History, like President Trump at his umpteenth campaign rally or the mainstream media with their latest batch of talking points, has a tendency to repeat itself.  Join me as we go back and forth in time to catch repetitions of themes and motifs.

The title is a phonetic twist of the phrase "Et tu, Brutus?" (aka "Et tu, Brute") in reference to the current political drama dealing with the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court and the eleventh hour revelation of an incident that allegedly happened over 35 years ago that paints him in a bad light.

It's also referential to the lesser-known "Battle of the Utus", known chiefly as the last of the bloody pitched battles between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Huns, led by Attila. It was fought roughly 500 years after Roman Emperor Julius Caesar reportedly said "Et tu, Brutus" on the Ides of March after a host of Roman senators including Brutus Albinus cast their impeachment vote with knives in a successful assassination.

The modern day version is modestly less violent than the murder or the battle, but we find a lot of similarities. Before the latest allegation of a sexual impropriety by Kavanaugh, the hearings had allegories to ancient Roman times, with multiple visitors to the hearing acting in an uncivilized, barbaric manner during the confirmation hearings and Democratic Senator Corey Booker claiming a Spartacus moment for a definitely minor revelation of already disclosed material. 

Spartacus, a Thracian contemporary of Julius Caesar, was enslaved by the Romans, escaped and finally died in the Third Servile War, dispatched by a pair of consular legions sent by the Roman Senate to quell Spartacus' rebellion.   The Senate would dispatch Caesar 27 years later.  Booker's reference is to the movie "Spartacus" when fellow slaves rally to protect Spartacus' identity.  

In the present, a senator named Dianne Feinstein would hold her own weapon close to her vest for two months, plotting with other operatives of the Washington Post when the best time to strike the conservative Supreme Court candidate with it would be.  Had this weapon been produced before or during the confirmation hearings, it surely would have been blunted and unable to do fatal damage to Bret Kavanaugh.  Like Senator Lucius Cimber who distracted Caesar and pulled down his tunic, Senator Feinstein would allow others to aim at the candidate's vitals with her weapon.  

The weapon:  36 year old sexual assault allegations from a woman named Christine Blasey Ford, reportedly happening when both were just starting high school.  The crime had remained dormant for 30 years, until 2012, when she reportedly made the shocking revelation while in couple's therapy.  At this point, there seems to be no corroboration of the heinous crime she alleges, and Kavanaugh and the other party's involved flatly deny any knowledge of such an event.  

Ford does not remember the reason for the gathering, whose house this happened in, or how she had got there, a lot of other details.  Being that the recollection of this memory happened during a visit to a psychologist/therapist working on the underpinnings of why her current relationship wasn't working, this could easily have been a false memory which may have been created for some purpose in her mind. 

Unfortunately, Ford's 2012 therapist will not likely be able to testify as to whether the memory was recalled and whether they believe it could be a manufactured recollection.   That would surely dull the warlike natures of the Huns hell-bent on seeing Kavanaugh's nomination being defeated at any cost, even if a reputation gets slaughtered and the Sixth Amendment (dealing with the rights of the accused) has to be trampled.

The presumption of innocence was well known to ancient Romans:  "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”), yet there is a disturbing trend following the "me too" movement, that this staple of jurisprudence will no longer be tolerated-- at least when somebody or some group our society's elites don't like is the accused.  Redouble that sentiment when it has any association with Donald Trump.

 

We must always be suspicious of those who would so freely take away our basic human rights and who demand that Kavanaugh have the burden of proof to show his innocence and who demand that Kavanaugh testify first at any evidentiary hearing when he may be as unclear to the charges as the rest of us.  People of any political ilk who demand us civilized people cater to such barbaric and unfair legal practices, must protect the Utus River from the hordes of invaders, must protect the potential Supreme Court nominee from the concealed then revealed weapon poised to bring him down as surely and as dishonorably as Tribune Casca's dagger did to Julius Caesar.  

This isn't a defensive necessity that should be confined to one political party or one gender.  In the end game, losses will be severe for both sides, just like at the Battle of Utus, in this battle for the SCOTUS.  Once these basic legal rights are vanquished in such manner, they won't easily be brought back no matter which philosophy the next Supreme Court embraces.  

Views: 690

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

If the Republicans let the Democrats get away with this ridiculous charade there will never be another Supreme Court appointment made by a Republican President which is approved by Congress. The Republicans had better wake up because if Kavanugh is not approved this may be the last time a conservative is nominated for the high court. No matter who Trump chooses, the Dems will not go along with it. The Democrats are anarchists but the Republicans are worse for not standing up and beating them down. A sad situation our Country is facing from the new Communist Party [Democrats} but what's worse is the cowardice of the Republican Party.

Definitely a backbone test for the Republicans, definitely a scary attack by Democrats who should know better on the rights of the accused.   Sensible people will realize this as the warlock-hunt progresses and Democratic senators resort to McCarthyite tactics to smear what appears to be a good man (other than he doesn't appear to lean left enough for them).  

A little over 30 years ago, disgraced Ray Donovan uttered ten memorable words:  "Which office do I go to get my reputation back?"  The media had a field day with the former Secretary of Labor under Reagan who was indicted on corruption charges for his work with a construction company accused of having mob ties.  After they prosecuted Donovan, his attorneys didn't even need to mount any defense other than saying the prosecutors had no case.  The jury agreed, but the damage had already been done to the poor man's reputation, with the same media who ran slanderous stories against Donovan on page 1 for months, ignoring the acquittal or placing a blurb on page 13 about it.

Kavanaugh does not have the benefit of having this accusation tried on its merits with the usual legal standards, he was chosen on July 9th for the court and went through a process that should have seen allegations like these vetted.  We know Feinstein and the Washington Post heard this stuff well before the confirmation process started.  For some reason they introduce it after the process ran its course through the committee.  One cannot determine clearly whether the woman that came forward was a victim of Kavanaugh's teen lust with the evidence provided, but she was surely used as a political pawn and otherwise victimized by this politician and newspaper, if we assume her story was true.  Likewise, the rest of the public was ill-served by the Senator and the media.

In 2011, I was pointing out cronyism and corruption in the Ludington DDA, when Ludington City Hall developed it's own policy to deal with me.  It involved banning me from the City Hall/LPD complex by creating a new (unconstitutional) policy and issuing a press release about it saying that a couple of women officials felt threatened by me, enough for them to ban me from the public buildings and a private residence.  I had never met the women, I had never been to the private residence.  When I tried to remedy the damage that ensued from this mischaracterization (which included losing a job) and earned a fair settlement from the City (and CM John Shay) in federal court in 2013, at the end of the council meeting afterwards, Shay slandered me by accusing me of three creepy acts which were all untrue.  None of the other officials who just okayed settling for his previous misdeed, corrals his offal-spouting mouth.

So, I may have my own biases, but I can commiserate with Kavanaugh, and many others who are accused of things that it may be impossible to disprove.  This allegation against Kavanaugh appears to be only corroborated by the accuser and her therapy-enhanced memory 30 years after the fact. 

Of course women don't lie and are never vindictive and they never try to reek revenge on x husbands and boy friends. Also the fact that most women use the children as leverage in divorce cases never applies and is never criticized by the left. It's amazing how many men I know who have been isolated from their kids by vindictive x wives or have had false accusations made against them in order for their x's to gain the advantage in legal actions. Please spare me the "how innocent and sweet and abused women are" rhetoric.

Also, women should stop dressing like whores and prostitutes if they want to be taken seriously and stop making themselves targets. Going to a party wearing skin tight clothes that reveal every detail, then getting drunk or high is not a good recipe for staying out of trouble. Very few  women take responsibility for their actions because to them it's always someone else's fault.

My commentary is from a life time of observations of women especially the victim hood mantra women stir up every time actual reasoning and common sense should apply but are ignored. The kind of women I identified are far from attractive and are not my type. I don't see a lot of men on national news blaming women for their problems. This is not a problem that I only am aware of but is a national movement against men by women. I suggest, IHave, that you pay attention to what is going on around you, especially the negative affect that feminism is having on all segments of society.

What America has become in the last 10+ years is a far cry from what I believed America to be my life growing up.  I am a son of a WWII Marine, and while he was a Republican, watched ABC news, and read LDN at night, none of those are what they were back then.  Worse then that is what Democrats have become IMO, aka Waters, Booker, etc.  The whole extreme vitriol nation we live in now is shameful and discredit to those that served to protect American Liberty.  The groups such as, antifa, black lives matter, women's march, socialist groups, soros' many groups, social justice warriors, etc are a disgrace to America and cancer to Liberty.  Not that the other side doesn't have problems. Trump is our President, while not who I voted for, I do support most of his policy decisions, but his rhetoric is ridiculous and sometimes uncalled for. I wanted my kids to learn for themselves on politics, but when it's gone overboard on crazy and shamefulness, I have to help them understand. 200% more then my father ever discussed with me.  I hope America can move forward.  As far as Kavanaugh, at this point, accuser should be heard, Kavanaugh should be heard, then the vote should happen.

If I had a business and needed some employees , women would not be on any list even if it was more suited for a women to do the job. I think women should step back and take a long look on the so called women movement before they shoot themselves in the foot and won't be qualified for any job. After watching the proceedings today , how could anyone in their right mind allege that something happened to them and not know where , or when, how she got there or find anyone that took her home. But 100%  positive who sexually assaulted her when even the people she named as witness's said he wasn't there.  I didn't hear the question, you were 15 years old, what were you doing at a party  drinking  beer with the boys?  Did you go to a lot of party where drinking was taking place? What were you wearing?  Who in invited  you to the party?  When did you loose your virginity? Who was the guy? Did you continue  being sexually active after that?   Everyone's questions  missed the boat , just tip toad around making very safe questions that she didn't remember. 

I've never been a fan of Lindsay Graham, but he hit it on the head today in just a few minutes.

Both Ford and Kavanaugh say they are 100% certain on their stories, however, the evidence or lack thereof supports Kavanaugh's story, not hers.  My theory of identity displacement seems more plausible at the end of the day; she devised her own theory of what happened 30 years ago while in therapy something that traumatized her so much for thirty years she blotted it all out.  Freudians would call this a defense mechanism.

Whoever may have assaulted her in the summer of 1982, if it did happen, was close enough to her that she may have kept it secret until her therapist dug, and once exposed she eventually attributed it to Kavanaugh, probably because he was someone else she put a lot of trust in at the time it happened.  Maybe she even switched the places of Kavanaugh and his friend, Mark Judge.  

Agreed, at the end of the day personal credibility is an illusion.  The illiterate, stuttering, poorly dressed, toothless homeless man will always have a major disadvantage against a dapper, well-spoken and debonair doctor in any venue.   I am always inclined to listen to both sides and ignore any unjustified prejudices I may have when weighing the credibility of the other evidence.

I hope the week's investigation by the FBI into that singular incident will look into all aspects of the allegations, including any kinds of motivations the accuser may have had and apparent inconsistencies in her testimony.   A Senate hearing is all too political to look into such things without one side claiming that the other side is evil for questioning the motives and testimony of a 'victim', but it's something that really should be done in all cases.

"Why Hillary came into the conversation I don't know. I am not a Hilary supporter nor am I against Kavanaugh. It's perfectly fine to dislike my comments and disagree with me....it is quite another thing to state what you think I support and don't without asking me directly."

I agree IHave and I deleted  my post.

IHave, The main thing you are over looking are the facts. The woman came into the spotlight with only accusations and no proof. Where is her proof that Kavanaugh was indeed her nemesis. Only a devout feminist could draw a conclusion that Kavanaugh was guilty as charged when no evidence was produced. That's one of the problems with feminists, they care more about the outcome than with the truth. You seem to be the kind of person who makes judgements on speculation not facts. 

Then you should know from experience that making accusations against someone without proof is wrong especially when those accusations are criminal in nature and when they are made in a public arena. She should never had been allowed to testify unless she had facts and proof of what she claims. After what she has done, Kavanaugh and his family's lives will never be the same. If she does not prove her case, she should be prosecuted for giving false testimony and lying under oath.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service