Consider two different stories of accusations of wrongdoing. In one, multiple different sources tell multiple different news outlets the same story. In the other, there is no evidence, and even those the accuser says can corroborate the story are unable to do so.
What we have here is a contrast between the allegations that the Saudi government murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi just days ago, and separately, the 36-year-old misconduct allegations raised last month against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh has emphatically and consistently denied the merest hint of sexual impropriety. Not only did every person supposedly at the party where the alleged assault occurred deny any recollection of such a gathering, but nearly a hundred women, from his girlfriends to coworkers spanning his entire life, vouched for both his known character and his temperament while under the influence of alcohol.
By contrast, evidence overwhelmingly indicates that Khashoggi, who originally fled Saudi Arabia one year ago and has been continually critical of Crown Prince Salman and the government’s Yemeni intervention, was murdered in cold blood by the oppressive and theocratic absolute monarchy.
Despite these glaring differences between the two cases, President Trump couldn’t help but draw the inappropriate comparison.
“I think we have to find out what happened first,” Trump said in an interview with The Associated Press. “Here we go again with, you know, you’re guilty until proven innocent. I don’t like that. We just went through that with Justice Kavanaugh and he was innocent all the way as far as I’m concerned.”
Trump’s gross equivocation unintentionally smears Kavanaugh. It insults the intelligence of the American people, and most tellingly, signals a disturbing sympathy to a regime which presumably murdered an American resident.
The principle of innocent until proven guilty is fundamental to Western civilization and the English common law, which formed the foundation of this nation. But the court of public opinion doesn’t share the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard that the courts employ. Trump can’t chant “lock her up” at one rally, only to defend the Rob Porters of the world from public scrutiny in the face of evidence comparable to that which incriminates Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information.
In the case of Justice Kavanaugh, the evidence did not exist, let alone approach the “reasonable doubt” or even “preponderance of evidence” standard. That same standard has fairly impugned men like Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, and Roger Ailes in the public eye, one discerning enough to read news reports on their own and consider whether the evidence is compelling enough to convince them that someone is likely guilty of a crime.
Trump’s defense of the Saudi government in the face of such damning evidence is shameful. He would be wise to reconsider the message it sends, not only to foreign governments, but also to the journalists risking their lives to hold them to account.
