Current reasons to believe Kavanaugh's accuser

If I had my druthers, you would be looking at a blank space. Instead of reading these words, you would have found nothing under the headline "Current Reasons to Believe Kavanaugh's Accuser." Just a big empty space.

Why? Because there are no reasons to believe Christine Blasey Ford -- not yet anyway. Should some surface, fine, but as of now, there really isn't much to say in the way of providing reasons she should be believed, as there are no reasons to disbelieve Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh -- not yet anyway.

Yeah, I know: "Women must be believed." We hear it all the time, and I've written about this before -- when Democrats sought to sabotage another conservative running for office at just the opportune time, years after the alleged incident. My opinion hasn't changed. No one must be believed just because. Evidence matters. Facts matter. Credibility matters. Witnesses matter. Get this: Truth matters. Or do these things not matter when the accused is a conservative or a conservative ally?

I am not saying Ford is lying, but why must she be believed if in so doing, Kavanaugh must not be believed? Why isn't he afforded the same privilege? Why are we suspending the American way: "Innocent until proven guilty"?

Does she get to be believed because she is considered the victim? Well, if he is innocently accused, is he not also a victim -- the victim?

This dilemma means one thing. We cannot know whether to believe him or her. We have to suspend judgment and let the facts play out.

Republicans have tried to allow her the opportunity to put her story out there before Congress, but she and her lawyer, Debra Katz, are playing a game of Kick the Can Down the Road.

At this stage, it appears Ford did suffer some form of abuse 36 years ago as a high school student, but when she reportedly did finally reveal that to a therapist in 2012, she did not name Kavanaugh as her attacker, and he denies it.

Furthermore, there are serious holes in the story.

Ford's high school classmate, Cristina King Miranda, posted on Facebook that the assault was "spoken of for days afterward" in high school. She wrote that the incident "did happen."

"Many of us heard about it in school and Christine's recollection should be more than enough for us to truly, deeply know that the accusation is true." She added, "The incident did happen."

This doesn't jive with Ford's story -- that mum was the word -- so what is a friend to do? Delete her post, of course, which she did with this message: "Hi all, deleted this because it served its purpose and I am now dealing with a slew of requests for interviews from The Wash Post, CNN, CBS News. Organizing how I want to proceed. Was not ready for that, not sure I am interested in pursuing. Thanks for reading."

Maybe she should explain what "its purpose" was.

Interestingly, Miranda is no longer certain about anything, stating, "That it happened or not, I have no idea. I can't say that it did or didn't," adding, "I had no idea that I would now have to go to the specifics and defend it before 50 cable channels and have my face spread all over MSNBC news and Twitter."

So she "was not ready for" the media attention and "had no idea" she would have to answer questions? Well, answer these, Ms. Miranda: "What did you expect? I mean, you come out saying a Supreme Court nominee attacked your friend back in the day -- yet you don't expect people to question you about that claim?" That's about as ridiculous as Ford herself refusing or pushing back against or playing games with -- take your pick -- the opportunity to testify about her allegations. What's that all about? Another reason this space should be blank under the headline.

Additional strike: Each person named as being there during the alleged groping say, "Um, no, I wasn't." To be exact, one said, "I have no knowledge of the party in question"; a second one stated, "I have no memory of the alleged incident"; and the third "has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where [Kavanaugh] was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford." And these are her "witnesses"!

And: 65 women who went to school with the judge signed a letter stating he "always treated women with decency and respect." Do those character witnesses matter?

Look, I wasn't there -- if "there" even exists -- so I don't know what did -- or did not -- transpire. But I know this: I don't see reasons at this point that Ford should be believed. If facts emerge that show otherwise, if Kavanaugh did what he denies, well, take it to him. Until then, I don't have to believe jack! That's not politically correct, I know, but I ain't into political correctness; I'm into truth.

Until the truth unfolds, perhaps Kavanaugh's political opponents who have hopped on Ford's bandwagon might turn their attention to Rep. Keith Ellison, deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee and Minnesota attorney general candidate. Unlike the Kavanaugh case, his accuser, Karen Monahan, has provided evidence that suggests what she said happened actually happened, and a doctor's report actually names Ellison. But not too many Democrats seem too concerned about that. And I am so surprised -- not at all. #PoliticsAsUsual

I apologize that I could not provide you with the information promised in the headline, but imagine a blank page, and there you have it.

Adrienne Ross is owner of Adrienne Ross Communications and a former Southeast Missourian editorial board member. Contact her at aross@semissourian.com.