How to Prevent Another Kavanaugh Circus

Willie Sutton, a bank robber during Prohibition, is famously quoted that he robbed banks "because that's where the money is."  His insight has become known as "Sutton's Law," or "follow the money."  Drier writers use the Latin cui bono, or "who benefits?"  In short, Sutton's law tells us a lot about how we should understand the circus surrounding Judge Kavanaugh.

Brett Kavanaugh sailed through his confirmation hearings because he is a solid candidate for the Supreme Court.  But Senator Dianne Feinstein concealed the letter from Christine Blasey Ford until the committee vote was pending.  Then she leaked it, and the firestorm started.  She denies leaking, but the evidence is pretty clear that Feinstein is either the arsonist or gave the match to the arsonist.

While Feinstein's leak is a clear violation of trust with Dr. Ford, it's also an ethical violation.  Senate Judiciary Committee Rule II, 1 presupposes fourteen-day advance notice of witnesses in regular order.  There was no reason to not present Dr. Ford in regular order. If her wish to not testify was sincere, then she shouldn't have appeared at all.  The only excuse for a late reveal was to delay as a Hail Mary pass to derail the nomination.  Ethics be damned!

Feinstein had her willing accomplices in the media, who located two other accusers to lend credence by piling on.  If you can get more "victims," obviously Kavanaugh will be more guilty.  One of them, Julie Swetnick, was found to be so in-credible that the New York Times reported the allegation but included that fact that "[n]one of Ms. Swetnick's claims could be independently corroborated[.]"  Now Ms. Swetnick is walking back her sworn complaint, saying, "I don't know what he did."

How many times do we have to hear this song to realize it's time to turn off the jukebox and get a new D.J.?  If we don't pull the plug, this will just get worse and worse.  Fortunately, Willie Sutton shows us just what we need to do.

Every time the Democrats pull a stunt like this, one of two things happens.  Either it works, and they get what they want, or it fails, and they move on to another drama.  In other words, either they rob the bank and get the money or they miss, just to try later.  Unlike Willie Sutton, they don't go to jail.  They don't even skip a turn.  They just miss their two hundred dollars.

The currency in government "service" is not necessarily dollars, even though many profit handily.  Rather, the quid for their quo is power.  The longer you serve, the more powerful you become, and power is a powerful aphrodisiac.  This tells us where to find the solution to our problem.

We have to shut off the power.  That brings us back to the Senate.

Dianne Feinstein is the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.  If the Democrats flip the Senate in November, she'll assume the chair and can stick her thumb in President Trump's eye any time she wants.  That's raw power, and it is intoxicating.  But what if she is actually charged with an ethics violation, as Senator Cotton suggests?  In theory, with great power comes great responsibility.  A proper penalty for her ethical violation would be expulsion from the committee.

What about Julie Swetnick?  Her offense is a bit more obvious and easy to prove.  She submitted a sworn statement, and both her subsequent statements and other investigation will show that she perjured herself.  Lying to Congress is a felony under 18 USC §1001.  She could go to jail for up to five years.  That's not trivial, and it points out the value of prosecuting this sort of sordid fabrication.

Laws exist to show us what sort of behavior is acceptable.  But the fact that they punish those who misbehave serves as a disincentive for those who might do wrong.  Even if the DOJ loses the case, the mere fact that Swetnick would have to defend herself would be a huge deterrent for someone else launching a phony attack against an otherwise qualified candidate.

Swetnick, Ford, and the other accusers have acted in the anticipation that even if they are not successful, they will suffer no consequences.  Their fifteen minutes of fame will pass, and they will go about their lives.  So the next time the Democrats issue a cattle call, the pigs will line up again at the trough, expecting a heaping helping of GoFundMe and television face time.

But suppose that Swetnick is publicly shamed (even convicted) through a public trial of her demonstrated perjurious actions.  The left may scream that a hero for women is being humiliated.  Or the left may ignore her, since she has already served her purpose as a useful idiot for the moment.  In either case, another line of liars will be more careful about coming forward, since the pain of legal action is not hypothetical the way their accusations are.

This brings us to the larger issue.  Punishing the useful idiots does little to the power-hungry leftists who exploit them.  There will always be GoFundMe contributors to lessen the cost.  The Democrats at the top who solicit these lies should suffer.  In the case of Michael Avenatti, the crime is subornation of perjury (18 USC §1622).  But for Dianne Feinstein and others of her ilk, the solution must be directed at the currency in which she is paid by this evil: power.

The first fix must be to explicitly state the implication of Senate Judiciary Committee Rule II, 1.  The chair must set a date certain by which all contrary evidence must be submitted before it can be considered.  No Johnny-Come-Lately will be allowed to bollix up the works.  If the next Christine Blasey Ford has information, she must volunteer it to the committee by a pre-set cutoff date.

Next, Senator Feinstein must undergo an FBI investigation into how Ford's letter found its way to the media.  At the same time, she must undergo a Senate Ethics Committee review, with the possibility of being removed from the Judiciary Committee.  This would remove her reward, taking the piggy bank she craves away.  If she were demoted to "just another senator," Feinstein would lose her reason to be in the Senate.

With Feinstein gone, another Democrat would take her place, since for the time being, California is locked in the throes of a leftist coup.  But that Democrat would think twice about pulling a stunt like Feinstein did.  Not having the benefits of your seat is as bad as not having your seat.

This won't solve everything, but it's a beginning.  The Rule of Law is the only thing that separates us from being Zimbabwe or Venezuela.  A little bit of law applied to our lawmakers seems to be a modest place to start.  They won't be as anxious to rob that bank if there's no money there to steal.

Willie Sutton, a bank robber during Prohibition, is famously quoted that he robbed banks "because that's where the money is."  His insight has become known as "Sutton's Law," or "follow the money."  Drier writers use the Latin cui bono, or "who benefits?"  In short, Sutton's law tells us a lot about how we should understand the circus surrounding Judge Kavanaugh.

Brett Kavanaugh sailed through his confirmation hearings because he is a solid candidate for the Supreme Court.  But Senator Dianne Feinstein concealed the letter from Christine Blasey Ford until the committee vote was pending.  Then she leaked it, and the firestorm started.  She denies leaking, but the evidence is pretty clear that Feinstein is either the arsonist or gave the match to the arsonist.

While Feinstein's leak is a clear violation of trust with Dr. Ford, it's also an ethical violation.  Senate Judiciary Committee Rule II, 1 presupposes fourteen-day advance notice of witnesses in regular order.  There was no reason to not present Dr. Ford in regular order. If her wish to not testify was sincere, then she shouldn't have appeared at all.  The only excuse for a late reveal was to delay as a Hail Mary pass to derail the nomination.  Ethics be damned!

Feinstein had her willing accomplices in the media, who located two other accusers to lend credence by piling on.  If you can get more "victims," obviously Kavanaugh will be more guilty.  One of them, Julie Swetnick, was found to be so in-credible that the New York Times reported the allegation but included that fact that "[n]one of Ms. Swetnick's claims could be independently corroborated[.]"  Now Ms. Swetnick is walking back her sworn complaint, saying, "I don't know what he did."

How many times do we have to hear this song to realize it's time to turn off the jukebox and get a new D.J.?  If we don't pull the plug, this will just get worse and worse.  Fortunately, Willie Sutton shows us just what we need to do.

Every time the Democrats pull a stunt like this, one of two things happens.  Either it works, and they get what they want, or it fails, and they move on to another drama.  In other words, either they rob the bank and get the money or they miss, just to try later.  Unlike Willie Sutton, they don't go to jail.  They don't even skip a turn.  They just miss their two hundred dollars.

The currency in government "service" is not necessarily dollars, even though many profit handily.  Rather, the quid for their quo is power.  The longer you serve, the more powerful you become, and power is a powerful aphrodisiac.  This tells us where to find the solution to our problem.

We have to shut off the power.  That brings us back to the Senate.

Dianne Feinstein is the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.  If the Democrats flip the Senate in November, she'll assume the chair and can stick her thumb in President Trump's eye any time she wants.  That's raw power, and it is intoxicating.  But what if she is actually charged with an ethics violation, as Senator Cotton suggests?  In theory, with great power comes great responsibility.  A proper penalty for her ethical violation would be expulsion from the committee.

What about Julie Swetnick?  Her offense is a bit more obvious and easy to prove.  She submitted a sworn statement, and both her subsequent statements and other investigation will show that she perjured herself.  Lying to Congress is a felony under 18 USC §1001.  She could go to jail for up to five years.  That's not trivial, and it points out the value of prosecuting this sort of sordid fabrication.

Laws exist to show us what sort of behavior is acceptable.  But the fact that they punish those who misbehave serves as a disincentive for those who might do wrong.  Even if the DOJ loses the case, the mere fact that Swetnick would have to defend herself would be a huge deterrent for someone else launching a phony attack against an otherwise qualified candidate.

Swetnick, Ford, and the other accusers have acted in the anticipation that even if they are not successful, they will suffer no consequences.  Their fifteen minutes of fame will pass, and they will go about their lives.  So the next time the Democrats issue a cattle call, the pigs will line up again at the trough, expecting a heaping helping of GoFundMe and television face time.

But suppose that Swetnick is publicly shamed (even convicted) through a public trial of her demonstrated perjurious actions.  The left may scream that a hero for women is being humiliated.  Or the left may ignore her, since she has already served her purpose as a useful idiot for the moment.  In either case, another line of liars will be more careful about coming forward, since the pain of legal action is not hypothetical the way their accusations are.

This brings us to the larger issue.  Punishing the useful idiots does little to the power-hungry leftists who exploit them.  There will always be GoFundMe contributors to lessen the cost.  The Democrats at the top who solicit these lies should suffer.  In the case of Michael Avenatti, the crime is subornation of perjury (18 USC §1622).  But for Dianne Feinstein and others of her ilk, the solution must be directed at the currency in which she is paid by this evil: power.

The first fix must be to explicitly state the implication of Senate Judiciary Committee Rule II, 1.  The chair must set a date certain by which all contrary evidence must be submitted before it can be considered.  No Johnny-Come-Lately will be allowed to bollix up the works.  If the next Christine Blasey Ford has information, she must volunteer it to the committee by a pre-set cutoff date.

Next, Senator Feinstein must undergo an FBI investigation into how Ford's letter found its way to the media.  At the same time, she must undergo a Senate Ethics Committee review, with the possibility of being removed from the Judiciary Committee.  This would remove her reward, taking the piggy bank she craves away.  If she were demoted to "just another senator," Feinstein would lose her reason to be in the Senate.

With Feinstein gone, another Democrat would take her place, since for the time being, California is locked in the throes of a leftist coup.  But that Democrat would think twice about pulling a stunt like Feinstein did.  Not having the benefits of your seat is as bad as not having your seat.

This won't solve everything, but it's a beginning.  The Rule of Law is the only thing that separates us from being Zimbabwe or Venezuela.  A little bit of law applied to our lawmakers seems to be a modest place to start.  They won't be as anxious to rob that bank if there's no money there to steal.