State of the SCOTUS: The He Said She Said Conundrum

How do you solve the 'He said she said' Conundrum and how does it relate to the Kavanaugh/Dr. Ford saga? Hope you enjoy!

Picture this: You are a police officer responding to a domestic disturbance. A male and female are standing in the kitchen as you walk into the open door. You see both have facial injuries such as scratches and minor bruising under the eyes. You take the female into another room and your partner speaks to the male in the kitchen. Both say that the other is at fault. There are no independent witnesses—only a 2-month-old baby asleep in an upstairs room. What do you do? Who do you charge?

King Solomon was faced with a similar scenario when faced with two women fighting over custody of a new born child.

The story goes like this:

Two women came to King Solomon to resolve a custody issue over a new born child. Both women alleged the baby in question belonged to them. One woman accused the other of stealing her child. They stood before the King to state their case. The first woman stated that one night the other woman had rolled over her own child and suffocated him to death. Once she realized this, she switched her dead son for the first woman’s living son. When the first woman woke up to feed her child she realized the baby was dead. Upon seeing him in the light she did not recognize the deceased baby to be hers.

The other woman snapped, “NO! Your baby is dead and mine is alive!” The first woman snapped back, “No, the dead baby is yours! Mine is alive.” They continued to argue back and forth.

What we have here is a classic case of He said She said (She said She said in this case). Both parties adamantly denounce the charge against them and vouched for their own innocence. There is no material witness, no CCTV, no forensic evidence, no nothing. Only two desperate individuals with starkly contrasting narratives—and both can’t be telling the truth.

In the midst of the #MeToo era, power-craven opportunists have seized and weaponized the noble fight against sexual assault to strong-arm their way into the realm of political relevance. Democrats, without an ounce of political leverage to wield, watched as the man they loathe, the duly-elected President, was about to have his second Supreme Court pick confirmed before his two-year mark as President. He selected a Judge, Brett Kavanaugh, with a remarkable record. Kavanaugh had gone through six FBI background checks throughout 26 years of his professional career and not one yielded any malpractice or concern. His contributions to, and interpretation of, the law is widely respected. But as you know by now, just before he was to be confirmed to the Supreme Court, the Democrats sprung their trap in the 11th hour. A sexual assault allegation from 1982—over three decades ago. A play straight out of the Democrat playbook.

Enter stage right: Dr. Christine Ford. As she testified to Congress, her story was filled with unanswered questions. The witnesses she mentioned had denied remembering the events. She did not know where it happened and when it happened, but somehow remembered she only had one beer that night. She states that she has no doubt in her mind that the offender was Brett Kavanaugh. She was asked only two questions during her polygraph examination and caught lying when asked why she didn’t meet for an interview regarding the allegations sooner. The emergence of two males who stated they were the ones involved in the encounter with Dr. Ford were quietly brushed away. Anyone who mentioned them or alluded to them were called conspiracy theorists. All the while, Kavanaugh denied ever knowing Ford. He categorically and unequivocally denied the charges launched against him. It was the classic He said Vs. She said scenario. The perfect play to smear a man who’s biggest crime was being selected by the President.

The Democrats grilled Kavanaugh on his drinking habits 30 years ago and somehow attempted to make the connection between drinking beer and being a serial sexual assaulter and gang rapist. They then insinuated that Kavanaugh’s anger, tears and frustration at the hearing only pointed towards his guilt. Finally, they told him that if he were innocent he would call for an FBI investigation into himself. Are we in the twilight zone?

So how did Solomon deal with his He said She said encounter? He asked for a sword. And when the sword was brought he ordered the baby be cut in half. He stated, “that way each of you can have part of him.”

The first woman cried out against the order and pleaded with the King. Her desperation for her child’s life even pushed her surrender the child to the other woman. All the while, the other woman shouted, “Go ahead and cut him in half. Then neither of us will have the baby.”

Upon observing their responses, the King ordered that the baby live. He pointed to the first lady and declared that she was the real mother. He said, “Give the baby to her.”

None of us were there at that party in 1982 (If you were… you should probably make yourself known). Only Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Ford know the truth. Like Joe Biden said during the Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill hearings, an FBI investigation with solve nothing. There is no forensic evidence and the witnesses that were allegedly at the party deny knowing anything or even being there. No reasonable Prosecutor would run with this case in a Criminal Court; however, the court of public opinion appears to be the new battleground.

When we are left with no evidence and a narrative that resembles Swiss cheese, I would suggest we begin to examine motivation, intent, and timing. As we progress throughout the week, pay close attention to the rhetoric and responses from both sides. Although I’m skeptical we will find a definitive answer as a result of any meaningful investigation, I’m sure our keen observation of all parties involved will help us in determining the truth.

Comments (6)
No. 1-4

She had nothing to gain. He had everything to lose. Which one do you think is lying?


"Sen. Collins told Dana Bash earlier Sunday morning, "I do not believe that Brett Kavanaugh was [Ford's] assailant. I do believe she was assaulted."

Do you believe in Objective Truth Senator? Because they both can't be telling the truth here and for you to suggest that she's telling "her Truth" and he's telling THE TRUTH is beyond disgusting. It's blatantly patronizing.

Can a person get any more patronizing than what Collins had to say? "Poor thing, I believe that she was assaulted, but she's just mistaken about who did it to her". Are you fucking joking lady. Do you HONESTLY believe that this woman would not remember who her attacker was? Ask just about any women that had that happen and she'll tell you EXACTLY who it was that attacked her. She may not remember the exact day, or even the year or time. But she'll remember who did it and how old she was when it happened. She'll remember the face forever because it's an indelible scar on her psyche.

So, lets examine what Collins is saying. She believes that Dr. Ford was assaulted, but she doesn't believe that it was Kavanaugh that assaulted her. She's gaslighting Dr. Ford suggesting that she's not in touch with reality. Dr. Ford, is crazy and needs psychiatric help. She's a clinical psychologist.. She knows the subject matter. Collins does not. She's a half-assed politician from Maine. . Ford's. credentials: She earned an undergraduate degree in experimental psychology in 1988 from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She received a master's degree in clinical psychology from Pepperdine University in 1991. In 1996, she received a PhD in educational psychology from the University of Southern California. Her 1995 dissertation was entitled Measuring Young Children's Coping Responses to Interpersonal Conflict. In 2009, she earned a master's degree in epidemiology, with a focus on the subject of biostatistics, from Stanford University School of Medicine.

She's not only a witness to something that happened to her, she's an EXPERT witness with the documented expertise on her resume. In fact, her resume' in her subject of expertise vastly out weigh's Kavanaugh's in his. She knows exactly where our memories are stored. She's an expert in dealing with the effects of traumatic events on our psychology. She's FAR more expert in this arena than Susan Collins could ever hope to be. And Collins suggests that something happened to her, but that she doesn't know who her assailant was? And that's her justification for saying yes to Kavanaugh?

Susan Collins is a total idiot and wired to Trumps ass. She tries to present herself as a moderate because she's pro-choice, but she's a fraud. For her to gaslight a person like Dr. Ford is absurd. For her to present this patronizing bullshit is the most insulting thing I've ever heard from somebody that tries to present herself as a moderate. She' kicked women in the teeth and then wants them to believe she's on their side. Bullshit lady. You're a phony.

Maine voters need to dump her. She's absolutely an abysmal Senator if this is how she reasons.

The Happy Hamster
The Happy Hamster

Frankly, it's getting more difficult to keep track of what the heck is going on. The whole issue has become like a TV series where they keep adding new characters and shocking plot twists. It is exhausting.

Jon Saltzman
Jon Saltzman


Good obervations Jay and well said!