Watching both Americans testify before the senate judiciary committee on CNN was quite a consuming experience. Ford said she was 100% certain that it was Havanaugh that assaulted her sexually 36 years ago. Havanaugh said he was 100% certain that it was not him that sexually assaulted her 36 years ago. Both made those claims under oath. One couldn’t help trying to figure out who was telling the truth.
Mrs Ford’s testimony came across to me as easy, naturally flowing and completely consistent with her body language. Just a university teacher, her performance was generally calm and even. Most people I listened to perceived her as truthful. Moreover, it is difficult to believe that a university professor, enjoying a quiet teaching job and family, would risk upsetting her life balance by coming to testify falsely under oath against an innocent person just to please some politicians or for money as some have claimed.
She said she was compelled to come out and testify by her strong sense of civic duty and her performance appeared to be consistent with that claim. She has confided in some people from time to time over a period of 16 years spanning beyond the life of current and immediate past regimes. She also passed polygraph test with flying colours and readily accepted the invitation of the FBI to investigate.
Comparing Mrs Ford’s performance with that of Mr Havanaugh leaves a not-easy-to-ignore gully. Forceful, riddled with anger, outbursts, deflections, excessive gesticulations, excessive emphasis on some responses, undue repetitions, counters, blankness, Mr Havanaugh’s performance was far less convincing. Indeed, it came across to me more as a determination to convince at all costs rather than tell it as it is project. As a judge(public figure) of many years of experience, and one being considered for the highest court in the land, the temperament displayed during the testimony was extremely disappointing.
This may be explainable by his excessive desire to convince which is often driven by underlying fear usually accompanying dishonesty. He did not readily accept the invitation of FBI to investigate. His job is on the line, the love & trust from his family also on the line, his freedom may also be on the line in addition to significant isolation in society if he does not come through clean. His combative posture can therefore be said to be understandable.
Mrs Ford clearly seems to be the truth teller of the two. But acting against Havanaugh purely on the basis of likelihood may appear unjust. If this is a job interview, rather than a criminal trial, suspiscions of dishonesty and improper behaviour are enough to deny someone a job.
All said about the arguments, my sincere feeling about this is that improper behavior bordering on drunkenness and sexual assault which did not result in rape at age 17 should not be cause for denying Havanaugh an otherwise earned position in the supreme court. If the objective of unearthing the case is to ascertain if Mr Havanaugh can be trusted as a supreme court judge, his behavior in his late twenties, forties and fifties should be concentrated on.
Finally, the beauty of the exercise: total freedom exercised by members of the committee(although slightly tainted by partisan politics), thoroughness, and the certainty of the dependence of the man’s fate on the outcome. How I wish a similar thing could happen in my dear country, especially in case of some controversial appointments by the President, where a highly placed prospective appointee would be subjected to serious public scrutiny as a result of a complaint from an ordinary citizen.
