Ford’s Credibility

She refused to turn her therapy notes, which are key evidence, to the Judiciary Committee:

Now, I totally understand why someone would not want to turn over therapist records that undoubtedly discuss intimate details of one’s life. But if you are in the process of derailing a Supreme Court nominee based on otherwise unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct thirty-six years ago, and in that process giving the nominee a reputation as a rapist, it seems to me you have the moral obligation to either turn over all relevant evidence, or withdraw your allegation. In the absence of that evidence and any corroboration beyond her say-so, if I were a Senator I would ignore the allegations.

Also, they would be part of a serious FBI investigation.

The story has fallen apart, and now they’re saying he lied about drinking beer.

[Update later morning]

Why sexual-assault survivors should be furious at the Democrats.

[Update a few minutes later]

This reminds me of the 90s when, after making progress against sexual harassment in the workplace, the Democrats and feminists threw it all overboard in order to defend Bill Clinton. In this case, they just destroyed the #MeToo movement.

19 thoughts on “Ford’s Credibility”

    1. But victims regularly have memory gaps. It isn’t uncommon and actually proves she is telling the truth.

      (I’ve seen this defense a lot on Twitter when people are talking about how she can’t remember specific recent events like the one you mentioned. How did she not know how her lawyers were getting paid?)

  1. There is one thread that I find interesting that the FBI may/may-not pursue. And that is the July 1, 1982 “skis” date on Kavanaugh’s calendar. That gives us a specific time and place with all the relevant male players, including the name of the host party. The FBI can use this information and county records to trace deed ownership through the host family’s name or ask the participants directly for the address of the home in question. They can then ask current occupants for a walk-through of the home or can subpoena city building records for at least a floor plan of the house. This would either confirm or refute Ford’s claim as to the layout of the house which was very specific and does not rely on he-said/she-said for corroboration. Doesn’t settle the specific question of the guilt of Kavanaugh, no FBI investigation will. There will be a vote regardless.

    1. I don’t think he would have turned over his calendar if he had written down the day he tried to rape someone. But this does seem to be the entry the Democrats are pinning their hopes on.

      1. Probably because it’s the only thing that at least in writing brings all the (male) parties together in one place at one time. Something Ford cannot do. If the floor plan of the house doesn’t back up her story, it’s over. Then we move on to Ramirez. I think it’s down to only those two and Ramirez’s story seems the weaker case. Also this is a political trial not criminal. Intent doesn’t matter, even the facts barely seem to. An attempt to remove K from the bench assuming his nomination goes down in flames would likely still fail in court as per Mitchell.

      1. The trick is that you have to make sure you match the floor plan with the date in question to make sure there were no remodels in the interim. This is where city building records come into the picture.

        1. You mean about an entry door, when a zoning variance was granted, and whether to door was used as access to an apartment by tenants?

          1. The point is to determine if the floor plan of the Gaudette house conforms to the Ford descriptions in her opening statement at the time of the 7/1/82 party. If for example the upstairs bathroom does not align directly across the hallway from the door to any bedroom, that is a problem. Is there a narrow staircase leading from the living room to upstairs or is it in another part of the house? Major remodels that move plumbing fixtures or close staircases or alter dimensions of rooms will leave a paper trail, esp. if Maryland or the town has a real estate tax that takes these matters into account. Now granted that doesn’t rule out the possibility that this happened at a different party at a different house but it could rule this one either in or out. As far as I know this is the only party for which we have K’s own record placing all the males Ford mentions in her testimony at the same place at the same time. But this story moves fast, what is known changes daily it seems.

          2. The other point is whether the second entry door in Palo Alto was used to rent out an apartment to non-family members in contravention to municipal zoning instead of as an accommodation to stress or chronic fear resulting from an incident 30 years prior in Maryland as claimed.

          3. It seems like a lot of work to go through when we know it will have no impact on Democrat’s views of BK. Let’s say the floor plan doesn’t match, she mis-remembered it.

            The accusation is a transparent political attack that isn’t grounded in actually reality but is the firmament upon which Democrat’s interpret the world around them.

  2. The story has fallen apart, and now they’re saying he lied about drinking beer.

    They just want him to tell drinking stories in order to cause embarrassment.

    Did you see the new claim that he perjured himself because he didn’t drink just beer?

  3. I’m eerily reminded of the movie Disclosure and how much, as a young and deluded corporate climber, that movie scared me (and scarred me).

    I’ve generally avoided coverage of the matter, as I feel it is a pointless exercise in kabuki drama that distracts us from focusing on the real work that needs to be done in the nation.

    1. Like any story, the book, written by Michael Crichton, is so much better, but they did a good job with the movie.

  4. “they just destroyed the #MeToo movement.”

    They were already abandoning it, since it took out too many leftists and *didn’t* take out Trump.

    1. I didn’t mention it in my previous comment because I couldn’t remember the name of the person I was thinking of, but Insty had a link this morning–it’s Avital Ronell, a “superstar” college prof, who was suspended for–get this–sexually harassing a gay graduate student for three years. Academia had been circling the wagons around her initially.

      1. It wasn’t so long ago that academia defended the right of professors to sleep with their students, not a student at the same college but a student in their class. It is strange these are now the same people lecturing everyone about morality and ethics.

Comments are closed.