On one hand, the allegations have some credibility. She made the claim (or so it is being reported) to a therapist in 2012. While Kavanaugh's name does not appear to have been used, the description certainly matches in a generic sense. It also seems unlikely that there would have been some preemptive attempt to create evidence for something she planned to "make up" down the road. She obviously believes something happened.
On the other hand, there are certainly inconsistencies with her story. In therapist notes, she claims it was four boys who took part in the incident, but she now suggests two. There is also a description regarding the friend(s) standing aside "laughing" and another instance where she claims that another friend repeatedly "jumped on the pile". Apparently she doesn't recall how she ended up at this Party or even when she met Brett Kavanaugh.
Secondly, the only witness (Mark Judge) is siding with Kavanaugh on this. While one would expect that someone would not "admit" to witnessing such an event, the fact is that nobody is backing her side of the events. So even though Judge is a "bad" witness, he is still the only witness.
UPDATE: The credibility of someone reporting this story to a member of congress under the guise of anonymity is hard to accept. Clearly if Ford wanted to remain anonymous, then she simply doesn't say anything to anyone. She had to know that by going to a politician that the story would come out (and in fact, that was likely the point). Hiring an attorney (especially an attorney who specializes in political public relations issues and is considered highly partisan) makes no sense if your goal was to remain anonymous. Ford knew all along that she was going to come forward when the timing was right. For that tidbit of dishonesty, her credibility takes a hit.
Ford has also been wiping her social media pages. Apparently she has removed any and all forms of political opinions or information from Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. This is not the behavior of someone attempting to be upfront and honest.
On the flip side, there is no real good reason to believe that Brett Kavanaugh has any sort of credibility problem. In any "he said/she said" situation, it's always more than fair to consider any and all sorts of motivations, behaviors, or anything being done that is even slightly dishonest. All of these are strikes against Ford.
Bottom line:
Most importantly this event took place over thirty years ago. Certainly decades old memories of events are more difficult to rely on than something that happened last week. Kavanaugh might not remember exactly what happened, and may have even subconsciously downplayed the events (if there were indeed any events). Ford may not remember exactly what happened, and may have subconsciously exaggerated what happened over time or even changed the identity of the accused. They may "both" believe 100% that their recollection of events are correct.
Either way, we will not garner the truth. Without that truth I think it simply goes back to the credentials and qualifications of Brett Kavanaugh. By all accounts he exists in 2018 as one of the most respected jurists, a devout family man, and apparently an all around good guy. I am not sure this sort of thing "changes" any of that. Remove the politics and ask the question: should a sudden (and unproven) allegation from decades ago, really disqualify someone/anyone for a job or promotion?
I guess we will find out.
_______
As for the politics. I cannot imagine that Republicans will "delay" the vote. It will move forward one way or the other. If Kavanaugh loses support over this, then Trump will have to pull the plug and nominate someone else (my guess is that he already has someone on speed dial). There is certainly still time to hold hearings for a new candidate, and get that person confirmed in 2018.
Secondly, I think it was a big mistake for Ford to hire Debra Katz as her attorney. If this was going to work, it needed to look non-political. When you know people will start digging into Ford (she is a registered Democrat with a long list of political donations), it seems to be a serious strategic mistake to hire someone who is known as an activist and part of the Trump "resistance".
33 comments:
You avoided the question.
If the incident actually occurred as charged, would you still support his nomination to the Supreme Court?
I for one I believe that the accusation is credible. A drunken 17 year old male child, could very well have been very aggressive in trying to get laid.
Given his high level intelligence I would find it difficult to believe his denial. He hasn't released a new statement since the she came forward.
She should be granted the opportunity to testify.
He should be questioned about the incident under oath.
On a purely political basis if he denies the accusations his nomination should be withdrawn. Like you said that Trump has another Scalia style nominee on his Twitter feed.
If he admits that his recollections are "fuzzy" and it may have happened would you still support his nomination?
I know that I am asking the same question but I'm interested in your 500 word support for his nomination.
Secondly do you believe that (they) decided "to hire someone who is known as an activist and part of the Trump "resistance" as part of the deep state conspiracy theory that you believe exists?
There's a reason why even difi didn't ever bring it up in the hearing. It's not credible and she knows it.
This is his, what, third senate confirmation? Never has it, or anything like it, ever surfaced.
It's not a deep state conspiracy. Its a liberal and democrat smear campaign.
If he is not confirmed the President will not get another nominee considered until after the November elections.
Unless you believe that she stepped forward only for political reasons, only, it's very difficult to disbelieve her.
Kavanaugh re-issued his previous statement: "I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time."
Of course it's political. She is a liberal political activist and active political donor.
If it's so supremely credible, why didn't difi even once bring it up?
She knew its despicable smear.
Roger -
As I stated. There are definitely reasons to "not" believe the allegations.
Let's start with the reality that the therapist in question was not likely to take "bad notes" when that therapist is literally writing them down at the time. It is much more realistic to suggest that Ford's memory (or story) has changed from what she told the therapist in 2012 and what she is saying today. If here story changes on key evens over the past 6 years, how much did it change over the first 30 years.
Secondly, there are no corroborating allegations. These things don't happen in a vacuum or happen "once". If he did it to her, he likely did it to a lot of women. Yet, the only other women stepping forward are the 65 that showed support for him.
Third, the fact that she had already hired an attorney suggests that this was part of a larger plan. You don't need an attorney (certainly not the political circus clown that she chose), unless the plan was to come out all along. The timing is just a little "too perfect" in all of this, making me doubt her overall credibility.
Lastly, to answer the question in a legal sense. If Kavanaugh had been accused of this back in 1982, he would have legally been a minor. Any police records, charges, or anything would be under seal, and no employer could garner access to use it against him. Minor behavior is not generally considered relevant to how that adult is treated. So according to how our laws are set up, what Kavanaugh was accused of doing as a minor would be irrelevant.
All things considered, there are too many holes (even if you believe her) to "convict" Kavanaugh of the actions and disqualify him for this particular job.
The 65 women vouching fot Kavanaugh goes to a pattern of decent and honorable behavior.
From the conveniently forgotton details to the dramatic "ruin my relationships" her story has all the halmarks of a lie.
As I stated. There are definitely reasons to "not" believe the allegations.
And you also supported Thomas while ignoring anitia hill..... nothing different here....women full of shit.....Republicon" male is guiltless....Again....you also supported trump in spite of 17 women claims agains trump....all with a common thread that you discounted....Pussy grabbing is fine in your world....wonder how your new wife thinks about that??????
Anita Hill has nothing to corriberate her testimoney. No witnesses. Not even cotemporanious heresay. And like this woman, she was tainted by political motivations.
goes to a pattern of decent and honorable behavior.
For most of his life with a sorry exception....And I am sure you suffer form an eidetic memory cramps???? Sure you do....LOLOLOL!!
Anita Hill has nothing to corriberate her testimoney. No witnesses
And trumps accusers all told the same story....monies paid to a hooker and ,model....and you believed trump because he said so!!!....you really are an imbecile.....
now this is cool.
we've gone from being "deplorables" to being "dregs of society."
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/classy-joe-biden-calls-trump-supporters-the-dregs-of-society-in-speech-video/
thanks joe. this is exactly how we will get more trump.
And trumps accusers all told the same story....
In a manner yes, none of those accusations involved sexual assualt or sexual harrassment.
And dispite the media tarring Trump as the most famious "serial adulterer" in history. No credible accusation of criminal sexual misconduct was ever made.
It's amusing that you become rather prudish when it's a Republican politician be take a pass on rape and murder when the politican is a Democrat.
btw, speaking of sexual assault, what's the latest on keith ellison?
anyone?
The credibility of someone reporting this story to a member of congress under the guise of anonymity is hard to accept.
Of course it is hard to accept when even when bullet proof data is presented, you will ignore it in deference to everything trump....You accept he payed off two women while married and ignore that...you ignored his pussy grabbing comments and the claims of 17 or so women.....why change now....your spots are etched in stone!!! But why would you accept anything a women says...they are only good for child rearing and a good fucking....
btw, speaking of sexual assault, what's the latest on keith ellison?
He should resign, just like kavanaugh
Her attorney dismissed Paula Jones and defended al franken. This is about politics not justice.
In a manner yes, none of those accusations involved sexual assault or sexual harrassment.
Do you live in a perpetual coma, cramps???? They all in evolved sexual assault....look it up....its easy to find....asshole...
a 74-year-old Manhattan resident, told The New York Times that Trump inappropriately touched her "like an octopus" during a flight from Connecticut to New York. According to Leeds, a flight attendant upgraded her to first-class, escorting her to an open seat next to Trump. Once they were airborne, Trump raised the seat divider, grabbed her chest, and attempted to move one of his hands up her skirt, she said.
This is about politics
Especially trying to jam brett through in record time under the guise we have a vacancy while jowls mcconnell withheld an nomination for 400 days hoping for a political change...no wonder why I call you a fucking loser !!!!
Just read something interesting.
1996, Martha kavanaugh, his mother, was a district judge. She ruled against a couple in a foreclosure case. That couple were the parents of our liberal professor with the selective memory.
Martha kavanaugh, his mother, was a district judge
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!!!!
https://archive.fo/69gvf
Pacific Pundi....yeah....you read another piece of bullshit...
Especially trying to jam brett through in record time
The average time of previous USSC justices from nomination to confirmation was about two months. Kavanaugh's committee vote will take place approximately two months and two weeks from his nomination. He likely will not get a vote till closer to three months. Meaning that his nomination will take about one and a half times the normal average time period.
Also keep in mind that (contrary to what you have been told) more paperwork has been turned over on Kavanaugh than any previous nominee in history.
1996, Martha kavanaugh, his mother, was a district judge. She ruled against a couple in a foreclosure case. That couple were the parents of our liberal professor with the selective memory.
Poor student reviews from het university's web site called her the worst professor ever, and more significally "vengeful toward students" and not "all there".
The average time of previous USSC justices from nomination to confirmation was about two months
And what does that have to do with this controversial nomination???
Poor student reviews from het university's web site called her the worst professor eve
And more than half the country thinks trump is the worst president evah....as evidenced by current polls.....
idiot....all you are doing is just hoping something sticks....WTF does her job have anything do do with her accusing brett?????
Obviously this was some kind of insurance policy the Democrats kept in their back pocket for a hail mary. If this was credible and a big deal while no mention at all through the entire confirmation process while they sat on it? Not even a hint? They sure had plenty of time for other stunts.
This stinks to high heaven, shows the Democrats as way overplaying their hand, and will hurt them in the long run.
It does fire up ultra partisans such as lo iq commie, but that really doesn't accomplish anything or have any effect, other than him yelling FUCKING ASSHOLE continuously like a drunken banshee.
The average time of previous USSC justices from nomination to confirmation was about two months. And what does that have to do with this controversial nomination???
You stated that the confirmation was being Jammed through in record time... when in fact it has been a slower process than average.
The "issue" is that you are factually wrong.
You stated that the confirmation was being Jammed through in record time.
Should I have left off record time asshole/??? While you sat on your hands for 400 fucking days when Mc Jowls held up a legitimate nominee....fuck you!!!!
Obviously this was some kind of insurance policy the Democrats kept in their back pocket for a hail mary.
Sure aashole....it is obviously being jammed through in case the senate goes south.....!!!! Women's issues with men is obviously a blind spot for you and your part.....Nothing new about patronizing trump and his history while ignoring half the population because you don't care.....sad very sad loser...
lo iq commie said
Sure aashole....it is obviously being jammed through in case the senate goes south.....!!!!
Boy are you lo iq, probably too small to measure.
Much bigger chance the Republicans actually increase their majority in the Senate. I almost hope the Democrats smear tactics work and the Republicans actually nominate a real ultra far right wing conservative and put him/her on the court. Then they can revisit this nomination on the next opening, probably not far in the future.
ROFLMFAO
Post a Comment