Christine Blasey Ford Will Testify Before the Senate
By 
Alas, I think that James Bennet pity hire Bret Stephens is giving us the Republican playbook:
I believe that Blasey has a moral obligation to demonstrate, as best as she can, that the serious charge she has brought against Kavanaugh is true. I believe that if she fails to do so, after having reluctantly but voluntarily come forward, she will have smeared Kavanaugh.
I believe that Blasey has yet to offer definitive evidence of what she alleges. Notes taken by her therapist that an unnamed man loosely fitting Kavanaugh’s description are marginally corroborative but not dispositive. The same goes for polygraph exams, which is why they are rarely admissible as evidence in court.
My questions: 1)what would “definitive” or “dispositive” evidence of this attempted sexual assault be? 2)Why should the burden required to deny Kavanaugh a promotion be greater than the burden to put him in prison? But, anyway, this is where things are headed: if Blasey cannot provide evidence it is literally impossible for her to provide, she has “smeared” Kavanaugh by telling her story. Revolting.
What makes this even worse is that it’s embedded in a classic Both Sides Do It framework so as to make the Republican propaganda look reasonable. This belongs in the BSDI museum:
I believe Merrick Garland was treated despicably by Senate Republicans. That’s beside the point here. I believe Dianne Feinstein has behaved recklessly. There’s no undoing the mess she’s made.
Adhering to the wishes of a victim and stealing a Supreme Court seat are really the same thing when you think about it.
But don’t worry: Kavanaugh has more compelling character witnesses:
Your ex-wife wore a disguise on national television to talk about you beating her https://t.co/uBjKRiUcyx
— Michelle Goldberg (@michelleinbklyn) September 22, 2018
See also. This thread on “asshole culture” is certainly relevant.