Getting his GOP marching orders, Brown is trying to establish the threshold of criminal guilt, which is of course the highest threshold to reach. This is not however a criminal trial. This is trying to get at the truth of character and behavior before a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Blasey-Ford does not have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. She just has to be perceived as credible. In order to believe the conspiracy theories offered up by the right, we would have to believe that she concocted this plan five years ago when she first revealed the incident to her therapist, just in case Kavanaugh was ever nominated to the Supremes. Furthermore, if you are creating a false story, why place one of Kavanaugh's friends in the room and demand an FBI investigation? The fact that Mark Judge has denied this story carries no weight unless he is compelled to offer testimony under oath with the threat of perjury.
"But what if he is guilty? Should the Senate Judiciary Committee vote against his nomination?
Let's put our past sins into four different categories, responding to each category in turn. The first category consists of the foolish things we did as teenagers and young people. But these transgressions are known, open and a distant part of our history. For example, my personal testimony, "From LSD to Ph.D. " is well-known. My story is known and out in the open, and it's a testimony to God's grace. If Brett Kavanaugh got drunk with his friends and assaulted another teenager, that would be grave and ugly. But if this was something that was known, open and unrelated to his behavior and conduct ever since then, it should not disqualify him from service today. (To be "known and open" would also mean that he had made things right with his alleged victim.) Lots of us did stupid things when we were kids and teenagers. But as we became responsible adults, we put those things behind us. Recognizing this, those who voted for Barack Obama to be president forgave him for his pot-smoking days. (In his words, marijuana use was "what teenage kids did at that age when I was growing up.") Some of us even did reprehensible things as adults. But we made proper restitution, we were completely rehabilitated, and we have made something worthwhile out of our lives. Such stories are noble and inspiring." -- Dr. Michael Brown
This tactic is known as muddying the waters. The fact that Barack Obama smoked pot when he was younger is irrelevant to the accusation of attempted rape. It is not a moral equivalent. This is also not what we are dealing with in the Kavanaugh case. He has denied the accusations completely. The other poorly constructed argument is that as long as you are honest about your criminal activities, you should not be disqualified. I am all for rehabilitation, forgiveness and restoration but it does not mean you get restored to everything. We see every day people turned down for jobs working with kids who had a history of criminal behavior. That doesn't mean they cannot work -- it means they cannot do everything. Brett Kavanaugh is not facing a lifetime of destitution if he is not confirmed. Even if he chose to not be a judge anymore he could have a lucrative future working at Fox News. Heck they gave an entire show to the war criminal Oliver North!
"The second category consists of sinful behavior in our past that we covered over, hoping it would never be discovered. What happens when these old skeletons are suddenly discovered in our closet? If the behavior was totally uncharacteristic, if it did not lastingly wound or injure someone else, and if it was never again repeated, you can make a case for overlooking it--but only if the response today was proper. In other words, if it came to light that, when you were a 16-year-old boy, you had consensual sex with your 16-year-old girlfriend, but since then, your moral behavior was impeccable, you shouldn't be disqualified from public service today--but only if you responded properly when confronted. A proper response would require full acknowledgment of guilt, not lying about the incident and pointing to the changes you made to live rightly ever since. To say that these sins of our youth make us unfit to serve today is to render unfit a large percentage of the population. How many of us have an unblemished past?" -- Dr. Michael Brown
Brown continues to try and minimize the accusation here. None of us have an unblemished past but few of us have attempted rape I would hope. Consensual 16 to 16 year old sex is not the equivalent of 17-16 year old attempted rape. It is also unsettling the way Brown glosses over the fact that in this scenario, Kavanaugh would have sought to hide a potential crime for decades while he sat on a judicial bench. It is not a matter of being unfit to serve as much as it about being disqualified from the top judicial job in the world for cause.
"The third category consists of lying today when confronted with sinful behavior from the past. That would be the bigger issue to me with Justice Kavanaugh. Did he do something reprehensible as a drunken teenager? Perhaps he did, but again, that is just an accusation at this point. The big question for me is: Is he telling the truth today? We're not looking to confirm teenager Kavanaugh. We're looking to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. His present behavior is far more important to me than his teenage behavior. Can the man be trusted? "-- Dr. Michael Brown
Ugh, talk about splitting hairs. What Brown has done is create this alternate reality where there are four options. He does so to appear reasonable by saying option three and four are disqualifying but options one and two are somehow more acceptable. He is essentially splitting the sin into four degrees and saying the two extreme examples would prohibit Kavanaugh from consideration but the other two we can wink and look the other way. At attempted rape. From a Christian leader. Somehow this doesn't feel like what Jesus was talking about when He commissioned us to be His ambassadors.