Senator Dianne Feinstein’s estimated $94 million net worth makes her the second-wealthiest serving senator. Feinstein’s financial disclosure statement for 2014 revealed that she had anywhere from $5 million to $25 million invested in a blind trust. She also had between $3.1 million to $7.3 million in various money market accounts. She purports to advocate for the disenfranchised and poor. She can afford to.
On Thursday Feinstein who is the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee referred information involving Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, to federal investigators.
The information purportedly pertains to sexual misconduct between Kavanaugh and an unnamed woman back in their high school days.
Two officials familiar with the matter say the incident involved possible sexual misconduct between Judge Kavanaugh and a woman when they were both in high school some 35 years ago!
OUR FREE OPINION
The timing of this undocumented story is more than highly suspicious—coming a week before the Senate is set to vote on the nomination. Democrats have vowed to fight the nomination “with everything they have”—and we believe with anything they can sensationalize or makeup. This dramatic tale is akin to your intimate partner having mysteriously learned new sexual positions.
The spread of the so-called #metoo movement has caused many women, in the United States and other countries to come out of the woodwork thereby making them survivors, and in a sense, heroes. The plain truth is that in criminal cases there are statutes of limitations that preclude the charging of a defendant with crimes that are too old: The basis for such rules is that the defendant is prejudiced by an excessive passage of time—the memory of potential witnesses fade, or they have moved to unknown locations. Physical evidence has eroded, been lost or destroyed.
The statutes of limitations do not seem to apply to criminal sexual conduct cases fairly. In some states, the charges must be brought against a person within nine years of the alleged act or three years after the “victim” reports the incident to the police. Theoretically, under this law, a person could be charged 90 years or more after the alleged sexual misconduct. A strong argument can be made that such laws violate due process of law.
And in the case of Kavanaugh’s alleged high school la nana, the same logic applies. Apart from the veracity of the allegation, the claims are too old for fair and meaningful analysis. The Senate should exercise their nuclear option and send Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court (Although we firmly believe in a woman’s pro-choice rights and the holdings of Roe v. Wade).