Steyn hits the most important point of L’Affaire Kavanaugh:
It is immensely depressing to think that in a few days’ time the upper chamber of the national legislature of the most powerful nation on earth will conduct hearings into which teenager groped what at a drunken high-school party thirty-six years ago. Or possibly thirty-eight. Or thirty-five. Or thirty-seven. But it’s somewhere in that ball park, notwithstanding that Professor Ford cannot reliably place the date, or even the year.
Which is the main reason why this event should not be occurring. On the present set of facts (and, given previous form, Dianne Feinstein may have more two-month-old info yet to disclose), there is nothing that can be proved. By her own account, Ms Ford cannot identify the house where the party occurred, or explain how she came to be in that house, and how she got home that night. She admits to being very drunk – too drunk to recall certain basic facts, but not to recall telling details. She was not a friend of Brett Kavanaugh, and never saw him again after the party. You could not take that to the county attorney, but you can take it to the United States Senate, thirty-six years later. There is a reason for rules of evidence and statutes of limitation – not because justice has a sell-by date, but because the determination of it does.
Nevertheless, I expect she will be “credible”. She has had four decades – or at any rate the six years since she first mentioned the incident at “couples therapy” in 2012 – to fix the summer of ’82-ish in her mind. In real courts, the best testimony is as near to contemporaneous as you can get – the statement you give immediately after the mugging or the car theft, before time and telling lead you to believe you saw him in the glow of the street lamp outside the Thai restaurant…when there is no street lamp on Maple Avenue, and the Thai restaurant closed three months before the incident took place. But we are now licensing a select group of crimes where the the normal rules of evidence do not apply.
And so what matters is that she will tell a narrative which (like Jeffrey Wright’s seersucker and docksiders) fits half the country’s preconceptions of the evils of the other half.
If Republicans fold on this, they might as well forget about getting anybody through a Senate confirmation ever again.
Annnnd BINGO, there it is. It is simply inconceivable that even Vichy GOPers don’t realize this—an obvious truth from which one can only conclude that they just don’t care, as long as they can get their precious Uniparty/Deep State business-as-usual back.
This isn’t about what Kavanaugh may or may not have done as a teenager. It isn’t really even about Kavanaugh himself. This is about who really runs things in Washington. It’s about power. It’s about setting an example—a demonstration of what happens to anyone uppity enough to attempt real, substantive change to Mordor On The Potomac’s status quo, pour encourager les autres. Above all, it’s about forcefully adjusting the expectations of the MAGA Deplorables—about putting us in our place; about establishing the distinction once and for all between rulers and ruled; about making it clear what bucking the Ruling Class too hard will get us in the end: nothing.
They assume one hell of a lot about how much shit we’re willing to eat without taking to the streets in open, violent rebellion against them, don’t they? But just because they’ve been right this long doesn’t mean they’re always going to be. “Too early to start shooting the bastards”? Claire Wolfe’s famous assertion looks less defensible with every successive Deep State outrage against the very concept of self-rule and “the consent of the governed.”