In the United States justice system, it is held that when a person testifies, they are speaking the truth under oath. Truth doesn’t change. It doesn’t morph over time. It simply exists. It is truth. Now, a person’s memory of the truth may change, their understanding of the truth may change, their personal feelings about the truth may change, but the truth never changes.
When, after decades of time has passed, and a person wishes to impugn another person’s reputation or worth for an act committed so long ago, there are laws governing how long such accusations can be entertained by the courts because people’s memories, understanding, and personal feelings can change over time. One of the very few acts a person can commit that is against the law and has no statute of limitations for bringing them up on charges, regardless of length of time passed, is murder. Obviously, a victim of murder cannot recover from it, nor can society because that individual has been removed from the societal environment. Most crimes do not cause such a loss and can, with time, be healed.
The reasons for this are obvious. Society doesn’t want to destroy or harm a person’s reputation, community standing, family, ability to earn a livelihood, or subject them to possible threat or harm after years of being productive and harmless in the community. Also, there is the cost of investigating and prosecuting for something that was either an aberration, had too little or no evidence to support the claim, or never actually occurred, so it wasn’t addressed all those years before. In short, the person who may be accused isn’t and hasn’t been a danger to the community for so long, it would be pointless and not worth the money to prosecute them now. It would not benefit anyone and would simply be a vengeful act. That is not what justice is about. A crime has a punishment attached because it is the goal of justice to not only punish, but to change the attitude and future actions of the criminal so that society will not have to be concerned about them in the future. If their attitude and actions, years after, show such changes have already taken place, then there is no purpose in punishing them now.
Now, getting to Ms. Ford and her accusation of Judge Kavanaugh having accosted her 36 years ago, while they were both still in high school. That might be a legitimate concern from her standpoint because, if her accusation is true, it may have had a detrimental and lasting effect on her in her personal life. However, the statute of limitations ran out on it years ago. If such an act were considered heinous enough, the statute of limitations would still be in effect on such a claim. It isn’t. Therefore, police and other law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI, are not authorized to spend tax dollars to investigate it. That can only be done within the statute of limitations. No citizen has the power to demand an investigation by public law enforcement simply because they want it. She could hire private investigators at her own expense, if she felt it was warranted. Imagine what would happen if each citizen could demand the FBI spend time and money to investigate a crime, real or imagined, decades after the fact, based solely on that citizen’s claim that something happened long after the law had run out on it. If it’s not worth it to her to spend her own money on such an investigation, it certainly shouldn’t fall on the tax payer to fund it. And she has had many years to do so.
Does this mean her accusation isn’t true? Of course not. But neither does it form the basis for evidence of truth. Her problem here is that she has no evidence and cannot get any evidence. Here is the real problem: Ms. Ford doesn’t want to testify until there has been an investigation by the FBI. If Ms. Ford is going to testify as to the truth, then the truth would not change in any way whether there were an investigation or not. If she already knows the truth, then she doesn’t need anyone else to dig around to provide the truth before she speaks it. That attitude on her part makes it appear that she doesn’t have the truth and is not willing to speak what she knows right now because, if there were an investigation, it may support her claim but it may not, and she isn’t willing to stand on her own testimony without such backup. That would be totally unnecessary for her if she were sure of her own claim.
No one who has been a victim of a crime ever needs to have an investigation into it before they can tell what happened to them. They know what happened. They were there. They experienced it first hand. No investigation can ever provide more evidence of what they personally experienced for themselves. I cannot imagine a woman who has been raped needing to have the police tell her what happened before she would tell what happened to her. And for anyone to make such a seriously damaging accusation against another person when they aren’t willing to testify about their own experience unless there is an investigation done first, is a disgustingly cowardly act. If you know the truth, you tell the truth. You don’t need someone else to muck about in the mud to hopefully find something to throw at the person you want to accuse.
I am a woman. I was a young girl in high school. I dated. I know that most men are not rutting animals and can conduct themselves in a reasonable way. I know that some young men have to push the limits, but most are not aggressive beyond what a young girl can handle. I had my share of sticky situations with boys on a date. I was even nearly raped, but was, thankfully, able to handle the situation. We are all different and some handle such upsets better than others. But, in all honesty, I cannot accept that the experience she claims to have had traumatized her to such an extent that she has needed decades of therapy and couldn’t bring herself to tell anyone about it publicly until now. The woman has proven herself to be quite successful in her career. That doesn’t happen if you are a quivering mass of emotion and don’t possess the strength to fight and cope with all kinds of upset in job and family. This is not a woman who can’t stand up for herself. This is not a woman who can’t get past very difficult mental and emotional stress. This is a woman with an agenda who has either been looking proactively for a way to cause a problem or has been convinced by those she is in agreement with that she can. For her to be involved in this type of behavior shows her to be a person without integrity who believes others are so intellectually and logically impaired that she can manipulate and control them and other circumstances with impunity to achieve her personal goal. She shows no respect for the justice system, and certainly no compassion for a man (who she would destroy as a means to obstruct a duly elected president’s agenda she disagrees with), his family, and his future. She, in short, is dangerous and completely without integrity.
And all of that is blatantly true, whether her accusation is true or not. Personally, I don’t listen to people of such low character, even if they have experienced trauma. Too many decent people also experience trauma, so many, in fact, that there is no way to help all of them. I wouldn’t waste a dime trying to help a lying, heartless, manipulator, and I certainly wouldn’t risk destroying someone’s lifetime reputation on the off chance someone of Ms. Ford’s poor character just might have been upset by him many long years before.