Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Slate: What Happens to Sexual Assault Survivors if Matt Gaetz Runs the DOJ
Slate - What Happens to Sexual Assault Survivors if Matt Gaetz Runs the DOJ
By Dahlia Lithwick, Mimi Rocah, and Joyce White Vance
Nov 20, 20243:37 PM
Here we go again. If you’re experiencing alarming levels of déjà vu this week with the debate over Matt Gaetz’s fitness to run the DOJ, it’s not just you. We have seen this play before. Women make credible allegations of sexual misconduct or harassment against a man who has been nominated for a powerful position. The allegations spark an outcry. There is a bruising public airing of the claims, followed by a backlash and claims of a witch hunt. Eventually, the allegations—and the women making them—are reduced by an offhand dismissal of the misconduct as a mere “he said, she said.” The women are mistaken or making it up, their stories cannot be verified, and no man’s career should be derailed on that basis.
We have seen the invariable result play out again and again. The victim, dismissed as sympathetic but somehow not credible, is consigned to the #MeToo Accusers Hall of Fame, and the accused is confirmed. Power players congratulate themselves for getting their man across the finish line. It happened with the confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991. It also happened with the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. We are here not to relitigate those hearings but, rather, to explain why this play should have a different ending—why both Democrats and Republicans should not let it happen again this time, with Gaetz’s nomination for U.S. attorney general, the chief law-enforcement officer of the land.
First, let’s be clear: The sex-trafficking investigation by the Department of Justice, the very same agency Gaetz would purportedly lead, was opened during the Trump administration by Trump’s then–Attorney General Bill Barr. It was not a “deep-state witch hunt.” Barr, who shut down accountability for Trump allies like Roger Stone and Michael Flynn, let this one move forward. Although the investigation ended without criminal charges, that doesn’t mean that there wasn’t serious reason to believe that Gaetz violated the law (even his lawyers were careful to maintain that distinction). Prosecutors decline to seek charges because of legal issues like the statute of limitations or because of the high burden of proof, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that they must meet in order to convict in a criminal case. The stakes are different in a congressional confirmation hearing, when a nominee’s fitness to hold office must be scrutinized by senators. A congressional confirmation hearing is a job interview. Gaetz is not “owed” that job; he is, on the contrary, required to prove that he is worthy of it. A standard much lower than proof beyond a reasonable doubt should be and frequently has been used to assess a candidate’s background. We are all old enough to remember when an attorney general nominee withdrew her name from consideration following allegations she had hired as a nanny an immigrant lacking permanent legal status.
So, the absence of criminal charges against Gaetz is not, as Gaetz has claimed, an “exoneration.” And it is certainly not an endorsement of his fitness to be attorney general. The allegations have never been tested in a court of law, and they must be tested now as part of the Senate confirmation process if he moves forward with his nomination. We need not abandon our common sense as we consider Gaetz’s nomination. If he did nothing wrong, as he claims, and if the evidence the House Ethics Committee gathered exonerated him, Gaetz, Trump, and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson would not be working so hard to suppress the committee report that probed these matters.
/snip
By Dahlia Lithwick, Mimi Rocah, and Joyce White Vance
Nov 20, 20243:37 PM
Here we go again. If you’re experiencing alarming levels of déjà vu this week with the debate over Matt Gaetz’s fitness to run the DOJ, it’s not just you. We have seen this play before. Women make credible allegations of sexual misconduct or harassment against a man who has been nominated for a powerful position. The allegations spark an outcry. There is a bruising public airing of the claims, followed by a backlash and claims of a witch hunt. Eventually, the allegations—and the women making them—are reduced by an offhand dismissal of the misconduct as a mere “he said, she said.” The women are mistaken or making it up, their stories cannot be verified, and no man’s career should be derailed on that basis.
We have seen the invariable result play out again and again. The victim, dismissed as sympathetic but somehow not credible, is consigned to the #MeToo Accusers Hall of Fame, and the accused is confirmed. Power players congratulate themselves for getting their man across the finish line. It happened with the confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991. It also happened with the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. We are here not to relitigate those hearings but, rather, to explain why this play should have a different ending—why both Democrats and Republicans should not let it happen again this time, with Gaetz’s nomination for U.S. attorney general, the chief law-enforcement officer of the land.
First, let’s be clear: The sex-trafficking investigation by the Department of Justice, the very same agency Gaetz would purportedly lead, was opened during the Trump administration by Trump’s then–Attorney General Bill Barr. It was not a “deep-state witch hunt.” Barr, who shut down accountability for Trump allies like Roger Stone and Michael Flynn, let this one move forward. Although the investigation ended without criminal charges, that doesn’t mean that there wasn’t serious reason to believe that Gaetz violated the law (even his lawyers were careful to maintain that distinction). Prosecutors decline to seek charges because of legal issues like the statute of limitations or because of the high burden of proof, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that they must meet in order to convict in a criminal case. The stakes are different in a congressional confirmation hearing, when a nominee’s fitness to hold office must be scrutinized by senators. A congressional confirmation hearing is a job interview. Gaetz is not “owed” that job; he is, on the contrary, required to prove that he is worthy of it. A standard much lower than proof beyond a reasonable doubt should be and frequently has been used to assess a candidate’s background. We are all old enough to remember when an attorney general nominee withdrew her name from consideration following allegations she had hired as a nanny an immigrant lacking permanent legal status.
So, the absence of criminal charges against Gaetz is not, as Gaetz has claimed, an “exoneration.” And it is certainly not an endorsement of his fitness to be attorney general. The allegations have never been tested in a court of law, and they must be tested now as part of the Senate confirmation process if he moves forward with his nomination. We need not abandon our common sense as we consider Gaetz’s nomination. If he did nothing wrong, as he claims, and if the evidence the House Ethics Committee gathered exonerated him, Gaetz, Trump, and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson would not be working so hard to suppress the committee report that probed these matters.
/snip
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
