ourselves, have said.
   "All these Jews need to die."
   Take Robert Bowers words and wonder where he learned to think that way. Wonder if society had any influence on him. Wonder if words of our own have any similarity.
   Do we ever suggest that if someone invades our home, they need to die, or deserve to die? Do we have former spouses who we see as so evil that we wish they would die? Our words echo in the hearts of others. The hatred we espouse may seem to fall harmless from our lips, but if those words teach others that killing can be okay -- even right if the person being killed "deserves" it -- then we are spreading the illness that killing can be justified depending on who you are killing.
   Our cough becomes their cold, or vice versa.
   So, I open my morning paper today, and see those words, "All these Jews need to die," and I see them as evidence. If you were a detective on the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting case, and you wanted to know what brought Robert Gregory Bowers to do what he did, this would be evidence.
  Guns are used to kill. But, the gun has to be brought out, loaded, and the trigger pulled before anyone is killed. They don't act on their own. Just so, the laws of cause and effect are at play in humans. There are things that bring us to do what we do. If we would study why we have so much violence in America, we would trace back words such as, "All these Jews need to die" to where they come from. We would try to learn who taught the shooter to think like that.
   Society teaches its own. And, then it can't understand where all the Robert Bowers come from.

Those Who Disagree with Me are Also Christians, and Wonderful Ones

  I pause tonight, to consider what I said last night -- that we once practiced the Christian principle of helping others, and that if the Honduran migrants were suffering from poverty and criminal affliction, we would have been appalled at laws preventing us from helping them, laws that locked them out. We would have quickly changed our laws, and welcomed them in with open arms.
  Back in the day, you helped those in need. That was part of who we were, as a nation.
  Here is what I want to say tonight. Here is what I want to make clear: There are beautiful people, wonderful Christians, who disagree with me. I am not saying those who disagree with me are not Christian.
   But, yes, I do believe helping the migrants is the Christian thing to do. Let us disagree on it, but I do so believe it.

If we speak of immigration, do the principles of party mean more than those of the good book?

   Have we lost the notion that if someone needs help, you help them? Once, would we have looked at the immigrants from Honduras, observed their poverty and their afflictions at the hands of a criminal society, and said, "Of course we will let you in"?
   Do the words of the hymn no longer apply? Are they good to be sung, but not to be lived? Is there some reason they are no longer applicable? To think that words of the hymn speak of the immigrant . . . is that just a little too much?
      "I cannot see another's lack and I not share;
    "My glowing fire, my loaf of bread,
      "My roof's safe shelter overhead
    "That he too may be comforted."
   Has our world changed? Was there a time we would have let these immigrants in, welcoming them with open arms, anxious to be of help . . . ?
   But, has that day had its end? Have we changed? Is the world different? Has that part of the goodness of humanity been abandoned? Are political expediencies more important than humanity? Do the principles of a political party override the principles of the good book?
   Perhaps there was a day when if we had heard it was illegal for them to come, we would have been appalled. Perhaps there was a day when we would have said, "Well, that's nonsense," and would have changed that law in a hurry. Right was right, back in the day. And, to say you could not help another person was just a little too odd.
   Or, is it just that there are too many MS-13s among them? Or, too many terrorists? Is it that they would flood the gates of our welfare system? Is it that they refuse to speak English? What are the reasons we are finding for not helping them? Is it because they are rapists and murderers and criminals? Or, is it that they don't build our economy -- they send all their money back home to their families?
   Are we so hung up on rule of law that we do not have room for charity?
   We have been considered a Christian nation, one built on Christian principles. And, even those who are not Christian among us -- even the atheists (wonderful people) -- they can see the difference between right and wrong. I do not know but what more atheists advocate for the immigrant than do the Christians.
    What has become of us? Where is our moral compass? Have we lost it? The principles of being a Christian -- they have not changed. If you see a neighbor in need, you do not turn him away at your door, crying that he is invading your space.
   If you can help him, you help him. That is what we once were all about. If we would return to the day when America was great -- if we would make America great again -- this would be part of that.

If we have lost the art of loving in our nation, we must reap the fruits of violence.

   In our words, there are echos. They bounce around in the minds of those who process them.
   And, not always with the desired effect.
   I think of the attacks on President Trump, and how he is accused of fomenting Cesar Sayoc to violence. Now, I retract from the thought of laying the president to blame for Cesar Sayoc. I do think that too much of a blame game.
   But, the same, I think we should be mindful that all we say has consequence. And, that if we speak of violence, it can spawn violence. And, that if we even so much as utter words of hate, it can lead to violence. Words that inflame, can inflame to violence. Any hateful word, or any intolerant word can prompt someone to violence.
   That might not be what we intend, but it is what we reap, the same.
   So, all the hateful things Trump has been known to say? And, what of all the hateful things uttered by us, on both sides of this Republican/Democrat divide? What of such seemingly innocent words, calling people out for being "stupid"?
   Do not they incite? Do not they inflame? Do not they stir us to anger one against another? And, when you have fomented hatred, you have fomented violence.
   Rather than looking at President Trump, we should look at ourselves. Few of us there are who are not castigating, deriding and tearing at those on the opposite side of the political aisle.
   If we would have less public violence -- fewer shootings, and fewer mass murders  -- one thing to do would be to be civil in all we say. Words of hate stir up feelings of hate. They breed hate. And, those infected by the hatred become more inclined to violence.
   And -- mind this -- the target of our words is not always the one who ends up being hated by our listener. We may be ill-mannered towards one person, and our listener ends up being ill-mannered toward another. If we say all Democrats are stupid, it brings a feeling of hatred into a person's heart, and that feeling of hatred can be transferred to other targets.
   In other words, hatred can be non-directional. Once you have created it, you cannot control it -- it goes the direction it will.
   If we have lost the art of loving in our nation, we will reap the fruits of violence. And, so it is, we stand where we stand.

Was Cesar Sayoc but Practicing His First Amendment Rights?

On Facebook, someone writes, in a comment on the dummy mail bombings: "I support these so called American terrorists. They are embracing the exact same mentality and patriotic fervor which motivated our founding fathers toward ACTION." 

  I reply:

"I have some reservations that I am still thinking on, Heather Sidwell, but I do consider on what you say. I read how Cesar Sayoc did not want to kill anyone, did not want to hurt anyone. I think that wonderful of him. We cannot doubt him, for none of the devices were made to actually explode. So, is he so different from our nation's founders, who, as you note, 'dumped something like 340 crates of tea into the Boston harbor and threatened the British Magistrate and his soldiers with life and limb . . . ?'

"There can be an argument that Sayoc was but expressing himself in accordance with his First Amendment rights. If no violence was intended, nor possible, do we say he was but practicing his free speech rights? And, that if you shut him down or prosecute him, you shut down and prosecute his First Amendment rights?

Next Time a Threat is Made, Let's Dispatch a 'Parent' and Friend

   What can be done, when even a hint of possible violence in someone is suspected? What of the hints Lauren McCluskey was in trouble? What of the times a mass murderer has shown his hand, only for the police to do nothing?
   I wonder if we should try a little different approach: Dispatch someone to talk to the potential offender. And, treat it as an emergency. As soon as we hear of a potential danger,  we dispatch a person to talk to the suspect. I start to say, dispatch a friend, not an officer, for whoever goes out to talk to the potential assailant should go as a friend. Forgive, but I believe love is the answer to most all the world's problems, and you must love a person into doing what's right, if you really want to influence them.
   But, I suppose a police officer can be that friend. But, if this is to happen, we could use more mild-mannered officers ahead of those who only know how to bark and yell.
   I think often on the thought, Nothing taught is nothing learned. If you don't teach something, you should less expect someone to follow it. If a person is considering committing a crime -- perhaps thinking of killing someone -- they should be encouraged not to do it. They should be reasoned with, loved, and persuaded into dropping their plans.
   If a parent heard a child was about to do something wrong, wouldn't the parent step in to stop it? Even if it were a fully grown child, the parent would plea with the child not to do it. This is Parenting 101. Let's take what works in the home and use it. Let's let the home be a model for us.
  So, when a call comes in -- when there's even a hint that someone might be plotting to do something wrong -- dispatch a friend, dispatch someone to play the role of a parent, dispatch someone to teach.
   For where nothing is taught, nothing is learned. 
 

This, too, is Unity -- Loving Those You Disagree With

   There are calls for unity in our land, and of course I believe unity would be a wonderful thing. Some of these calls, though, suggest we should put behind us such things as the Kavanaugh dispute, and put behind us the take-a-knee controversy, and quit finding fault with President Trump.
  I'm going to edit it a little, but I share what I replied to one such poster. She is a wonderful person and I am glad to have been able to discuss this with her. I was speaking of the Kavanaugh affair when she suggested we forget about it and move on, as our nation needs to be united.  I replied (with slight changes):
   Bless you, Gloria. Peace is a good thing. Unity is a good thing. I wonder if there can be unity even when we disagree, for there will always be things Americans disagree on. We can love each other, and be united as one by listening to each other, and by tolerating each other's opinions, and by understanding each other's viewpoints. This, too, is unity. I would that we occasionally praised the other person for their opinions, even though those opinions might be at odds with our own. Instead of getting angry with the other person for having a viewpoint that doesn't match our own, it would be wonderful if we remained pleasant in our relations and warm with each other during our discussions.

Why are We not Calling for the Release of Khashoggi's Son?

   Jamal Khashoggi's son, Salah Khashoggi -- his family and friends are saying he is being banned from leaving Saudi Arabia. Should we not be calling for his release and freedom?
   I think of Josh Holt, the Utahn who was imprisoned in Venezuela, and all the diplomatic calls for his release. He was an American citizen, and that is what you do if you are his senator or president: You use your power to free him.
   Salah is an American citizen. He has dual citizenship. Now, I have not read all the news, but I have not heard of President Trump or any member of Congress calling for his freedom.
   Why not? If we are looking for appropriate actions to take against Saudi Arabia, surely a call for the release of Salah Khashoggi should be the minimal thing we do.

(Note made Oct. 26: On Thursday, Oct. 25, it was reported Salah and his family were allowed to leave Saudi Arabia. At that time, a State Department spokesperson said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made it clear he wanted Salah to return to the United States. While his immediate family were also allowed to leave Saudi Arabia, the article I read did not discuss whether other family members -- such as Jamal Khashoggi's brother, were allowed to leave.)

It is ourselves who are poisoned when we seek 

to poison the reputations of others 

  The weakness of our souls is often uncovered by our choice of enemies. Who we choose to make enemies out of reflects on who we are.
   If we are fault-finders of those who are good, it speaks not well of us. If we search out their faults, and brandish them to the world, and speak evil of those who are good, it is we who are in the wrong.
    And, I wonder if this truth isn't at play in what we are seeing south of the border, in Mexico, as thousands of migrants trek this way. Are we wrongfully judging them? Are we taking good people and wrongfully speaking evil of them? Gossip, they say, is a terrible thing. But does it suddenly become okay when it is not the neighbor next door we are backstabbing, but just a people we are reading about in the newspapers?
   Should not our public ethics be as great as our private?
   I would think we are no more justified in bearing false witness against these migrants who are on the public stage than we are in falsely accusing our neighbors two blocks from our home. Harm is done by a lie that spreads, whether it damages the reputation of a neighbor or whether it sullies the good name of those coming this way in a wave of humanity from Central America.
   Harm is done.
   Seven thousand people? There may be some of them who are not at good as the others. But, this people -- come as they may in fleeing poverty and crime -- do we take them as our enemies? This people -- many of them joining in prayer circles in the mornings and some clutching to their Bibles -- do we see in them an enemy?
   It is a weakness our own souls, then, that is unveiled when we falsely accuse immigrants. If we choose enemies of those who are good, we are the enemies of our own souls. For our distrust of those who are good will bring shreds of anger into our hearts, and lead us to falsely judge, and we will canker our souls. It is ourselves who are poisoned when we seek to poison the reputations of others. This remains a truth whether we are in the public arena or in our homes.

(Edited 10/25/18)

Trump Failure on Khashoggi: Can We not See this is Wrong?

 So, we have revoked the entry visas of the Saudis linked to the torture and killing of Jamal Khashoggi? This does nothing to the thought that we should ask for their justice, that we should demand they be tried and punished for what they have done.
   Revoke their visas? As if they were even thinking of coming to America after what they have done. And, this is the only punishment we have come up with in the weeks following Khashoggi's Oct. 2 murder?
   President Trump -- and, this is our leader?
   Any other president would have demanded the trial and punishment of the assailants as quick as the news broke that Khashoggi had been killed. Three weeks later, and this is the first thing Trump has done?
   We're not going to let them visit our country -- that's it?
   I wonder at our nation and am amazed at the shortage of outrage. Sure, many are outraged, but the outrage should be so great that nary a soul should not be sharing in it.
   It has been reported that two years ago this December, Khashoggi was banned from being quoted or interviewed in the Saudi media because he was critical of President-Elect Donald Trump. Is this the same Donald Trump who is so slow to act?

Note: Two sentences were edited out 10/24/18.

Could We Save a Life by Studying how Our Reformation Efforts Failed?

   I think of the slaying of the treasure of a person, University of Utah track star Lauren McCluskey, and I think of her alleged murderer, Melvin Rowland.
   I read in the New York Daily News, and it strikes me, how "He had recently left a halfway house after spending nearly a decade in prison."
   We failed, then, did we?
   My mind rushes to think of prisoner reform, of the idea that it is -- or should be -- the intent of prisons to reform the prisoners -- that no Lauren McCluskeys should be killed. And, I wonder if at times like this, we should go back to the prison as fast as we go back to the scene of the crime.
  You search the scene where efforts were made to reform the criminal as much as you search the crime scene itself. You investigate what went wrong with prisoner's rehabilitation as much as you investigate the crime. What you find might hold a key to changing the next Melvin Rowland, and to saving the next Lauren McCluskey.
   If you investigate the crime itself, you might learn the specifics of what happened. But, if you investigate the prison and the prison policies and the prison classes and counseling and how Melvin Rowland responded and what helped or didn't help, and what his beliefs and feelings and thought patterns were  . . .
   And, what he needed in order to change . . .
  Only then might you learn what really happened. Only then might you learn why he chose to kill. Only then might you find what wasn't done and what might have been done to reach inside the soul of Melvin Rowland and change him.
   There is more value to studying what went wrong in the reformation process than there is to studying the crime itself. Why then, do we only investigate the crime and not what went wrong in reforming the criminal? If we were wise, we would investigate both.
   What went wrong? Why didn't we reform him? What could we have done better? We should ask the questions that might lead to changes in the prisoner.

(Edited 10/24/18)

You Would Send a Gun to Stop a Beggar?

   Clutching Bibles, they come, gathering in circles to pray. "Only God on high can stop us," says one. "No one will stop us, only God," is another rendition of perhaps the same quote.
   "They said they weren't going to allow us to pass. But God has the last word," another of the migrants says.
    And they march, on foot, as if they would walk the length of Mexico. People of faith, people of hope, people of ... God?
    It is refreshing to see their reliance on the Almighty, their expressions reflecting the One in whom they trust.
   And, in America, we must ask, And this is the enemy? These are they whom President Trump would declare a national emergency against? These are those so poor they drudge on foot while the rest of the world motors around in cars, yet you, President Trump, see a need to send the military down there to stop them?
   You would send a gun to stop a beggar?

Truth Comes to Those Who will have it

   Those who do not possess the truth, who hold to falsehoods, will often run from hearing others. They will not tolerate hearing the other side. They will warn their friends against listening to others, suggesting they will lead them astray.
  They will, in the words of scripture, have heavy ears. I think of the passage in Isaiah 6:10. "Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed."
  This is a condition that applies in politics and in discussing the issues of the day as much as it is a principle for accepting and rejecting the gospel. A truth is a truth, and it applies to political discussions as well as it does to religion.
  Now, whether you believe the scriptures divine or not, consider  on that passage, Isaiah 6:10, as to whether it teaches a truth. If the principle is true, the principle is true, regardless that it is found in a book of scripture.
  We sometimes speak of mental illness. Mental impairment is when the mind is limited. If a person will not consider all things -- if he or she refuses to even consider them, or hear them -- that is mental impairment. If so, we all suffer from this malady, for there are places and thoughts and reasoning we all run from. If we do not want to believe something, there are many ways of shutting it out. We can be too busy to read a news story that contains information we do not want to hear. We can say we tire of the political bickering and have had enough of it.
   We can run from truth. I will suggest, however, truth does not run from knowledge. If we would sincerely know the truth, we must seek it. Truth does not come to him who runs from it, but to him who seeks it out. Those who embrace the search for truth, will come to embrace the truth, itself. And, those who fear the arguments against their beliefs are often imprisoned by falsehoods.
   Mental impairment? It can be of our own choice. We can choose to limit our thinking. We can refuse to hear. We can choose to have heavy ears. We are all crazy, but we are all crazy of our own choice. There are truths we all run from.
   Or, we can take the advice of scripture, which says, "Come now, and let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:18), and, "In the multitude of counselors, there is safety" (Proverbs 11:14).
  Truth is not found in a vacuum. You do not find it by refusing to think, nor by refusing to reason, nor by refusing to even listen to the good words of others. Truth is not found without process. You must go through the steps of finding it if you would have it.
   One of those steps is listening -- even if it means listening to another. Another is pondering -- even if it means pondering the words of someone you disagree with.

What Kaepernick Brought Us Grows Bigger

   Now, the NFL take-a-knee controversy is really taking off. Rihanna reportedly turned down an offer to be the halftime performer at the Superbowl, and then Amy Schumer said she --as a way of supporting Colin Kaepernick and his efforts to bring attention to social justice -- will not do any commercial for the Superbowl.

   The comedian and actress appeared with Seth Rogen in a 2016 Superbowl spot for Bud Light. After Rihanna declined the Superbowl show, and Maroon 5 was signed for the extravaganza, Schumer wrote on Instagram, "Wouldn't it be so cool if  @adamlevine and @maroon5 stepped down too?"

  Then came her declaration she would not do a commercial.

  Now, we must wonder if others will join her in declining to do commercials, and if more pressure will be placed on Maroon 5 to drop out of the halftime performance.

   And, we must wonder if a half-hour alternative concert in support of Kaepernick will materialize. At least one site on the Internet, Quartzy, has called for such a show, suggesting Rihanna, Jay-Z, John Legend, Stevie Wonder, Pearl Jam, J. Cole, and Roger Waters might be interested. 

   How about they put together a super group song for such a show, shades of "We are the World," which Michael Jackson, Lionel Richie, Bruce Springsteen and a host of other stars lent their talents to 33 years ago for those starving in Africa?

 You can sometimes tell 
who has the truth 
by who is willing to seek it.
-

This is How the Public Tried the Kavanaugh Case

   The judge looked over at his clerk as they exited the courtroom and walked down the hall. "This has been a most-unusual trial," he said. "I have never had a case where the defense rested just moments into the trial. I have never seen this, and I have never heard of it. It is unprecedented -- I'm sure you agree."
   "Oh, your honor, you are so right!" the clerk exclaimed.
   "Mrs. Dunford," the judge went on, "We saw in there how the defense attorney felt all the evidence he needed was that Christine Blasey Ford was a Democrat, and her lawyer was a Democrat, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein was a Democrat.
   "I wonder on that. There is a parallel here with the way the public viewed this case. Basically, people -- a large share of them -- made up their minds before much was even known. If you were a Democrat, you believed Ford. And, if you were a Republican, you believed Kavanaugh.
   "Now what does your being a Democrat or Republican have to do with whether you believe someone was sexually assaulted? Whether you believe she was assaulted should have nothing to do with your own politics. Kavanaugh either did it or he didn't."
   "But, what if it was a political hit?" the clerk shot back. "What if the Democrats did, in fact, make it all up just to derail the nomination? If that is truthfully what happened . . ."
   "Well, perhaps that should have been investigated, as well," the judge offered. "But, that wasn't done. They shut down the investigation."
   The judge looked over at his clerk. "Mrs. Dunford, I am not against the details of cases coming out in the news. I read in our Constitution how we are to have public trials -- and, I do believe in that. The old adage, 'Don't try it in the press," doesn't dissuade me from liking the press to be open and aggressive in searching for the truth.
   "But, Mrs. Dunford," he paused before going on. "Sometimes the public isn't a very good jury. This is certainly an example of that. So many refused to believe Ford simply because they did not want to. They wanted Kavanaugh confirmed, so they did not want to believe Dr. Ford, for if her story was true, it could derail the nomination. We pretty much believe whatever we want in life, basing what we believe on what is best for us."
    They were getting out of the elevator now, and Mrs. Dunford was to head one way and the judge the other.
   "Yes, this was a very unusual case," the judge said. "Some sought to shut the whole thing down a little too quick. They didn't want a complete and honest investigation. Their minds were made up and further investigation had no value to them. All they needed to know was that Ford's allegation stood in the way of Kavanaugh's nomination. Nothing else mattered."

Here are Some Questions that Should have been Asked

  If the case were still active, and if the FBI were to actually interview Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh, what questions might they ask?
  FBI officers should be adept at asking the right questions, in search of the truth. Contrary to that, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who did question Ford and Kavanaugh, are not expert at asking delving questions. Neither am I, for that matter, but I wonder if I couldn't do better than what the committee did, for I do not remember reading about many such questions as those I am about to pose. Some of these questions I would think were posed, but I would guess many weren't.
  How long had you known each other?
  What kind of interactions did you have?
   How well did you know each other?
   Do you remember any specific interactions? Describe each that you remember?
   Were you ever at any parties together?
   Were you ever at any events -- regardless their nature -- together?
   Did you ever feel any attraction toward each other?
   Did you ever seek to be in each other's company?
   Did any of your friends, Brett Kavanaugh, date Ford?
   Did you ever have reason, Christine Blasey Ford, to dislike Kavanaugh, or to think ill of him, prior to the alleged sexual attack?
   How about after the alleged attack?
   Were you ever biased against him?
   Are you a Democrat?
   Did your politics play a role in your deciding to go public with this?
   Why did you keep this to yourself for so long?
   Why did you decide to go public with it?
   Did anyone contact you, asking you to go public with this?
   Did Dianne Feinstein first contact you, or did you contact her?
   How did you get to the party -- did you drive yourself or come with someone else?
   When you left, did you drive, call a taxi, call someone to come get you, or what?
   When were you invited to the party and who invited you?
   You have suggested you didn't attend parties of this nature, Brett Kavanaugh, would you describe what you mean, what type of parties you didn't you attend?
   Did you ever attend any parties where any sexual contact occurred?
   Did you ever attend any parties where that sexual contact might in anyway at all be considered non-consensual?
   Other than the alleged incidents that have become known in the confirmation process, has anyone at any time in your life ever accused you of sexual impropriety?
   Did everyone invited to the July 1, 1982, party actually show up?
   Were there any women at the party?
   Were there any other parties attended by yourself, PJ Smyth, and Mark Judge?
   Was Leland Ingham Keyser at any party or gathering you ever went to?
   Do you think you could have been the Bart O'Kavanaugh referred to in Mark Judge's memoirs?
   Were there ever any spur-of-the moment parties not mentioned in your calendar?
    I could go on, as questions keep coming to my mind. The point is, the questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee was not adequate. And, the FBI was probably not even allowed to interview Ford and Kavanaugh, that they could have asked such questions. How thorough was the investigation, then? If you do not even interview the principals in an alleged event, is that much of an investigation at all?

Caravan of 4,000 Migrants Cut off by Mexican Authorities

   This time, President Trump might have gotten the results he wanted. A party of emigrants left San Pedro Sula, Hondurus, then swelled to about 4,000, intent on reaching the United States.
   You might remember that when an earlier caravan crossed Mexico in April, Trump called on Mexico to intervene, and to stop those who had entered illegally into that country intent on reaching the U.S. Well, this time Mexico did exactly that, dispatching officers to intercept the caravan, and preparing to send those without papers or who were not appealing for asylum back to their country of origin.
   One good thing coming out of the incident, is that Mexican authorities are not simply stopping the immigrants, but trying to explain to them how to do it right. With their instructions, the Mexicans suggest their standard is, "in adherence to a migration policy that respects the human rights of all migrants and international humanitarian law." The statement says Mexico, "recognizes the right of freedom of movement of persons and the right of any individual to seek refugee status."
   It would seem Mexico is a step ahead of the U.S. in respecting freedom of movement from one country to another. It will be interesting to see how many in the caravan make corrections to match the coaching, and then continue on to the U.S., supposing that is reported.
   It is wonderful the immigrants are being taught how to come legally. If you are not against immigration, but just want them to do it right, you should not oppose such coaching, but should embrace it.

Ted Cruz was Civil with His Protesters

   Was wonderful of Sen. Ted Cruz, the way he responded to hecklers confronting him at the airport.
   "You think that putting a sexual assaulter on the court is a victory for women?" one of the protesters asks. The protesters then continue to press Cruz about the nomination.
   And, Cruz responds, "Thank you for expressing your First Amendment rights."
   "Shame on you, Ted Cruz," one of the women says.
    "God bless you, Ma'am," Cruz says.
   Cruz did not lose his temper, but was civil and respectful of the hecklers.
  Public debate is one of the great liberties of a free nation. But, when the two sides belittle and get ugly with each other, this great freedom is tainted. To see Cruz set an example for us all is a wonderful thing.
    Make America great again? I don't know that anything else would mean America was great more than its people's willingness to be civil when they disagree with each other.

If Brian Biasholder were Kavanaugh's Defense Attorney

  Rising to his feet, the defense attorney strode over to the table, touched his forefinger to th bottom of his chin, and exclaimed, "I know these are my opening remarks. I know I am allowed to call witnesses, but that will not be necessary. I would but to make a few simple statements, to call your attention to a single simple fact, and I think that as a defense, we are ready to rest our case."
  The judge looked up befuddledly. He had never heard of the defense resting after just a few quick statements. "Excuse me, but I would encourage you not to do this," he said. "This is highly unusual, and the prosecutor will be at such an advantage, as he will surely not be resting, but will continue on presenting his case to the fullest without you to contest a word."
  "Oh, don't you worry, your honor, I know what I am doing. When you hear what my single piece of evidence is, you will agree with me. You'll probably bring down your gavel and say, 'Case closed.'"
   The judge eyed him suspiciously, but allowed him to continue.
   "Your honor, we are here to determine if one Brett Kavanaugh is guilty. He has been charged with sexually assaulting a certain Christine Blasey Ford. Your honor, we know this charge is wrong. It's dishonest. It's a trumped up charge."
   "Proceed," said the judge. "How do we know it is false?"
    The defense attorney grinned a bit, as if he had the whole world caught in a trap and he was wily enough to know it. "Yes, and how do we know it?" He was walking with his back to the jurors. "Yes," he repeated, softer this time, "how do we know it?"
   He suddenly spun around, and threw his arms in the air. "How do we know it?!" he shouted. "These accusations were brought to us by a Democrat. Christine Blasey Ford is a democrat! Her lawyer is a democrat! The lady Ford told about this -- the same lady that leaked all this -- Dianne Feinstein, she's  . . . " He strung out a pause for effect, and then screamed, "a democrat!"
   He chortled, and threw out his arms again. "They're all Democrats! Does anyone expect us to believe them? Need I to remind you that this is the party that brought us Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi -- and Dianne Feinstein! They're liars! They are a party of liars and this is a patented Democratic lie!"
   The judge did lightly tap his gavel, but not to say the case was closed. "Please, Mr. Biasholder" (for that was the defense attorney's name), "I ask you not to leave your case at this. What party Ford belongs to has nothing to do with whether she was sexually assaulted. Can't you see that? You are being grossly unfair."
  "No, your honor. I know the facts. I can see them. You can see them. The jury can see them. Democrats lie. So, they made this all up. It's just another Democratic Party lie. That's all that this is, and everyone can see it! The evidence is clear! The evidence is clear!"
   He swung his head from the judge to the jury and then back to the judge. "Your honor, I rest my case. With evidence such as this, I need to give no further argument."
   He smiled smugly, as if he had just cleverly outsmarted all the world.

(Note: Headline changed 10/19/18)

With Learning Comes the Law, and with the Law Comes Accountability

   I have often stated it this way: Nothing taught is nothing learned. If you do not teach someone something, you cannot expect them to learn it.
   Tonight, I see how this is much the same thought the scriptures offer.
   From a book of scripture I use, that many of you may not, we have, "(W)here there is no law given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation. (2 Nephi 9:25 in the Book of Mormon)
   Consider the word "law" to equate with "taught." If you teach someone that they should do something, this is giving them a law that they should do that thing. And, the scriptures on this are multiple. I will cite but one more, and if you wish to view others, you may drop to the bottom of this article.
   "(F)or where no law is, there is no transgression." (Romans 4:15)
   Children are born without the law. It is not until after birth that the parents begin to teach them. Indeed, in the first few years, little is taught, but rather the mother nurtures and cares for the child without teaching much right from wrong. But one might suggest that by the time they are, say, eight, they have been taught much, and become accountable.
  But, note this: The parent teaches the child not just until age 8, but through the teenage years. And, the child is learning not only from the parent, but from experience. Those things that are right and those things that are wrong are being weighed in the child's mind -- especially in the  teenage years, which can be a time of rebellion. Thus, it can be after a youth has gone the wrong way, that he or she reflects on what he or she has done and determines whether to continue down that path for the rest of life.
   A person might repent or change or go corrupt after his or her youth, but much of the die is set as he or she emerges from those years. It is in those years where values -- ranging from choice of political parties to belief on premarital sex -- are established that linger through the rest of life. From that point of life on, often the person will not be taught, but will cling to the values he or she chose forever.
   As the scripture says, "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." (Proverbs 22:6)
 
  Note: From the footnotes in the Book of Mormon for 2 Nephi 9:25, we find a number of scriptures that reflect the thought discussed in this blog.
   "(B)ut sin is not imputed when there is no law. (Romans 5:13)
   "And if ye say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. (2 Nephi 2:13 in the Book of Mormon)
   This next one I like because He says if He had not spoken to them, they would not have had sin. Speaking to them equates with teaching them. So, this is much the same as saying, "Nothing taught, is nothing learned."
   "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin." (John 15:22)
   "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent." (Acts 17:30)
   "(B)ut sin is not imputed when there is no law." (Romans 5:13)
   "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." (James 4:17)
   "Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment? (Alma 42:17 in the Book of Mormon)
    In addition to these scriptures, one could point to the story of Adam and Eve, and how they were given a law (not to partake of the forbidden fruit) and how it was not until that law had been given that sin entered into the world, and that we had the fall.

Perhaps the Errors of His Youth Should not Disqualify Kavanaugh

  I remember the term from high school -- "depantsing" -- and I think of how throughout my life I have heard of people doing what is called, "mooning."
   And, in an age of the #MeToo movement, I wonder if it is few, the people who have been convicted of such crimes -- for sexual assault and indecent exposure they surely are, and those two things are crimes.
   And, I wonder if part of the reason they are so easily excused, is that these are teenagers who so often are the perpetrators. Are youth more inclined to such things? Or, do we give them a little more leeway to grow up?
    And, I think of Brett Kavanaugh, and the accusations against him. Boys will be boys, goes the saying. The good lot of us were known to have sown some wild oats back in our youth, goes the argument. What kind of hypocrites are we, if we hold him liable 36 years later while most all of us had some kind of failings in our youth?
   Now, if you think you know the point I have come to talk to you about, you don't know the full of it. I haven't mentioned a lot of it yet. And, I'm rather sure you haven't guessed.
    So, let me tell you. Let me explain.
    A couple days ago, I was reading in my scriptures, Moroni 8 in the Book of Mormon. Now, you may wonder what this has to do with Brett Kavanaugh. Again, let me explain. It speaks of baptizing children, and says children do not need baptism, for they are not capable of sin, for the law is not given unto them. If I understand the scriptures correctly, if children cannot sin, they do not need repentance.
   So, Brett Kavanaugh? He was a teenager. If he committed the sexual offense, it came well after the age being spoken of in the Book of Mormon.
   But, notice this: It seems the reason children are not accountable for their sins, is that they haven't been fully taught. Once they are taught right from wrong, then they become accountable. Now, children are taught and raise by their children through their teenage years. In fact, they need a parent's nurturing, teaching guidance in the teen years as much as any.
   They may be baptized in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at age 8, but they are still learning. I would suppose part of that learning is doing wrong so they learn that it is wrong. Have you noticed we do not hold teenagers to the same legal standards as adults? We have juvenile courts for juveniles and a separate set of rules and punishments.
   So, what I am saying, is that just as children are not considered accountable for their sins, and cannot be baptized in The Church of Jesus Christ until age 8, so the child continues the learning process, and continues to become more and more accountable.
   Mankind acknowledges as much with these laws giving them leeway as minors.
   So, should Kavanaugh -- if he did commit the offenses he is accused of -- be locked off the Supreme Court for them? I think there are others things that might should disqualify him, but perhaps the errors of his youth should not. 

Note: Edited 10/16 to correct an error. In the second paragraph, the words "public exposure" were changed to "indecent exposure."

Why Should this not be Considered a Scandal?

    To me, the failure to fully investigate the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh mark the investigation . . .
   As a scandal.
   In a nation that believes in due process, due process was not followed. Due process means going through all the steps of justice, and of being fair, and of not skipping some of the process in order to steer the outcome.
   I do not know that if you find Kavanaugh guilty, it means you do not confirm him. Perhaps you go ahead and confirm him, anyway. But if you are looking into accusations of sexual misconduct, you look fully to find the truth.
   You do not sweep the allegations under a rug, by refusing to hear one witness (Julie Swetnick) because someone says she is an unreliable witness. This is an investigation. If you have a lead, you follow it. You interview everyone you can find who attended those parties Swetnick spoke of.
  Nor do you sweep the accusations under a rug by declining to interview those referred to you by one of the witnesses. Deborah Ramirez was interviewed by the FBI, but none of those who she suggested could collaborate her story were interviewed. Why? If fairness and justice is all you seek, why do you not interview them?
   There are a number of other ways you can seek to justify sweeping the whole thing under a rug. You can attack Christine Blasey Ford, saying she is just making the accusation because she's a Democrat, or because she was paid, or because she was part of a conspiracy against Kavanaugh, or because she was mentally unstable, or because she was assaulted by someone else, not Kavanaugh.
   Sweeping it under the rug may require an excuse, but you can find one.
   It was reported from the start that it would be a "limited" investigation. It is believed only 10 people were allowed by the White House to be interviewed. The FBI did not even interview the two principles, Kavanaugh and Ford.
   In the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, only one of those making an allegation was allowed to testify, thus minimizing the damage to be done.
   These are not criminal charges. But, if they were, and such efforts to shade the outcome were taken. It would be obstruction of justice. Easily.
   We have not heard the term, government cover-up, used much -- if at all. But, I don't know why this doesn't qualify. Both the legislative and executive branches have done things to brush over and disregard accusations from being investigated and considered. They have tried to put, and succeeded in putting,  a lid on the accusations and to cover them so they would not even be fully taken into consideration in the Kavanaugh confirmation process. A cover up is a cover up. What else is this?
   So, I do not know why this all isn't being discussed in terms of being a scandal, why that term isn't being used.

One Option for Apologizing is to Call for a Better Investigation

   When an astounding number of the nation's law professors (2,400 plus)
call for Brett Kavanaugh not to be confirmed, we should listen to their reasons.
   One of those reasons was that in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, he "exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry." He was not "open to the necessary search for accuracy."
   Kavanaugh, of course, apologized for his conduct during the hearing. But, I don't believe he ever -- not even in his apology -- called for more judicious inquiry into the accusations against him. Now, bless him, let him apologize in his own way, and let us see good in that he is apologizing. But, it remains, if failure to be open to judicious inquiry is your fault, then your apology will be improved if you apologize for that shortcoming, and if you back your apology by showing you are open to deeper inquiry into the allegations against you.
  Indeed, if not being open to having the allegations against you be fully weighed is your fault, then there is some good reasoning to the sentiment that your apology is not complete unless you apologize for that.
  If the 2,400 law professors saw him as not being open to inquiry and a not being open to a search for accuracy into the allegations against him, then one option becomes that he could suggest, that indeed, perhaps a more thorough FBI investigation was in order -- one not limited by the White House to speaking to just ten people, and one in which the two parties (Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford) were interviewed. (How do we suppose it a just and thorough investigation if we do not even interview the participants?) Yes, one option open to him would be to acknowledge that the hearing could have covered all the allegations against him, instead the damage being minimized by not bringing in any of the witnesses other than Ford to testify against him.
   I have often said, Truth doesn't run from knowledge.

(Note: The article was rewritten 10/3/18, hoping to adjust the tone to be less critical.)

 

This was the Most Natural of Times for Ford to Come Forward

   I ask those I run into about the Kavanaugh confirmation. Perhaps the most common reply questions Ford's timing. Why did she wait 36 years? Why did she sit on it?
   I would wonder, what does it prove that she "sat" on it? Does that somehow prove or somehow even indicate it isn't true? If someone assaulted you, and you learned they were up for the Supreme Court, wouldn't you feel a little bit of an obligation to come forward? Wouldn't you be saying, "Wait a minute. You might want to know this before confirming him"?
   This is the most natural of times for her to come forward, not an unnatural one.
   Of late, I have thought much on the thinking of man -- the reasoning process. I seems, when we want to believe something, we search for and latch on to "reasons," even if the reasons make no sense or have no substance or don't apply. I do so believe this is what is going on with the argument that since Ford sat on it, it makes Kavanaugh okay.

If We Could Discover Death itself -- the Cause -- We Could Conquer it

    I'm wondering if they haven't discovered death, itself -- if they haven't discovered the disease that spawns so many of the other diseases. Is this Ankylosing Spondylitis death, itself? Is it what we call "natural death." Is it literally, the pathway to death.
   Does everyone have at least a shade and shadow of it?

    Now, I occasionally post nonsense, especially when I leave political issues and write about health and medicine. And, I have not studied this Ankylosing Spondylitis hardly at all, that I should even suppose to be making correct judgments.

   But, I wonder, the same.

   I have often thought how medicine is too divided. The back doctor studies the back. The neurologist studies the nerves. But, nobody puts it all together. Ankylosing Spondylitis might put it all together. Oh, it is a back disease, if I understand correctly, but it affects the whole body. And, it affects different people differently, projecting patterns of decline throughout the body.

   Sounds like degeneration, to me.

   If mankind could discover the disease that leads to other diseases, if it could discover the root of all diseases, if it could determine what causes the body to deteriorate, instead of remaining youthful, perhaps we could conquer death, itself. 

   We are all born to delusion. 
It is only with effort that we overcome it. 

If not for the Elevator, would the People be Heard?

  I do not like it when we are uncivil with each other. I do not like it when protesters are overly abusive of others. But, I am not so against the protesting of the Kavanaugh appointment as are others.

  I do not know all the specifics of how the protesters have conducted themselves. I did watch the video of Sen. Hatch's confrontation at the elevator, and judged it as quite a put-down that he told them he would talk to them when they grew up. They were perhaps uncivil, but so was he.

  Here's the thing: I would hope we don't move away from allowing the people to approach their senators and representatives at the elevator and other such places. I, actually, find it refreshing that they can be approached in such a manner. Think of the protesters who plead with Jeff Flake, thus influencing him to call for an FBI investigation. He didn't reject them. He didn't lambaste them for approaching him, or for interrupting his quiet time as he went to the elevator.

  And, why should he? Why should any representative? Our congressional members should be accessible. We should be able to approach them. If we can't get an appointment with them in their offices, then we should be able to approach them at the elevator.

  I don't believe in isolating our leaders so they cannot be approached by the people. I do not believe in shutting the people down, in not giving them a venue to reach the governing officials.

  Sometimes, public officials can get so isolated from sources they do not want to hear that they do not hear the truth. Though the truth is blaring loudly outside their offices, it never reaches inside their offices. It is there for their ears to hear it, but their ears are too heavy. I think of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and of how they called for a second hearing, but the hearing -- lacking all the witnesses -- was only a show, and was designed so that it would not stop the nomination. I think of the FBI investigation, and how we were told from the start it would be a limited investigation and how only nine people were interviewed.

   We got the promised limited investigation. 

   I think of how before the hearing and before the investigation, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promised to "plow through" the obstacles to get Kavanaugh nominated. And, with the way the hearings were set up, and they way the investigation was set up, its clear that is exactly what happened.

   You don't plow right through justice, yet they did.

   Sometimes, voices don't reach us. The thought that a grave injustice is being done is out there, but our ears are heavy and they will not hear. Sometimes, it takes a loud enough voice to jar us into reality.

   That loud-enough voice is the voice of the people. That voice that can jar elected officials back to reality is the voice of the people. It's the voice of those who approach them at the elevators. The voice is loud and clear outside their offices, but not inside their offices. So, you go to where they can hear you. 

  Oh, perhaps they mostly won't listed,the same,  but there will be times they will.

  For government to be good, it needs to have checks and balances. Government that hides within itself, and shields itself from the people, will only be self-serving. We have witnessed this in the Kavanaugh confirmation. The leaders wanted so much for Kavanaugh to be approved that they did not allow for due process, and did not allow for just process. Their interest came first -- and begone with anything that might come between them and their goal.

   Let them have enough citizens standing up to them at the elevators, however, and the voice of justice might reach their ears.

God is not to be thought of as a God Who Afflicts, but a God Who Heals

    Atheists and others make much out of the suffering of people, wondering why a God would allow it, saying if there were a God, He would not inflict such pain on His children.
    I have long thought of how when Christ was on earth, He went around healing people. Much of His ministry was in relieving people of their misery. That does not fit with the talk of how God lets us suffer. Today, as I listened to the General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it struck me that to go along with all the healing He did while down here, He died and was resurrected to bring an end to pain and suffering. Oh, I do not know all about what it will be like on the other side. But, I do know that His death and resurrection brought about the resurrection of us all. We leave these frail bodies, often worn out and old, to be given new bodies which I understand are not subject to the afflictions of our earthly bodies.
   So, if there were a God, why would He let us suffer? We came here to experience all things, and must pass through them to learn. But, let it not go unnoticed on us that Jesus Christ is all about healing and comfort. Healing was a large part of His ministry, with so many pages of the Four Gospels telling of His healings. And, when He died, He was resurrected to bring about healed bodies for all of us. So, in His life, He healed bodies, and in His death, He healed bodies.
   God is not to be thought of as a God who afflicts, but a God who heals.

She was so Strong a Witness that We must Believe Truth is in Her

   Do we forget she volunteered for a polygraph and passed it? Do we overlook that he refused to take one? People have been convicted of crimes based largely on one witness, when that witness was strong enough. Christine Blasey Ford was that strong of a witness. Not only did she pass a polygraph while Brett Kavanaugh refused to take one, she was clearly the more persuasive of the two during the hearing. If it had been a debate, she would have been the winner. We are blind if we do not see that the chances are, she's telling the truth and Kavanaugh is lying.
   Polygraphs are not admissible in court, but that does not mean there is nothing to the fact she was willing to take one, did, and passed it, while he refused to take one. This should still bear weight if we are wondering who is telling the truth.

Laughter instead of Justice

  They had been debating for an hour before the jury members in the Brett Kavanaugh -- Christine Blasey Ford case began to make any progress.
   "I keep going back to the 65 character witnesses," Juror Five said. "I just can't help but believing that with that many people vouching for his character, you gotta know he's innocent."
   "Yes, and you heard what Senator McConnell said," Juror Eight offered. "He said the Democrats have opened 'the floodgates of mud and muck.' That's what this is all about. It's something for us to consider. We don't want to add our names to those heaping mud on Kavanaugh."
   "Excuse me," Juror Twelve interjected. "This allegation didn't come from the Democrats. Dr. Ford made the allegation. Could we get over the idea that the Democrats are somehow behind all this? What are you saying -- that they went out and bought Ford, and got her to make the whole thing up? You might as well walk up to her, look her in the eye, and ask,"Dr. Ford, how much are the Democrats paying you to make this up? How much are you being paid?"
    For a brief moment, the room was quiet, except for an echoing and haunting voice coming from none of the jurors, but rather from an etherland. "Excuse me?" it said, floating through the room.
   Juror Five gave a quizzical look upon hearing the voice, but dismissed it and was quickly back to his standard line. "Let's get back to the 65 character witnesses," he said. "I don't care much for this story Dr. Ford came up with. It doesn't impress me -- but 65 character witnesses? Now, that's something!"
    "What about the 2,400 lawyers who signed a statement saying Kavanaugh isn't impartial enough, and lacks the proper temperament to serve on the court?" Juror Eleven put in. "Oh -- don't get me wrong -- I'm with you all on him being innocent and all if its just about this sexual assault thing. But, if we are going to have any say about his being on the Supreme Court, I think we should think on the 2,400 signatures."
    The other jurors looked at him like he was crazy. "We aren't here to consider the nomination," Juror Six said. "We are here just to determine if he sexually assaulted Dr. Ford."
    "Which is why the 65 character witnesses are so important," Juror Five exclaimed. "Sixty-five! We know someone with that many people vouching for him didn't go out and assault somebody."
   "And, you've got all the clerks who have worked for him since then," Juror Two said. "None of them are saying anything bad about him. Who are we going to believe -- someone who makes a false accusation or the people who have known him through all these years?"
   "Pardon, if you don't mind," Juror Twelve tried. All these people who have known him through the years, all these people vouching for him . . . Now, if they were never themselves assaulted by him, of course they don't know that part of him. They wouldn't know that side of him unless he assaulted them. And, it is fine if they weren't assaulted. This isn't about anything except whether anyone except Dr. Ford was assaulted. I have listened to her testimony, and it is compelling. I believe her."
   "But, we don't have any collaborating evidence," Juror One said. "Nothing. We don't have a mother saying she came home distraught that night. We don't have her friend Leland Keyser remembering how she told her she had been assaulted, or saying she left the party early -- nothing."
   "I have to wonder if some corroborating evidence would have been found if they would have investigated," Juror Twelve said. "I mean, when you instruct the FBI on who they should talk to, and when you skip people who should be talked to, and don't even talk to them, something's wrong. That's a rigged investigation. A real investigation would follow those leads, instead of dismissing them. You go back and talk to people who knew her at the time, and ask them if there was a time back then when she seemed to change emotionally. You go back and interview those at the July 1 party. Maybe they did interview those at the party, have they said? Did they interview the therapist? The investigation could not be complete without that."
   Juror Twelve sighed. He looked around at the others. "I believe her. There isn't any reason not to believe her. What motive is there for her to lie? None. 'Search and destroy'? Does she have a grudge against Kavanaugh? Did something happen that made him her enemy? If there were, Kavanaugh surely would have brought it up during his testimony. He didn't. She has no reason to be out to get him if he didn't assault her. None.
   "Is she mentally deluded, then? She might have some quirks. Wanting two front doors in your house is certainly a quirk. Some would say her fear of flying is irrational, but a lot of people don't like to fly. So, I say, no big deal.
    "Yes, I believe her. Yes, I have doubts -- but I believe her. Her witness is so strong, that although I have doubts, I do not have 'reasonable' doubts. I believe her compelling witness."
     Juror Five cut him off. "Wait, wait, wait," he said. "Are you forgetting the 65 character witnesses? These are his friends! They know him! We can't just brush off what they have to say!"
   And, so it is, Kavanaugh was acquitted. The lead juror, in reading the ruling, turned to look at Kavanaugh, and said, "You have a long list of character witnesses, so there was no need for the FBI to look for any corroborating witnesses. And, without that corroborating evidence, the 65 character witnesses are the most compelling evidence we have. You're a free man."
   Somewhere in the  of the chamber, a soft cry was heard, wafting in as if from a ghost land. And then, from another source, the sound of laughter -- laughter echoing through the courtroom as it emptied, and following everyone out into the streets.

Why Would She Make These Things Up?

   If it were a debate, Christine Blasey Ford would have won. If you listened to her testimony and to Brett Kavanaugh's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, it was Ford's testimony that was the more compelling.

   That is my judgment. So far, I've only caught portions of each of their turns before the microphone, but I read everything I could about what happened. My thought is, Ford was clearly the winner. You would be hard pressed to have listened to her without believing her.

   Even President Trump said she was credible. Trump might have mocked and ridiculed her days later, but in the very aftermath of the event, he conceded she was credible. And, so it is with us as a whole nation: As the event fades, we shift back to our original thinking. We find reasons for not believing her.

   If this were a court of law, her testimony would have stood tall and been compelling. Yes, you would have needed corroborating evidence, but that does not dismiss the fact that her witness would have been a strong enough one that if that corroborating were there, Kavanaugh would have been convicted.

   We should not be so dismissive of Ford's testimony. What motive would she have had for creating such a story? Search and destroy? If the event did occur -- if she were assaulted -- she might have reason to want to "search and destroy" Kavanaugh. But, if it weren't, what reason would she have for destroying Kavanaugh's life and career? If there was any such reason, Kavanaugh could have pointed it out during the hearing. He didn't.

    Was she mistaken? Could someone else have assaulted her, not Kavanaugh? She made it clear, no such mistake was made. We might search for justification in our own minds for not believing her, and latch onto the idea she had the wrong person, but there is no basis for such a conclusion.

   Is she mentally deranged? Remember, this is a person who had two front doors in her house because of her fears. And, this is a person who is afraid of flying. I do not know exactly what, but you might find other reasons for thinking she is deranged.  I suggest you would be groping at straws.

   So why would she make these things up? I submit to you, she didn't.

On the Kavanaugh Investigation: Spend the Last Day Doing it Right

  That the FBI investigation into allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is wrapping up a day early is interesting. They have seven days, and there is enough to investigate that you could spend more time than that. My hope is that Jeff Flake will look at the report, and say, "You have a day and a half left. Could you go back and get us more information on this and this?"
  The investigation is ending early, and that is an indication it has been limited. It will take someone to say, "Go get more," for FBI agents to be allowed to dig deeper, for the FBI can only go as far as it is authorized to go -- only as far as President Trump lets it. If Flake spots things needing a deeper poke, and demands that they be looked into, Trump may not be in position to decline him.
   Whether this is what the FBI is aiming for, I doubt it. If it were, they probably would have left at least one more day to work with. Still, I can see how this could happen. The door is now open for the senators to overview what hasn't been done, and to demand that those matters be pursued.
   Perhaps it is the Democrat senators who will spot the areas needing more poking into -- not Flake. If so, that will be unfortunate, as Flake is going to be listened to while the Democrats are not.
   Ask the agents to interview Julie Swetnick. When you investigate crimes, you don't dismiss some of the leads, you pursue them all. If nothing more, Swetnick is a witness that Kavanaugh did attend parties of the nature Ford says she was attacked at. If Kavanaugh is saying he didn't attend parties fitting the description Ford offered, of course this should be included in the investigation.
  Go back and interview both Ford and Kavanaugh. They are the participants. Saying their testimonies were given at the hearing is certainly short of providing a full investigation. It's not so unlike police officers investigating a well-publicized crime saying they are not going to interview the participants because the press has already interviewed them and their stories have been received. You, as the FBI agents, are the ones trained to ask the right questions, The senators are not. And, their representative at the hearings, Rachel Mitchell, was bought and paid for by the Republicans. Of course you go back and interview the participants.

On the Kavanaugh Question, One Misstep Follows Another

  I believe I am being fair in my thoughts on the Kavanaugh affair. But, I do find cause to pause and wonder, what with blog after blog blasting Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
  Am I being fair?
   I almost joined the bandwagon condemning Dianne Feinstein for her failing to release the Christine Blasey Ford information quicker. But, after thinking it through, I concluded the attack on Feinstein was unwarranted.
   And, I blogged as much.
   There can be a tendency to go out of your way to be fair and balanced, to make sure you spot some nice things to say with all the criticism you offer.
   Why am I not finding anything nice to say about Kavanaugh, and about how the Republicans have conducted themselves? Is it because there isn't much -- if anything -- good about the way they have conducted themselves?
   I think of one of the Republican defenses of Kavanaugh, of how sexual offenders do not quit and a pattern of misconduct follows them through their lives.
   And yet their are no touches of misconduct being told from Kavanaugh's after-college life, not a single accusation of sexual misconduct.
   Now, I wonder if we could expect the same pattern in political misbehavior. When a politician goes bad, does he (or she) follow one blunder with another, does one stumble lead to another? Now, it is not that there are not good things about these Republicans. There are things I have liked about Mitch McConnell, Orrin Hatch, Lindsey Graham and Chuck Grassley. But, on the Kavanaugh question, I have disliked their behavior time after time after time.
   So, compare the fact they have done good to the evident fact Kavanaugh has treated women better since he finished college. And, compare the fact they have stumbled time after time to the probable fact that Kavanaugh stumbled more than once while in high school and college.
   When you get on the wrong foot, you take more than one step in the wrong direction. The first step creates a pattern and one step is in sync with the past one. So, that I am seeing wrong after wrong in how the Republicans are conducting themselves poorly might because they set their minds in one direction, and that mind frame hasn't changed, so they continue off in the same direction.

 

Would We have a Court Justice Inclined to Conspiracy Theories?

   Would we have a Supreme Court justice who is inclined to conspiracy theories? Brett Kavanaugh has suggested the accusations against him are but a "calculated and orchestrated political hit" and are being conducted by those seeking "revenge on behalf of the Clintons."

  In years past, Kavanaugh worked for Ken Starr, the independent counsel who investigated former President Bill Clinton.

They Might be Contributing to the Very Thing They are Fearful of

  So it is, Republicans would like to get their Supreme Court nominee approved before November's election, for if the Democrats win in November, a Trump nominee will have less of a chance to be approved.
  Ironically, what they are doing may contribute to their losing come November. Voters might not approve of the way Republicans have tried to ram through the nomination, and how they have been dismissive of the charges against Kavanaugh, and how they have been resistive to an FBI investigation.
  With bad conduct, comes backlash. And, with this happening so close to the election, the backlash could end up at the polls.
   So, the Republicans could be bringing about the very thing they are seeking to avoid. The could be bringing about (if Kavanaugh isn't confirmed) a Democratic Congress that will reject a Republican court nominee.

Some of Our Nation's Highest Leaders are Persecuting Them

   Of late, the nation has lived by, "If you see something, say something." But, the Kavanaugh affair will set that back. People will be afraid to say something if they are told they are slinging "mud and muck." 
Yes, false accusations are a terrible thing, but if these people are telling the truth about Brett Kavanaugh, it is they who are suffering false accusations. If they are telling the truth, then they are being persecuted for telling the truth -- being persecuted by some of our nation's highest leaders.

Keyser does not Remember, but that doesn't Mean She Denies

   Now, if a witness in a court case said they didn't remember a party 36 years ago, and the judge said that meant the party and the things that allegedly occurred at it never took place, wouldn't you wonder about the judge?
   If the judge said the alleged crime committed was thereby refuted, would you wonder if the judge was being fair? Just because you don't remember something, doesn't mean you are refuting it, or even trying to refute it.
   And, so we go to Brett Kavanaugh's opening statement during the hearing, and hear him say that the charge against him has been refuted, an apparent reference to Christine Blasey Ford's friend saying she does not remember the incident in question.
   The lawyer for the friend, Leland Keyser, quickly responded that Keyser, "does not refute Dr. Ford's account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford's account."
   Thus we see Kavanaugh jumped to a false conclusion.
   A judge should be able to discern the difference between not remembering an event and refuting an event. If he made this mistake while presiding over a case in court, he would be wrongly judging the case. If Kavanaugh jumps to false conclusions, and makes false connections, what type of a judge will he be?