On Thursday, Harvard law professor and Fox News contributor Alan Dershowitz laid out the case for why Brett Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court despite allegations that he sexually assaulted Dr. Christine Blasey Ford when he was 17 and she was 15. Dershowitz pointed out that it would be far too difficult to determine what happened that night. He noted that memory is unreliable, and neither men nor women are trustworthy narrators of events may have transpired decades ago. “There are so many possibilities here,” Dershowitz said. “In the end, I think we’re going to be stuck with ‘he said, she said.’ I don’t think we are going to get very much more.” He continued to cast doubt on the wisdom of taking Ford’s accusations into account when considering Kavanaugh’s confirmation. “First, who do you believe when you have a situation like this? Neither men or women were born with a gene to lie or tell the truth,” he said. He further pointed out that both sexes have spotty memories. “Women forget, men forget. These are very emotional issues,” he wrote. On Tuesday, a psychiatrist writing in the New York Times explained why even though memory can be tricky, an assault survivor might maintain vivid memories many years later. “Neuroscience research tells us that memories formed under the influence of intense emotion — such as the feelings that accompany a sexual assault — are indelible in the way that memories of a routine day are not,” writes Dr. Richard A. Friedman. “That’s why it’s credible that Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, of sexually assaulting her when they were both teenagers, has a vivid recollection of the alleged long-ago event,” he continues. “I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” she told The Washington Post in a recent interview. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.” He cites research that shows that heightened emotions generate a brain chemical surge that strengthens a memory. “That is why you can easily forget where you put your smartphone or what you had for dinner last night or last year. But you will almost never forget who raped you, whether it happened yesterday — or 36 years ago,” he writes. ‘There’s very little chance that you are, as some senators suggest Dr. Blasey is, “mixed up” or “confused.” Watch:<doc-sep>Perhaps Brett Kavanaugh was a virgin for many years after high school. But he claimed otherwise in a conversation with me during our freshman year in Lawrance Hall at Yale, in the living room of my suite. — Steve Kantrowitz (@skantrow) September 25, 2018 Steve Kantrowitz was a classmate of Brett Kavanaugh’s at Yale. On September 25, Kantrowitz tweeted that Kavanaugh had talked to him about his sexual history while they were both freshmen at Yale. Kantrowitz didn’t go into any detail, but he implied that Kavanaugh had boasted to him about possible sexual exploits. If true, this would contradict Kavanaugh’s statement to Fox News that he was a virgin in high school and for many years after high school. Katrowitz wrote, “Perhaps Brett Kavanaugh was a virgin for many years after high school. But he claimed otherwise in a conversation with me during our freshman year in Lawrance Hall at Yale, in the living room of my suite.” Here’s what you need to know about Stephen Kantrowitz: 1. Kantrowitz Said Kavanaugh Told Him All About His Experience Losing His Virginity Kantrowitz has said he doesn’t want to say much about his decades-ago conversation with Kavanaugh, when both men were freshmen. But he told a Law and Crime reporter that he “felt compelled” to say something after watching Kavanaugh tell Fox News that he had been a virgin for many years after high school. Kantrowitz said he feels it’s important for a Supreme Court justice to be honest, which is why he came forward with his story. Kantrowitz told Law and Crime that Kavanaugh had described to him how he lost his virginity. Here is Kantrowitz’s statement about Kavanaugh, as sent to Law and Crime: “I felt compelled to reveal a private conversation I had with a classmate in our freshman year at Yale because of the tremendous importance of honesty and integrity to serving as a Justice of the Supreme Court. My conversation with Brett Kavanaugh raises doubt about a statement he made on September 24 on national television. Contrary to his assertion that he remained a virgin “for many years” after high school, during our freshman year he described losing his virginity. I remember this distinctly because it was the first time I had had such a conversation with an acquaintance who was not a friend. I have no first-hand knowledge of any of the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, but I thought this conversation was relevant as it goes to the question of his truthfulness.” 2. Kantrowitz Is an Award-Winning History Professor Who Writes About the History of the White Supremacy Movement Kantrowitz is a professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, where he teaches graduate and undergraduate classes on 19th century American history. He describes himself as ” a historian of race, politics, and citizenship in the nineteenth-century United States” and says that he is especially interested in the Civil War. Kantrowitz has written a number of books about the evolution of race relations and white supremacy movements in 19th century America. His other scholarly focus is on American Indian studies, and he has researched the changing position of Native Americans in America in the 19th century. Kantrowitz holds a PhD and an MA from Princeton, and a BA from Yale. He has won several teaching awards, including a Chancellor’s Award for Distinguished Teaching (2001) and the UW-Madison History Organization “Instructor of the Year” (2010). 3. Kantrowitz Said He and Kavanaugh Were Not Friends In a statement released this afternoon, Kantrowitz described Kavanaugh as “an acquaintance, not a friend.” The two were freshmen at Yale at the same time, and they knew each other. Kantrowitz says that the two of them were never friends, really. He says that’s why he was so surprised when Kavanaugh opened up to him about his experience losing his virginity. Here is Kantrowitz’s statement: “I felt compelled to reveal a private conversation I had with a classmate in our freshman year at Yale because of the tremendous importance of honesty and integrity to serving as a Justice of the Supreme Court. My conversation with Brett Kavanaugh raises doubt about a statement he made on September 24 on national television. Contrary to his assertion that he remained a virgin “for many years” after high school, during our freshman year he described losing his virginity. I remember this distinctly because it was the first time I had had such a conversation with an acquaintance who was not a friend. I have no first-hand knowledge of any of the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, but I thought this conversation was relevant as it goes to the question of his truthfulness.” 4. Kantrowitz Has Been Following the Kavanaugh Nomination Process Very, Very Closely The Kavanaugh-doppelganger thread unintentionally suggests an alternate theory: even the "adults" in today's GOP can no longer distinguish truth from lies from batshit crazy. https://t.co/5E2t7I6LLm — Steve Kantrowitz (@skantrow) September 21, 2018 Like many Americans, Kantrowitz appears to have been watching the Kavanaugh nomination process very closely indeed. His twitter feed is full of tweets and retweets about the ins and outs of the Kavanaugh news cycle. Kantrowitz has been tweeting critically about Republican support for Kavanaugh. He has called out former president George W Bush for supporting Kavanaugh. He has also criticized ordinary Republicans for — he says — living in a sort of dream world in which they can’t tell the difference between what’s real and what is imaginary. Kantrowitz tweeted about the so-called “doppelganger” theory, a theory which said that Christine Ford had mis-identified Kavanaugh and that in fact, it was a different, but similar-looking man who had tried to assault her. Kantrowitz wrote about this theory, saying, “The Kavanaugh-doppelganger thread unintentionally suggests an alternate theory: even the “adults” in today’s GOP can no longer distinguish truth from lies from batshit crazy.” 5. Kantrowitz Says He Doesn’t Want to Comment on the Case Any Further Kantrowitz doesn’t want to do a sit-down interview about his relationship with Kavanaugh; he doesn’t want to be bombarded by reporters asking him lots of questions about his time at Yale with the Supreme Court nominee. Kantrowitz says that, in fact, he doesn’t want to comment on the case any more. Hours after his explosive tweet about Kavanaugh, when reporters had been hounding him for more information, Kantrowitz finally released a statement. The end of that statement was very clear. He wrote, “I will not be commenting further. Thank you.” Here is the rest of that statement: “I felt compelled to reveal a private conversation I had with a classmate in our freshman year at Yale because of the tremendous importance of honesty and integrity to serving as a Justice of the Supreme Court. My conversation with Brett Kavanaugh raises doubt about a statement he made on September 24 on national television. Contrary to his assertion that he remained a virgin “for many years” after high school, during our freshman year he described losing his virginity. I remember this distinctly because it was the first time I had had such a conversation with an acquaintance who was not a friend. I have no first-hand knowledge of any of the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, but I thought this conversation was relevant as it goes to the question of his truthfulness.” READ NEXT: James Roche: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know<doc-sep>America has witnessed an unbelievably savage and despicable effort by Democrats and their media allies to destroy Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh through false and dishonest personal attacks. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday voted to send Kavanaugh’s nomination to the full Senate, and now the burden of proof should be on Democrats to show why he should not be confirmed. Kavanaugh has clearly, unequivocally and convincingly denied all charges of sexual misconduct against him. The New Yorker magazine’s smear against Kavanaugh was an absurdity. A woman could only remember a self-described drunken event, which supposedly took place over 30 years ago, after she spent six days in discussions with her attorney. Everyone connected with the alleged event repudiates her attack on Kavanaugh. The claim by a client of anti-Trump lawyer Michael Avenatti that Kavanaugh was present at the scene of her alleged gang rape was beyond unbelievable. Classmates and high school friends of Kavanaugh simply repudiated her accusation as having zero credibility, and she provided zero evidence. Another absurd attack on the judge came from a mother whose daughter promptly said nothing happened, and that her mother is simply wrong. The daughter goes on to affirm Kavanaugh’s decency as someone she briefly dated in the 1990s and remembers fondly. Staff members working for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, have received messages containing vicious threats – including that they deserve to be raped. Those messages, by the way, should be tracked down by the FBI and prosecuted. If Kavanaugh can be defeated by this kind of manufactured and manipulated evidence-free process, then what reasonable conservative would ever put his or her name up for Senate confirmation? The Kavanaugh family has also received death threats – which again, should be tracked down and prosecuted. Kavanaugh’s wife and two young daughters have had to endure vicious, humiliating, personal attacks on their husband and father. Professor Christine Blasey Ford and her family have received death threats after being pulled into the Democrats’ scheme. These threats should, of course, be tracked down and prosecuted as well. Ford has been manipulated by the Democrats, who hid her letter making uncorroborated accusations against Kavanaugh for over a month, dragged her into the national limelight, and urged her to avoid meeting with the Senate Republican staff members. At one point Ford said she couldn’t meet because she was afraid to fly, although it was revealed at Thursday’s Judiciary Committee hearing that she has flown numerous times for vacations. Ford was put through all of this even though she could not remember in what house the alleged gathering and assault on her took place, or when it occurred. At the same time, no one she said was present has corroborated her story. Ford’s testimony was emotionally compelling. It is clear that something happened to her – but she knows as a professional psychologist that 36 years after an event, people can vividly remember things that didn’t actually happen. If Kavanaugh can be defeated by this kind of manufactured and manipulated evidence-free process, then what reasonable conservative would ever put his or her name up for Senate confirmation? Some people have said Kavanaugh should have been better vetted. How could he have been? He has undergone six separate, thorough FBI background checks for top positions throughout government. And all those investigations have turned up absolutely nothing that would disqualify him for high federal positions. Further, Kavanaugh has stated under oath – under penalty of perjury – that he never did any of the things for which he is being attacked. He could not have known in advance how to defend himself against allegations dealing with things he never did. It’s impossible to plan for or anticipate last-minute character assassinations that are based on falsehoods and impossible-to-verify charges. So the key to the next stage is not the Republicans. The real question is: Are there any Democrats who are disgusted by this process of dishonest character assassination and manipulation? Are any upset that this is becoming their party’s operating pattern? Are there any Democrats whose sense of decency forces them to vote “yes” for a decent man and brilliant jurist, whose entire public career has exemplified honesty, sincerity and patriotism? Are there any Democrats who understand that a 36-year-old, unsupported allegation can’t possibly be the standard for blocking a U.S. Supreme Court nominee? If no Democrat has the courage to vote for decency, honesty and a sense of fairness, then we are truly in deep trouble as a country. The focus for the next few days ought to be on the Democrats. Let us see what kind of a party they have become.<doc-sep>
Ross K. Baker Opinion columnist Our language abounds in similes and phrases that attest to our belief that those who preside over out courts be people of measured emotions: sober as a judge, judicial restraint, judicial temperament. These phrases evoke even-handedness and ruling on cases based on their legal merits.Likewise, we acknowledge the moral indignation of people who feel they have been wronged. But the intemperate tirade Brett Kavanaugh launched against the Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee, with its rancorous tone and suggestions of hostile conspiracies, shows that he is temperamentally unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. This what he said: “This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President trump and the 2016 election. ..Fear has been unfairly stoked about my judicial records. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons. And millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups”. By comparison, Clarence Thomas’s rage in 1991 against a “high-tech lynching” was a masterpiece of subtlety and moderation. The mask of an unhinged justice Kavanaugh was not simply angry; he was unhinged. As unfairly as he thought he had been treated, as disappointed as he was at the unwillingness of senators to accept his choir-boy image of himself or fail to be awed by his sterling prep-school Ivy League pedigree, he might have spared us and himself an unseemly display of partisan venom wholly unbecoming a candidate for a job that requires at least the appearance of impartiality. That mask was stripped from Brett Kavanaugh. He revealed that he is capable of unrestrained wrath, a vengeful spirit, and a disqualifying inability to keep disagreement within acceptable bounds. You need not be persuaded by the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford to be appalled by Kavanaugh’s rancor. I find it conceivable that she mistook Judge Kavanaugh for someone else. But you don’t have to buy into her account to credit her with the quiet dignity with which she testified about what was surely the worst day of her young life. Kavanaugh, by contrast, was all unbounded anger. He had transformed himself from the plaster saint that was on display in his earlier public appearances into a dark avenging angel. This troubling episode was noted by Republican strategist Rich Galen, who wrote: “Judge Kavanaugh did not sound like, look like, or act like a Justice of the Supreme Court.” More:After Kavanaugh v Ford hearing, Republican men remain 'addicted to the patriarchy' I was falsely accused and my reputation was disparaged. I don't regret fighting back. America should follow military lead and move beyond 'he said, she said' in Kavanaugh case I would not want my constitutional rights adjudicated by the Brett Kavanaugh who was on display on Thursday. He might judge my cause not by the measured standards of impartial jurisprudence, but my ideological incompatibility with his own set of political beliefs. To be sure, he would be only one of nine, but his confirmation would not simply move the court in a more conservative direction — a turn which everyone would expect from any judge nominated by President Trump — it would replace Justice Anthony Kennedy with a partisan pugilist whose resentments toward 10 Democratic senators would contaminate his legal opinions. Was Kavanaugh momentarily possessed by emotions entirely alien to his basic nature? I doubt it. I think something came to the surface that warns us he might not be able to play it straight — and that he’s got an agenda that is incompatible with what we have every right to expect from someone who has our constitutional rights in his hands. Ross K. Baker is a distinguished professor of political science at Rutgers University and a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @Rosbake1.