Dear Connie Chung:

Your heartfelt Washington Post letter – a recollection of how you were sexually violated decades ago does not prove that Brett Kavanaugh is guilty of anything. Let’s be honest, preventing the Kavanaugh confirmation is the primary reason you wrote your piece. Timing is everything. The fact that you voted twice for Bill Clinton, a known sexual abuser, begs the obvious question: why did you not “come out” before when you had multiple opportunities – in support of Juanita Broderick or Paula Jones, or Monica Lewinsky? Suddenly, we now hear from you 20 years after the blue dress was stained by Clinton in the Oval Office. There were surely plenty of other relevant opportunities for your coming out moment – Harvey Whinestein or Bill Co…Les Moon… Matt L. – though they were not conservative nominees for the Supreme Court that needed to be derailed by the political left. Your coming out now during the Kavanaugh ambush appears to be not much more than a transparent political play. I don’t think you want it viewed as such, but it was your choice.

Connie Chung’s past experience with sexual abuse is not evidence in any other case of sexual abuse. Some high profile sexual abuse accusations have in fact been true, some only partially true and some completely fabricated (think UVA and Rolling Stone) as has been determined by juries in our courts of law. Courts are flawed too, and don’t always get it right. Has Connie Chung’s “coming out” suddenly now reversed the innocence of the men accused in the UVA case, or North Carolina, or Barry (in the (Dunham case)? Dear Connie, I hope you and your fellow Americans are smarter than the “Believe Woman” mentality. Humans do not always tell the truth. No gender is excepted. Also, it is well known that our memories of events near and far are not always accurate, no matter how sincerely we believe them. It’s unlikely that we’ll ever know the “truth” in the Ford/Kavanaugh case of 35 years ago. It is not far-fetched to think, given the low character of the inhabitants in Washington, that the Kavanaugh accusation is merely a politically motivated attempt by Democrats to prevent a Trump nominee from becoming the next member of the Supreme Court.

If sharing your story with the rest of us is so traumatic, will you will one day conclude it was worth sharing? Kavanaugh’s fate will perhaps in large part determine that, I suppose.

Let’s be honest, our personal preferences for Supreme Court nominees are not evidence in support of the guilt or innocence of Judge Kavanaugh. The overwhelming point is that the timing of the accusation is quite fishy – like a dead fish reeking in a trash can on a hot summer day. Resist emotion. Embrace critical thinking. Compassion for all.

Question: What is the basic role of the Supreme Court? Do most people have a clue? Sadly, they do not.

An American