@Mmm, New York. "The timing is so late..." it could be because there is so much at stake that it finally pushes Dr. Ford over the psychological barrier to put her and her family in public light. While it is necessary to examine the evidence, it shows the limitation of the act of judging by the definiteness of the evidence. I think many sexual predators know that and exploit it to their advantage. That is why so many Bill Crosby and the like would drug their victims. They know, if the victim is not conscious to tell their experience with clarity, the predators could manipulate the public opinions to their advantage if not right out get away with their crime. In the case of Judge Kavanaugh, I feel he should withdraw for the sake of not undermining the credibility of the supreme court. With such a big cloud hung over him, once installed, he would only undermine the authority of one of the three pillars of our democracy. He should recognize that this is larger than him. It is no longer just about him. It is about our democratic institutions.
1
There is nothing to stop Kavanaugh from taking responsibility and expressing remorse for his past behaviors. His drinking and carousing appear to be substantiated -- nevertheless, he continues to defend his ego need to be "right". His entitlement even now is palpable, and, quite frankly, disgusting for someone who a) is married; b) has children; c) is in a position of power. We need models for our sons and daughters, models who display integrity, ethics, morality. No, this man should not be on the Supreme Court. He should not be a judge in the Appellate system either. He should stand tall, take responsibility for his past behaviors, and help those who are struggling , teaching young men to refrain and to treat all beings, including themselves, with dignity and respect.
High School is a place where most of us, as boys and girls, experienced some kind of humiliation that effected us for many years. Perhaps the few strong ones were able to sail through unaffected, but I expect most were not.
Whether it was social pressure, appearance, your interests, your speech or mannerisms, most of us were humiliated at one point or another. And as in all of our lives, the incidences that happened played upon our own insecurities.
I have what I think are clear memories of certain events in high school and no memories or forgotten ones of most of what happened. I went to many parties but could not tell you what happened at them or where they were. I am occasionally befuddled, when, at a reunion, someone remembers things completely differently. I could swear it happened the way I remember it and with whom I remember it. But, I think, our memories are not always giving us the truth. Perhaps, somewhere in the many years since, my mind changed a few things. Perhaps I changed part of what actually happened or perhaps added or subtracted some people. In the minds jumble of thousands of memories and experiences since, have some become distorted. I even have a memory of one very clear experience, that I have embellished into an exciting and interesting story that I use in conversations with friends. And the one other person I was with doesn't remember it at all. The truth of what actually happened to Prof. Ford and Judge K, exists now only in fallible memories.
Young people do not always behave as they should. I believe we have all been there. But to lie about your actions as an adult, be they from last week or 30 years in the past, is a huge sticking point for me. It is obvious that Kavanaugh has lied under oath about his actions during the Bush administration. If he can lie about that under oath, he will certainly lie about his actions as a drunk teenager at a house party.
1
There are only two comments for me to make. First, there is no statute of limitations on sexual assault in the state where this alleged crime occured. The courts validate that this is a serious offense no matter the age and time of the occurrence of the assault. Secondly, young black males are constantly tried as adults for felonies as young as 12 years of age. Either all Americans are tried equally in the courts, or there is racism and misogyny embedded in our judicial system. If this woman who brings these felonious charges to the Senate is not respected, she can file a sexual assault charge against the perpetrator in the state of Maryland where the alleged crime occured.
1
It's difficult to get around the argument that this needs to be investigated independently.
Kavanaugh will be named for life. As judge. To the supreme court. Let that sink in. Thomas is still tainted by the Hill story and odds are that it will amplify with time, his tenure won't age well.
K. is not stupid, he should realize how the future is going to judge his nomination. He should ask for an investigation to definitely clear him. He hasn't until now. If he doesn't, he will have entered into a devil's bargain for all to see.
Christine has one and only one statement of these events and has passed a polygraph done by an ex-FBI agent showing she is truthful.
However...how many lies and conspiracies and conjectures and rationalizations have we seen from the right-wing partisans and from the GOP leadership in attempts to counter her statement or the muddy the waters or to cast "doubt" or to "apologize" for Kavanaugh or to "sweep it under the rug".....all done by right-wing pundits on fox media or on talk radio or on conservative websites....
JUST THINK ABOUT THAT !
Sexual assault at any age? Illegal. Drinking under age? Illegal. Lying under oath? Illegal. You don't get a pass because it was "a long time ago" or because "it was a different time" or because "teenagers make mistakes." Ugh, I'm so sick of this.
13
What about the fact that CM Blasey does research & publications for RU-486 abortion pill for Corcept Therapeutics. Doesn't that give her a huge motive for wanting to keep Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court?
@Steffens No, it does not. Unless Corcept is paying her under the table.
2
I think Judge Kavanaugh is irreversibly tainted by these allegations, which I believe to be true. I also believed Anita Hill and was, and still am, appalled that the swine Clarence Thomas is on the Supreme Court.
So what if this incident happened when these people were in high school? There’s no excuse, ever, for one person to assault, sexually or otherwise, another. When a man does this, it’s because he believes he has the power and the woman does not. It’s disgusting and disrespectful and disgraceful, even if the victim has been too ashamed to come forward until, in this case, the fate of the country is at stake.
If Judge Kavanaugh has the slightest iota of honor, he will withdraw from further consideration for the highest court in the land. I’m not holding my breath.
6
According to reader "Alex, Indiana," part of whose comment is: "The truth is unknowable today, and holding a hearing cannot possibly shed any light. Rather, it will provide a forum for the worst sort of toxic politics. Dr. Blasey is likely not lying, but even she cannot truly know what happened 40 years ago."
If that were so, that "the truth is unknowable today," then all historians should take themselves out of the study, research and writing of history. This also apply to archeologists, medical scientists, art historians, and any other branch of scholarly and scientific study which must delve into the past in order to answer perplexing questions, learn important and valuable information, add knowledge, or merely satisfy present curiosity. Curiosity, as it happens, is one of the most powerful generators of knowledge in Homo sapiens.
To ignore or undervalue history is best summed up by philosopher George Santayana's saying: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
So, "Alex," your ahistorical position is uninformed not to mention dangerous. For one such example, take our current president for whom the past is a dark and unknowable thing. More than that, it is deeply frightening to him. Best not to know too much about the past.
To know the past, to quote you, Alex: "will provide a forum for the worst sort of toxic politics."
To refuse to know the past may well produce something far, far worse than mere "toxic politics."
2
@Janet W. I don't think it's a good comparison, Ford's personal memories and account of the event, and the study of History. Even historians recognize the potential pitfalls and shortcomings of their field. If you only have one sided accounts, like those from ancient conflicts, or incomplete records, then it's entirely possible that our current understanding of history is wrong. In fact, history is a constant work of correction and revision as new accounts and artifacts are discovered. Do you think the history we teach in America today is the same as it was in the Post-Construction South 100 years ago?
In this case, there's not much to point to in refining our understanding of the events. It doesn't mean we shouldn't dig, but it's likely that nothing will turn up to settle the matter once and for all. We have Ford's account. Do you think that too will be subject to revision as facts emerge, as happens with our understanding of history? Or do you think that an investigation would only substantiate her claims?
What happened to due process and what’s up with a Senator saying things like “all white me need to shut up and step up.” I am afraid you are politically incorrect and guilty just based on race and gender. Liberalism is destroying common sense and Hollywood is the clown at in front.
1
@Keith Due process? This is a Senate hearing to appoint a man to SCOTUS, not aan alleged perp in a criminal court. The US Senate has its own rules. Due process is not one of them.
2
'Who has the greater incentive to lie?' - on that reasoning you would always convict the person accused of murder rather than disbelieve the person who acts as a witness against them. The accused may face the death penalty whereas the witness faces no punishment unless they are proved to have perjured themselves.
The answer is: The news. They clearly have the greater incentive to lie. It's all about clicks and this gets the job done. The accuser has come forward with a story of an act. There is no stated time or place for said act. How does anyone investigate a crime without knowing a specific time and place. A stated year and a suburb are not going to cut it. You need a calenderr date and a place that it happened, like an address. This is accusation only without an ounce of evidence. They have called for a hearing and it is said the accuser will not testify. It's time for a vote to confirm the new justice.
1
1. I think the comments in the article really represented the full scope of opinions one could have on this matter. My opinion is that it isn't Kavanaugh who has more incentive to lie; it's the Democratic Party.
Firstly, Brett Kavanaugh shouldn't be held accountable for this - if he even did it - because he was a teenager. Even if Kavanaugh and Ford were not drunk, expecting a teenager to have the same ethical capacity as an adult is unwarranted. Of course it's bad to rape or assault somebody, but since they were younger they can't be judged as adults would be judged.
Secondly, I think it's obvious that these allegations are being timed so that they can possibly prevent Brett Kavanaugh from being appointed to the Supreme Court. It makes the Democratic politicians look despicable. They claim to take these kinds of allegations seriously, but it's not serious enough to not use it as a stopgap for Kavanaugh's nomination. It's obvious that this effort is more about preventing a conservative judge than it is getting justice for somebody who claims to be the victim of a crime. Because Democrats are milking this for all it's worth, it makes it more difficult to take these allegations seriously. It's obvious that they're the ones with the highest incentive to lie.
2
I don't see how Judge Kavanaugh can proceed with his nomination. He's already refused to answer questions about politics or on subjects that might come to him as a Supreme Court justice, and what's more political now than #MeToo? And isn't it possible that some sort of case arising from sexual harassment might make it to the Supreme Court? By his own logic, he should refuse to testify in his defense.
But how else can he successfully defend himself? There will always be a stain on his reputation without a convincing defense, and therefore there will be a stain on his jurisprudence.
So, for the good of the country he should withdraw his nomination, even if he's qualified and innocent.
And if he doesn't withdraw, that would show him to be someone who puts personal ambition above the good of the country, which would be proof that he shouldn't have been nominated in the first place,
2
@Threeekings no it would show a man standing up for himself. In the face of a women who is lying
Who has the greater incentive to wit almost 40 years before releasing a totally unprovable, and also no way to DISprove story during an era when the ultra lefties will stop at no trick to stop the government?
It is so bad that if he gets confirmed, the Democrats will just find some random ultra lefty judge to issue an injunction. (Note to Dems: The Republicans can find random judges too. And accusers. Something to keep in mind if you ever get control back.
My wife said it was so long ago that it shouldn't factor into this decision. I asked her if she would have married me if a woman claimed I had tried to rape her. Long silence. No I wouldn't have, she said, because it means you are a man without integrity or respect for women. Being drunk is not an excuse for indulging your basest instincts.
5
All the commentary provided misses the one key point. Kavanaugh has denied the accusations. If the accusations prove true, he lied. That alone should disqualify him. What is at stake is a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, zero tolerance must be followed.
The question is what is the standard of proof? Without credible witnesses, it is reduced to a "he said/she said" argument that will prove nothing? Will anyone cross party lines to deny confirmation based on the accusers credibility alone? The stakes are considerable for both sides. But what the accuser has on her side is the topic of this article. What does she personally gain from exposing herself to this level of scrutiny if the incident didn't happen. Everyone sitting in judgment is forced to consider that and determine if there was a motive that isn't apparent.
3
I believe Blasey. Why? Because I too went to school with too many boys just like Kavanaugh and Judge.
In my case, in the late 60s and 70s, from the age of six to eighteen, I went through the ubiquitous (in the UK) all-male, independent and private, C of E boarding-school system. All middle to upper middle-class boys, taught almost exclusively by masters. Nary a girl or a woman in sight. I didn’t drink, smoke or take any other drugs, recreational or prescribed. I didn’t party — ever. I was reading, studying, working and playing sport too hard for one thing.
My exclusive, single-sex public school (ages 13-18), as it was at the time, for a time the most expensive in the UK, goodness only knows why, was straight out of Lord of the Flies. I will never recover from my painful experiences there, and I was one of the more fortunate ones. I can never forget what happened to me and to others whom I failed to protect. I was surrounded by cruel, sadistic, vicious, racist, homophobic, drunken oafs who behaved as do the hard-drinking narcissistic thugs and bullies who make up roughly one sixth of the male populace.
Despite having a younger sister, despite being married to my wife of many years, despite having an adult daughter to whom I'm very close, despite having many intimate female friends, I don't pretend to know much about women and girls. But I sure know a lot about a certain type of man and boy, especially the sort of boy that Kavanaugh was, and the kind of man he has become.
8
Who has a greater motivation?
Let's see, we have a woman who is demonstrably anti-Trump and is fearful that the judge might harm Roe vs Wade in addition to other political views she hold dear.
I imagine that once this is done she will get a book deal that might make her millions.
The idea that she can torpedo the career of someone without any evidence at all is astounding.
She does not want to appear under oath under any kind of normal conditions.
The polygraph was judged "truthful" but we don't know the actual questions asked, and thus is meaningless.
I've seen nothing of substance to show that this is anything but a delaying tactic in the hopes that they can deny Trump the ability to appoint a Judge.
1
Mark Judge should be questioned by the Judicial Committee. Dr. Ford said he was in the room when she was assaulted. Judge admits he was there but says that the assault didn't happen. The fact that he admits he was there lends much credence to Dr. Ford's story.
3
@WILLIAM DAVIS um no? He was there and said it didn't happen. Or didn't remember. I'd remember if I watched someone get raped.
Many of these comments don't really touch the self of a young woman in Dr Ford's experience. I was a returning older student and older than most of the other students in a women's college which had recently taken in some male students. While waiting for an elevator a young female student suddenly spoke to me. The door had opened and some students had gone in but this young woman refused to enter. She spoke about one of those inside, saying he follows me everywhere, she had already changed schools once and here he was again in this one. I suggested going to the authorities, but she had already decided to leave and go elsewhere far away. She was actually terrified of his presence. The door closed before the young man could get out (he looked scary to me also) and she exited the building at once. Other students had already asked for my advice, but this was very different and nothing to do with learning.
6
I believe in personal redemption: boorish drunken behavior in the teenage years should not be an indelible stain on the character of the miscreant for the rest of his/her life. I also believe Christine Ford and think her disclosure is an act of heroism, given the negative impacts on her life that will ensue.
Kavanaugh is not worthy of confirmation, for a variety of reasons, most notably his role in the Ken Starr persecution (and I don't mean prosecution) of Bill Clinton, his evasiveness and deceptions in the interview process and his unwillingness to release documents for proper vetting. I do not want the lives of my children and grandchildren to be damaged by the prejudices of this man. Will there never be a Judgment Day for the immorality, hypocrisy, chicanery, and greed of the Republican Party?
28
Judge Kavanaugh admits to heavy drinking in high school and college. He has also run up huge credit card debt. These are concerning by themselves, and suggest a problem with impulse control.
Professor Blasey is a respected, thorough researcher. She has passed a lie detector test. She has no incentive to put herself through the current controversy.
Women of all ages may not discuss a sexual assault incident or a sexual discrimination incident. There are so many reasons, among which is that until recently, it was unlikely to do any good.
I rebuffed a sexual assault by my employer over 40 years ago, and then he fired me. HR was complicit, so I didn't think at the time that I had recourse. Everyone in that workplace knew what happened and knew about his behavior. Only this year has the Institute at which he had became a very important researcher investigated him, the result of a lawsuit by 3 women. This man had to resign. I was surprised that he finally had to answer for what he had done to me and to so many other women.
My point is that women may not talk about sexual assault at the time because it would not do any good.
21
I find it odd that Republicans are standing by Kavanau when there are a host of other, equally-conservative and qualified judges (who I probably would not like) to nominate for the Supreme Court. There are plenty of other conservative judges with a propensity to legislate from the bench in favor of conservative causes. Why him?
9
@Glenn Thomas. I find it odd that she didnt mention a name until the Dems didn't want kav picked. I wonder a year later if we look at her bank account what we will find.
@Glenn Thomas
Kavanaugh lives in the pockets of trump and alt-right conservative congressmen.
Perhaps they have some "sway" over him.
Like Putin over trump.
1
@Glenn Thomas
Very probably because he has clear history expressing that he thinks a sitting president should not be prosecuted!!!!
3
It’s easy to believe that Kavanough and Judge embarked on aggressive behavior in high school. Same environment as fraternities on college campuses that has persisted for decades. Alcohol makes teenage boys participate in sex crazed parties. The fact he doesn’t remember it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Is alcohol the problem or the people who use it and then regret their stupidity as adults. My only concern is that Kavanaugh has been shown to be less than forthright about his days in the Bush administration. What bothers me is his sleezy smirking and his boyish demeanor which belies his true intentions to alter the direction of the Supreme Court to a radical right turn. He has perjured himself in previous court appointments. Of course he knows how to deceive, he worked for Bush and he is a lawyer, a graduate of Yale. The purpose of a lawyer is to confuse and confound the jury. That’s how they make the big $$$$$$. He will be the mouthpiece for the oligarchy, the people who want to run the country. What better way than to get their boy on the Supreme Court. Federalist Society=The ends justify the means.
15
@jeff bunkers Please don't forget, he is also a Roman Catholic and would be one of six, out of nine SCOTUS justices. Women will never be equal human beings in the eyes of their freely acknowledged chosen religion.
1
to say that the Democrats are using the Me-Too movement as a weapon against Republican candidates begs the evidence represented by the unceremonious exiting of the Senate by Al Franken who took part in a stupid and inappropriate photo while still a private citizen and a comedian. The "victim" herself was unhappy about causing his drop-kicking from an elective office by the Democratic Party. If the Republicans would clean their own house, starting at the top, Democrats wouldn't have to do it for them.
17
“Who has not done something that they are not proud of? It should not be a death sentence for our aspirations to help others.“
If Kavanaugh owned up to it, admitted he deeply regretted it, that there is no excuse for what he did - he might be worthy of consideration.
He hasn’t. If Blasey Ford’s account is credible - and based on the account published in yesterday’s Times, there’s every indication it is - Kavanaugh has not only sexually assaulted a woman but on Monday will lie under oath about it.
Hit the road, Brett.
15
@BobMeinetz
You already assume Kavanaugh is guilty and that Ford's account is credible without any evidence and without even an investigation or testimony under oath.
You sir are a part of the no-due-process court of public opinion. You personally contribute to a great disservice to the country.
1
@BobMeinetz
That last is the key to me. A flawed but repentant judge could be fit to serve on the Court. One who is willing to lie to advance his career is not, and we can't take even a 50-50 chance on such a nominee. If there is a credible chance that he might be lying, there are plenty of other qualified people who would be happy to serve.
11
@Matt. So if I went to your work and told your boss 36 years ago you held me down and touched me. Your saying you should be instantly fired on that 50/50?
There should be NO vote on Judge Kavanaugh until after a full investigation by the FBI into the allegations.
Better yet, Kavanaugh should simply withdraw his name. He will remain tarnished in the minds of many (most?) if he ascends to the Supreme Court.
Lest we forget, Trump (with any number of his own legal problems with women) has said repeatedly that he would appoint only those who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
13
Dr. Blasey has suffered greatly even before she went public. As a psychiatrist who has treated many sexual assault victims, I know how painful it is to share one's story, so I understand why she kept this private for so long.
She has suffered even more since going public. She has no incentive to lie. She is and forever will be a target of right wing fanatics.
She has a history which shows that she is credible.
Contrast this with Kavanagh. He has every incentive to lie. His history shows ample concern about his character and honesty. He has had problems with alcohol abuse and gambling. He had a 250,000 debt which was paid off by anonymous GOP donor. He knew he would be asked about his incident with Blasey, so he asked every female he ever knew to swear that he never raped them. He has repeatedly lied under oath to Congress, about stolen Democratic memos, torture, and his role in placing racists on the federal bench.
He is morally unfit for the SCOTUS. A thorough investigation by the FBI is indicated before any vote. After how the GOP treated Merrick Garland, there is no excuse for doing anything less.
34
Who has the great incentive to lie is not a valid black and white measuring stick. We could have a case where both parties 100% tell the truth as it exists to them. And it could be that one or both of them are simply not properly remembering an 30+ year old event as it really happened.
There is a good chance what she says she believes is 100% true. However, that does not mean there is a good chance that it is 100% accurate. The jails are full of folks convicted on testimony of eye witnesses that told the 100% truth as they believe it. "Yes, I saw the defendant come out of the back of that house at 3PM. I have no doubt." Only to be shown later on that they had the time wrong, the location wrong and/or the wrong person. They did not lie, they would have passed a polygraph, they simply had a false version of the truth.
It is why the Senators should insist on testimony under oath, questions directly to both parties, and any kind of evidence the accuser can provide. Barring that, if I were Senator, I am not going to derail the nomination of a qualified judge based on 30+ year old suspect memories.
3
@Marvin And you think it's also quite possible that Judge Kavanaugh thinks he didn't assault Professor Ford, but is simply mistaken? If not, you might do well to reexamine the problematic assumptions at the root of your speculation.
6
@Matt but arnt you speculating that he is guilty hmmmmm.
@Matt Which is more likely, an erroneous eyewitness identification when CBF had allegedly been drinking, or Kavanaugh thinking he didn't assault CBF? Most reasonable people would say the former. because erroneous eyewitness identifications occur all the time. When he was a teenager, Kavanaugh had a rather generic appearance, and might have been confused with many other young men.
What I find particularly amusing is that opponents of Kavanaugh insist that this event, if it occurred, is disqualifying. Bill Ayers and his girlfriend ran around blowing up buildings in the 1960's and liberals ardently approve of his mentorship of Barack Obama and his ascendancy to a tenured professorship.
One clumsy pass (if indeed it occurred) scars you for life, but blowing people up is, well, just a hiccup on the way to liberal celebrity!
I believe it is her who has the most to gain by lying. If the republicans fail to vote him in, it could change the entire dynamics of the SCOTUS. There is more at stake here then he said she said.
1
@Cathy
You truly believe that she has the most to gain? She's receiving death threats and had to go into hiding. He complained about some mean emails. She's got nothing to gain from this, its a bigger hassle and danger to her than it will ever be to him.
She's doing this because she feels its the right thing to do. She's respected in her community, he's perjured himself four times. He had several hundred thousand dollars worth of debt that was randomly paid off by persons unknown. He's not a great person, even if he isn't guilty of this. Do you really think its okay for someone like that to sit on the highest court in the land?
2
At best, it's 'she said, he said.'
Apply Occam's Razor for the most reasonable answer.
Kavanaugh and the GOP are so blatently upholding the patriarchy by promoting the message that guys rule and can have sex with girls whenever they please, yet not allow the girl to get an abortion. If he had gotten her or another young girl pregnant, what do you bet he would have pressured her into an abortion? They don't care about women, and are using the abortion as a wedge issue, or we would see a 50/50 amount of women and men in that room already.
16
@Jennifer Ward
Citations needed. Show us the legislation they've supported that gives men the freedom to retain female sex slaves.
1
@DavidB One does not need legislation to uphold the social norm of patriarchy. Just like there are no laws that order teenagers to go to the mall-- social norms perpetuate themselves. Hence, most social legislation demonstrate what people OUGHT to do but don't. For example, there are dozens of laws in European history outlawing the wearing of purple-- what does this tell us? It tells us that everyone who could was
wearing purple anyway. You do not need laws to uphold the patriarchy because that has been the normative behavior for ages.
Someone at the New York Times needs to look up an article in the November 4, 1991 Arts section “Television Gets on the Bandwagon of the Thomas-Hill Contretemps”.
The article describes an episode of the TV show ‘Dinosaurs’ which was actually an ahead-of-it’s-time show, a la Simpson’s. They did a farcical episode of the Anita Hill hearings, including Senators. Find, or upload, that clip!
I remember watching that episode, as well as the actual hearing, and telling co-workers about it. It dripped with irony. And I still remember it, because it was so on-point.
Because we don’t learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.
8
Roger Maris hit 61 home runs in 1961, but earned just an asterisk for it in the minds of his fellow Americans because he played in more games than the Babe.
If Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were principled men they would have asked President Trump to re-nominate Merrick Garland for an up-or-down vote before turning to them..
Now -- like Maris before them -- both men will forever be associated in the minds of principled Americans with an asterisk.
Harsh but just are the ways of punctuation which, with one small asterisk, can tarnish men’s reputations forever.
10
@A. Stanton Utter nonsense but even if true, meaningless. Do you think every vote Thomas makes has an asterisk as well? Even if you do, do you think folks get to ignore any majority decision Thomas vote for? No, they don't. It becomes precedent and the law of the land, asterisk or not.
2
@A. Stanton
Just? The asterisk is just? Explain why it is just in this situation. Kavanaugh has merely been accused. There's been no investigation, no trial, no oath-bound testimony. He has the signatures of 65 women who all knew him personally *at the time* of the alleged assault and who defend his character.
You're saying that despite all this, Kavanaugh clearly deserves the asterisk? Yeah, okay. Why?
1
@DavidB obviously because he's part of the #believe everything without proof group
The title says it all. Sexual predation is NEVER OK, at any age. Being drunk is no excuse.
20
@Emily Kane -- Belief without evidence has no place in a secular society. I trust the testimony of multiple individuals over this one woman's therapy ramblings.
2
@Emily Kane Who is saying being drunk is an excuse? Kavanaugh is not, so far he claims the entire incident is false.
The issue is the credibility of a very serious claim based upon a 30+ year old shaky memory (that could have been shaped over time). She could be 100% telling the truth but if I was a Senator, unless she testified under oath, allowed detailed questioning, and had a more compelling more detailed memory than has been presented in here one-sided letter, and unless there was some kind of witness or other evidence, it would not change my yes vote.
I would hold her to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold.
2
@Emily Kane
Don't be a sheep, Emily. An accusation is just an accusation. There's no evidence supporting it in this case. You should not be convinced Kavanaugh did assault her just because she said he did, that's wholly anti-American. Due process is an important protection for us citizens -- strip it away from those you don't like and eventually your own right to due process will be stripped away as well.
Who has the greater reason to lie about this incident? Certainly not Blasey-Ford.
33
For some reason wherever there is out-of-control sex and/or drinking going on there always is a Catholic or Republican present.
For a Judge, and with respect to his own admitted indulgence in alcohol and free spending on sports tickets Judge Kavanaugh shows a clear lack of judgement.
As a Catholic and former Republican I hang my head in shame. I would rather suffocate in a shallow pool of vomit than vote Republican any longer and even though I love my Church I no longer have confidence in the leadership.
Who, with having even a shred of integrity could possibly want to be known for the rest of their life as a Trump appointee. For what profit is there in gaining the whole world and in the end losing their soul?
45
Drinking, catholic, sex - Ted Kennedy was a republican? I’m sorry your feelings of betrayal overcome your reasoning.
‘Who Has the Greater Incentive to Lie?’
Seriously? What incentive besides telling the truth does Christine Blasey Ford have? What? Even if by some miracle two republican senators believe her and vote no...Trump can just appoint a clone in Kavanaugh's place. It won't matter even a little in the grand scheme of the supreme court.
And Dr. Blasey had to know that she would be run though the mill for coming forward...daring to tell the truth. To lie about this is to risk your entire career for what? And what evidence is there for her ever telling such an incredible lie? It would be an act of insanity on her part. And there is the evidence of her talking about the sexual assault with a therapist in 2012. If it's a lie...it's been years in the making. Had Kavanaugh not been nominated to such a high position, likely it would never have come out.
On the other side is Kavanaugh with all the incentive in the world to lie. His chance at the highest court in the country hangs in the balance. His career going forward depends on his lying. Telling the truth now would destroy him.
I have never assaulted anyone. I've made a rude comment now and then. If someone from my high school claimed I had attacked them at a party, I could say that I didn't drink then...and didn't attend parties! I believe the students who actually knew me back then would back that up. It appears that Kavanaugh and his buddy Mark Judge were known for drinking and partying.
Occam's razor applies. Kavanaugh did it.
32
@rumpleSS Thankfully, our justice system does not work the way you describe it. You need a credible level of proof, "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal cases, and a "preponderance of evidence" for civil cases. The accused wins if there is a draw.
There have been blatant cases where an accuser with no reason to lie has done so. See Duke Lacrosse.
There have been cases where the accuser is not lying, but what they believe is the truth is simply not the truth. It is a variation on the event, twisted and formed over time.
This is not a criminal or civil case, and we don't know what level of evidence the handful of Senators that might swing their votes would require to swing those votes. From the sounds of it, if she does not testify in front of the committee on Monday, they will not change their votes. As it should be. At this point everything is heresay, nothing is under oath, she has not been questioned in detail, etc.
Burden of proof is on HER, NOT Kavanaugh, that is just how it works.
5
@rumpleSS
That you invoke Occam's razor while displaying a profoundly biased and one-sided understanding of this situation is a fantastic example of cockeyed pseudo-intellectualism.
3
@Marvin
SCOTUS Nominee hearings have little these days to do with "justice."
As of 9:40 PM, PST
I have read all 209 comments and a few things
disturb me:
a) People are absolutely sure that either Blasey
is telling the truth or Kavanaugh is telling the truth
without any of them having been there in that room
where the assault did or did not take place.
b) If you are on the other side of this charge and dare
to question the integrity of their "hero" - you are as
bad as their "anti-hero".
c) Those who try to simply reason with either side are
either ignored or defamed.
As far as I can tell, Blasely has told conflicting accounts,
that does not mean she is lying, but she may not have the evidence to prove her claims.
Kavanaugh claims it never happened. Has anyone found
any other women who is willing to claim and provide evidence that he liked to take advantage of women ?
There was no rape.
They may been an attempted Rape,
but there there may not have been
or it may have
been adolescent exploring going too far.
If Blasely thought Kavanaugh was really going to
try to kill her then why did she not report it as
soon as she got out of the room ?
Perhaps she is mistaken, perhaps she is not.
No one who was not there can know
and why the New York Times allows
defamations of her character and his -
in the comment sections
is very unsettling.
Let the Hearings begin.
6
The phrase “adolescent exploring”, for me, indicates a lack of understanding and so, no disrespect intended, I must move on to the next comment.
7
@John Brown Yep, and don't forget that old memories are shaped over time, via therapy, via repression, etc,. The world is full of false memories and altered memories, memories that are 100% truthful to the person, but are not accurate representation of the real truth.
And the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused, and in a tie or a well-maybe or even an I-think-he-might-have-done-something, the accused wins.
1
@John Brown, Yes, we are faced with a choice between 2 views of what happened. That's why the intelligent choice is through Occam's Razor: The simplest, least convoluted explanation is probably the correct one. The doctor has my vote and I am confident.
3
I guess I don’t really understand the people who want to import criminal justice standards of proof (‘innocent until proven guilty’) into this discussion. The conversation is not about whether Judge Kavanaugh should *go to jail* because he may have committed a drunken assault when he was a teenager and currently be lying about it. There, obviously, the standard would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But it is pretty easy to see why you wouldn’t vote to confirm someone to a life appointment as a Supreme Court justice if you thought that – even *maybe* – he committed a drunken sexual assault when he was 17 and is now willing to lie about it in order to better his career. Even a small chance that that is true would be enough for me to vote no.
41
@Matt Your attitude goes against every principle in our justice system, the standards on which our country was founded upon. Folks should not be denied opportunity based upon 'even a small chance.'
Also, even if you accept there is even more than a small chance, but not really even a tipping of the scale, what harm does putting such a person on the court do? Zero. It has no effect on his ability to do his job, judge cases based upon the Constitution.
From what I have seen there was more relevant and strong evidence against Clarence Thomas, he was appointed, and while you may not agree with his decisions, it had absolutely no bearing on how he judges cases. None.
So, if I was a Senator, I personally would require something close to "beyond a reasonable doubt" before I changed my mind on a judge I had been set to confirm based upon his judicial record and qualifications. Especially on something that occurred when he was 17 years old.
Now, I will caveat this. If it seems that Kavanugh is directly lying under oath, I would change my vote. But again, I would need a strong standard of proof of that.
2
@Matt
I would bet my soul that your tune would quickly change if you were ever publicly and falsely accused of sexual assault.
1
@Marvin
Matt is absolutely correct.
The Senate is "judging" someone's suitability to decide what is just and right under the U. S. Constitution. It's their very suitability being evaluated.
Based on his actions as a person - drinking, gambling, etc., and his handling of this accusation in particular, I judge him to be unsuitable despite any claim of his understanding of the finer points of interpreting the laws. The position, and length of the tenure, require more than that of any elected representative.
None of us has any real basis for judging who is being most truthful between Mr. Kavanaugh and Ms. Blasey. It is disheartening to see so many one sided comments claiming Ms. Blasey has nothing to gain. Obviously, Mr. Kavanaugh has much to gain by lying. But as he would likely change the balance of power on SCOTUS for years to come, and as the democrats will likely win the Senate in November and as there may not be enough time for Trump to get an alternative candidate confirmed before the elections, those with liberal or progressive beliefs have a huge amount gain by preventing Kavanaugh's confirmation.
Ms. Blasey is not just a registered democrat but is a democratic donor who has supported the likes of Bernie Sanders. She is also an activist who has marched against trump and in support of liberal/progressive causes. An opportunity to prevent a shift in the court that could severely damage causes that she strongly believes in is a big incentive to lie. And the opportunity to become the hero who "saved the court" compounds that incentive.
I realize there are costs to going public. In the short run, I am sure she has received a great amount of hate from all around the country, but in the current #MeToo environment and in an overwhelmingly liberal place like Palo Alto, the longer term benefits probably outweigh the costs. So, who knows who is being truthful, but let's not risk unjustifiably impugning Kavanaugh's character because we disagree with his ideology.
4
@Tifany A number of your statements about Dr. Blasey
are incorrect ( see todays Times article about debunking myths about her) and there are OTHER equally important reasons to doubt the suitability of Mr. Kavanaugh, not least the refusal of the committee to release all of his documents for scrutiny. This is highly unusual. Add to that his questionable answers put to him by the senators, as Sen. Kamala Harris has said, presents a most unsatisfactory job interview....which is what it is....a job interview.
25
@Tifany, aside from many of your "facts" being wrong, I don't think it's a matter of ideology. I am a moderate Democrat and I'm not really sure that either person is lying. I was also on the fence about his nomination to the Supreme Court; however, I do think a thorough investigation is in order if he is to be confirmed. He might not be lying because he was drunk at the time and doesn't remember. I had friends who couldn't remember the night before because of their drinking. It is time to stop to stop ramrodding nominees through. It never hurts to have a lengthy confirmation process.
20
@Tifany
@Tifany
I am both amused and sickened by the obvious political bias you display in your criticism of others' political bias, and by the falsehoods and non sequiturs in your second paragraph. (She has supported "the likes of Bernie Sanders"! Oh my! What a stain on her integrity!)
I will certainly agree with you that no one knows with certainty what happened 30+ years ago. But the old saw that the three most important aspects of a criminal investigation are motive, motive and motive applies pretty well here. And by that measure, any reasonable person (people who think that a vulgar, ignorant, unscrupulous businessman turned reality TV personality is a suitable POTUS need not apply) would see that Kavanaugh has a huge motive to lie whereas Dr Blasey has a huge motive to *not* do what she did.
No matter what happens in the case of this nomination (the most likely scenario being Justice Kavanaugh, a "giant leap" towards the 19th century), I hope the GOP gets the spanking it so richly deserves on Nov 6.
12
Other readers are right: this is more about character now, rather than character and 'youthful indiscretions' as a teenager.
Kavanaugh's evasions, sophistical answers, tactical lapses of memory, and probably outright lies in the pursuit of personal ambition and a chance to make a mockery of the Separation of Powers (which as an originalist he should support) already disqualified him.
But to cap all that, his outright denial now of 'youthful indiscretion', so at odds with his own and others' earlier recollections and much other circumstantial evidence, and combined with Dr Ford's better-attested character, story and lack of motive, sums up his unfitness for a defining role in the development of American law.
Even his alleged accomplice in the 'indiscretion' that has scarred another person's life for decades (like the decades in which if confirmed he will harm the nation's constitution) managed a tactical failure of memory.
Kavanaugh's unqualified denial, now reinforced by days at another exclusive prep school for Monday at the White House with his own lawyers, means his and his sponsors' ugly ambitions should now also be denied.
18
In reading most of the comments here, what comes to mind frequently is an urge to defend something about the way the mind can work during and after a sexual assault. It can attempt to protect so that we can go on with our lives. Details can fade and become obscured.
What self preservation allows in memory was altered by the shock of it all.
The core of it remains to hover under the surface of lives lived daily, forever. The core could be that someone had hands all over you without your consent and that you couldn't breathe. But, what day of the week, what street, who else was there?
This is said to the many who cannot believe that the details of such events can be forgotten. The times that the complete memory might come at you could crumble you to dust.
Passing judgement on recent developments with this confirmation is nearly impossible because the truth is not known and truth does not seem to be of great importance here and we will be denied knowledge of it anyway.
However, things like being in awe of the constitution and respect for how hard won this document was throughout its compilation are important. That an appointee would be humbled to be in our service, in the service of We The People.
That is not coming forward.
There is no passion for the law in this candidate who wishes to be a Supreme Court Justice.
He is distracted from the bottom line. He has been captured by fear and ambition.
Not the best combo for the bench.
16
@Susan Englebry "There is no passion for the law in this candidate who wishes to be a Supreme Court Justice" Complete an utter nonsense. You can say a lot about Kavanaugh, you can attack his character if you choose to, but this is probably the most law and constitutionally passionate nominee we have seen in the past 30 years.
1
@Susan Englebry
Very well articulated.
1
In any reasonable courtroom this case would be thrown out because of a lack of evidence, (as of today). The fact that this may have happened 35 years ago doesn't help. There's an impeachment process for Supreme Court Justices. If evidence comes to light then impeach Kavanaugh.
Sen. Feinstein didn't do the Democrats any favor by waiting. This was a front page issue. By waiting until the 11th It looks like smear campaign. It's chopped off debate because the Republicans need to move forward baring any new credible evidence.
The Supreme Court was the biggest issue in the 2016 election. For a great number of GOP voters it was enough to stomach a Trump White House.
4
I think it is highly likely that neither individual is lying. Given how fuzzy she is about when and where the event occurred, I find it somewhat dubious that she correctly remembers who.
As far as who has more to loose: She will forever be remembered as a "Hero of the Resistance" look for book and movie deals to pop up next year.
As for him. If he did it, confessed and apologized, I'm not sure it derails his confirmation. There is a reasonable argument to be made that a single disgusting act done as a teenager should not undo 3 + decades of good works afterwards. (you'd have to be a stone cold partisan to not see that he has lived an exemplary personal life as an adult) Given that he has not only denied it but emphatically stated that he never even went to those parties he leaves himself open to being disqualified for a bald faced lie about a serious matter.
5
She has stated that she knew who both Kavanaugh and Mark Judge were because their families ran in the same social circles.
He gave a speech just a few years ago in which he said that he was a heavy drinker throughout law school, and that he and his friends went around to several bars on a party bus. He said that their motto was "what happens on the bus stays on the bus." If you watch the speech, which I did, he seems to be chuckling about it. When he submitted the text of that speech and others he had given during his career, as he was required to do as a nominee, the comment about "what happens on the bus" was edited out. Why is that? What is he covering up?
And how do we know that he and his friend didn't assault or attempt to assault other girls? They ambushed her when she went to the bathroom by pushing her into a room. They turned up the music so that her screams could not be heard, while "laughing maniacally." It sounds to me like they had quite a team going there.
It is highly disturbing to me that so many people see an attempted rape as a "youthful indiscretion," and refer to him as a "child." He was at an age when other young men are planning to enlist in the military or working on becoming an Eagle Scout. Character as a young adult does matter.
And the idea that a highly accomplished research psychologist and professor is willing to risk her reputation and have her life upended to become a "Hero of the Resistance" is simply ludicrous.
9
@Kathi Jackson What's highly disturbing to me is you've already decided an attempted rape occurred, despite there being an utter lack of evidence.
You got caught up in the court of public opinion. You're certainly not giving this a fair and measured look.
@Kathi JacksonSexual assault is etched into your mind forever. Recall the day Kennedy was shot or 9/11...a trauma of epic proportion we all shared. We remember where we were, what we were doing...how we felt. Sexual assault is as traumatic but singular. You remember every smell, emotion and the abject fear. You share it with no one. You are afraid to tell. Then one day you tell someone...maybe years later. You tell one person. Then maybe months or years later you tell another person. And then one day you want to scream it from the roof tops...YOU DID THIS TO ME. But most of us do not...because we are still afraid. THIS WOMAN IS BRAVE AND COURAGEOUS.
I oppose Kavanaugh's nomination, think senators should vote no based on his judicial record, but am uncomfortable with asserting that his behavior as a teen tells us anything about his "character" now. Yes, even if his behavior as a teen included doing exactly what Ford says he did. This is because I don’t think teen behavior is predictive of adult behavior, and I am also skeptical of the very idea of “character” as we use the term in American politics. And there is a ton of solid research on the general idiocy of teenagers, especially teenage boys, and the neuroscience that explains their general idiocy. As a lawyer I also think there are sound reasons behind statutes of limitations. After 35 years it is nearly impossible to conduct a full or fair investigation. This does not mean I consider sexual assault “excusable” or “minor.” It just means that I think the bad behavior of minors should be treated differently than the behavior of adults, and that adults should not be shadowed forever by misdeeds as children. Kavanaugh’s accuser nonetheless deserves to be treated with dignity and consideration; belittling her or her motives should be considered unacceptable.
Law professor Rosa Brooks
7
Professor Brooks, you miss the point - whatever one may do or even commit as a feckless youth one's status as a minor at the time DOES NOT justify now lying about it in a dishonorable attempt to evade responsibility in the present. Lack of honor, as well as lack of candor, says everything about lack of character and mr. k clearly shows this lack in the present.
8
@Whats Yours -- Even if you think Judge Kavanaugh's behavior as a teen tells us nothing about his character today, wouldn't you agree that his behavior today is instructive? If the accusation is true, then Judge Kavanaugh is baldfacedly lying (and apparently prepared to lie under oath) in order to get a better job. To me, that is a rather telling character indictment. And while it is possible that the accusation is false and the judge's denials true, I would need to be very strongly convinced of the matter in order to risk the chance that I might be confirming a man willing to lie under oath to sit on any court, much less the Supreme Court.
3
This isn't even a question. She's had to go into hiding. Had she lied that is her reward. He is still a candidate for one of the most powerful, prestigious jobs in the land - and as long as lies he just might get it. Her statement causes her credibility to be questioned - could it be mistaken identity? He was reported to be blindingly drunk, a behavior fir which he was evidently known, yet nobody asks if maybe he was so drunk he doesn't remember doing it. All the motivation to lie is his, and his alone.
13
@JustJoe -- Wrong. This woman could have been offered any amount of compensation to go public with this. Plenty of women lie, especially as revenge.
1
@Keeping It "Smart"
You are really going to go with "lots of women lie about this stuff"? Have you even been awake the last 18 months?
The comments from his supporters are fascinating. Confirmation of Kavanaugh has never been seriously at risk because of Dr Ford. Dr Ford could bring videos of the party and 10 witnesses of the sexual assault in question, and Kavanaugh would still be readily confirmed. Kavanaugh has lied and dissembled under oath in past confirmation hearings, he has not been forthcoming about his unusual.personal financial situation, his alcohol abuse, his gambling debts, etc. Not a problem for the GOP. The GOP is likely confirming a justice who, having sworn that he never touched Ford, may well be impeached for lying under oath when the tide changes and Mitch McConnell is no longer running the Senate.
25
@Susan Oh, I do hope you are right!
1
@Susan
The tide will have to change a great deal
to get 67 Senators to vote to remove a
Supreme Court Justice.
2
@John Brown
yes, yes and no way is Donald Trump ever going to be POTUS.
The male Republicans who are dismissive of Dr. Ford's ambivalence about testifying publicly (even if it's a closed hearing, you know that a near-verbatim account will leak out), should ask themselves this question: How would they feel, if, as children, they had been sexually abused by an older boy? Would they have no qualms about speaking of it, in detail, before a potentially hostile committee of questioners? Or might they dread re-living that experience publicly, under questioning by those who would demean the veracity of their account? Sen. Grassley's comment to the effect that we need to move this process forward quickly seems to leave off a possible ending to that sentence, "before the truth gets let out!" Readers need to understand that what Dr. Ford is asking of the FBI is further background investigation, not a criminal charge. Such a background check might establish facts, such as questioning the third person in the room, who has written about his drunken excesses, and has said he has no wish to testify.
10
@James K. How would you feel if your life was destroyed and smeared and the women was lying?
This would be much more simple if Ford were a Trump fan rather than a liberal Democrat who's made it clear she has no use for either Trump or Kavanaugh. There would be minimal if any question about her motivation.
2
@Mike
Anita Hill was a Republican and yet her motivations were questioned. The fact is that conservatives always believe every allegation against any Democrat even if the accuser was paid by Republicans, and/or changed her story, and/or said the opposite under oath, but they reject every allegation against any conservative, no matter how credible the accuser and even when the accused is on tape bragging about doing exactly what he's accused of.
6
@Dave -- Exactly how is Ford "credible"? Every other witness in sight directly contradicts her assault claim and her claims against his character.
@Keeping It Smart
I didn't claim she was credible. I would like to hear her testimony before jumping to conclusions. She did, however, tell a therapist and others about the alleged assault years ago and has passed a polygraph. No one except Judge "contradicts" her assault claim and his account has shifted and he won't testify under oath.
Yes, polygraphs aren't always reliable, but if she had failed the polygraph conservatives would be pointing to that as proof that she's lying.
The central question is should someone who has behaved this way, even just once and even at just 17, be appointed for a lifetime to our Supreme Court.
This is the question that caught Blasey’s attention and replaced her deep reluctance to speak out with a sense of civic and patriotic responsibility, despite the personal cost and even danger.
Blasey’s life and career seem to have been going quite well. Now, choosing to reveal a truth that should be relevant to every American has brought her great uncertainty and turmoil.
Kavanaugh’s life and career also seem to have been going quite well. Now choosing to deny a truth likely brings his best chance for confirmation to the nation’s highest court.
Kavanaugh probably shares Blasey’s belief that his behavior is and should be disqualifying. That’s why his denial is unequivocal. Admitting and regretting, even after decades, just doesn’t work in this context. His unsolicited assertion that he didn’t even know Blasey’s name until she identified herself would seem to qualify as a non-denial denial.
Nevertheless, a rushed process, lest the people have a say after the mid-terms, is the Republican priority.
As for “getting it” decades after Anita Hill was pilloried — not yet, not at all.
9
I just keep thinking that any woman who has been assaulted would be well-advised, even if she can't bear to come forward right away, if ever - to keep a good record of what happened, including who she told, any physical evidence, the identity of any witnesses, and a written detailed narrative of her experience.
7
She was fifteen years old. She was scared, traumatized, and didn't want her parents to find out. It is not uncommon for girls and women not to report this kind of event. This was at a time, decades ago, before rape was widely discussed. Women are blamed for having been raped, and are often not believed. They have been told that if this happens, they "must have done something to bring it on." Or that "boys will be boys." It is sickening that this is still true today, as we are witnessing. People's comments about her faulty memory are indicative of a complete lack of knowledge about the effects of trauma. Survivors of rape and other crimes or emotionally-charged traumatic events often remember the incidentally very clearly, both visually and viscerally. They have flashbacks over the years, and wish that they could get the memory out of their head. It affects their ability to function, to trust people, and to have intimate relations. And as for the idea that a fifteen-year-old girl should have created a good written record of the event? Are you serious? It's not like there is a class in high school called "Rape 101: what to do if you are assaulted at a party."
4
@Kathi Jackson
I'm not critisizing Dr Blasely or anyone else who experienced what she did.
I was speaking generally, and didn't mention girls or 15 year olds.
I'm actually on your side.
It's not as much the act as it is the lying about it.
7
@Colin Barnett - So multiple people saying it didn't happen doesn't convince you over one woman's therapy ramblings?
1
@Keeping It Smart - This may be news to you, but you can't logically prove a negative. Unless there is someone who can swear they have shadowed Brett Kavanaugh for his every waking moment his entire life, multiple people saying it didn't happen means exactly zero.
His companion's non-denial denial was "I don't remember." Not uncommon for an admitted blackout drinker.
@Doug Chance you can't prove her story either. Soooooo.
All I need to know is whether he drank as much as he himself has said he did. If he did, then just because he thinks he didn’t assault her doesn’t mean he didn’t.
15
@Sara Hill. And just because she thinks she was assaulted doesn’t make it so. What I don’t understand is how supposed feminists, who believe women are strong and powerful, are infantilizing this woman into a poor helpless flower.
6
@Bloggo Ford said she had one beer and she said Judge and Kavanaugh were drunk. There are contemporaneous accounts of this assault. The FBI needs to interview all involved. It is a felony to lie to the FBI.
@Bloggo
How are "supposed feminsts" infantilizing her?
Why is it impossible to consider the possibility of a man, say, Judge Kavanaugh, reflecting on a pretty appalling mistake made as a teenager, and owning up to it? Why not stand up like a man, a mensch, and acknowledge a cruel mistake made decades ago, and express remorse?
Yes, he was a teenager at the time of the alleged assault. Yes, he was very drunk. Yes, protected by the privilege of an elite private school afforded by his affluent white family. But even so, we can assume by his trajectory that today he is more mature, not a drunkard, doesn't assault women, and has commendable traits. So why lie?
Why lie about something he may indeed have done, even if under the influence of youth and alcohol? Does he lie easily, to evade accountability about other things?
Why would one-half of Congress even remotely consider giving anyone who would tell such a lie a lifetime appointment to one of the cushiest, most coveted positions in the country, a position that has direct power over and impact on individual lives as well as on our national legal precedents? Do we not expect a man or woman whom we may appoint to such a position of power to own the full reality of who he or she is?
51
Thanks @Betsy. I think you have summed up the issues very well. Kavanau's supporters should read it. If it doesn't change their mind, nothing will.
13
@Betsy
Unless, of course, it's not true.
3
@Betsy
We do not know what happened,
if anything.
It may have been far less than what Blasey
said it was.
Both deserve a fair hearing.
Why people have come to their
Final Judgements in the Comment Sections
makes me wonder if they should ever be
on a Jury.
1
The thing is that the kind of behavior described was not uncommon in that era and in those circles. If you polled men generally (and anonymously) you’d find that more find the behavior normal than aberrant. Many see a huge gap between attempting to have sex and forcing someone to have sex. The victims in these encounters rightly see it much differently. The event described likely happened. The fact that Kavanaugh won’t own up to it tells you all you need to know about his moral character. She will be scarred again. He will be a Supreme Court Justice. So who had more to fear and to lose by telling the truth? It’s not even close. That’s why she should be believed.
103
@John Figliozzi
I don't think it was just 'in that era' that such assaults were common. It is a 'present time' concern also.
Regardless of whether Christine testifies or Kavanaugh admits guilt or continues to deny any wrongdoing, and whether or not he is confirmed, Christine's report of sexual assault is having a beneficial impact on society.
So many women in NYT comments section alone have come forward already to describe eerily similar experiences of sexual assault and also, similar reactions to this violence: avoidance of reporting to authorities and 'not speaking' of the event much or at all to people close to them.
We as a society now are in the midst of a pivotal time: Given this 'close up' glimpse of harmful patterns between men and women what preventions are we now going to put in place to change this?
More than once, women have noted that several men have worked together in rape attempts. These situations often, but not always are fueled by alcohol. which both increases sexual dis-inhibition and aggression.
Why is it that women are so reluctant to report when these things happen? I never reported because #1 It was a shock #2 He was a part of my social circle #3 He was married #4 I stopped him #5 I didn't know I should or could. I hope more women & men will begin to openly discuss this and make different choices and women will be more knowledgeable about safety and actively use options for self-protection.
11
@John Figliozzi
Yours is my favorite comment, it's level and fair minded. Thank you, John.
5
@John FigliozziOne of the pieces missing in our society is the space for a wholehearted apology and a plea for forgiveness.
At the risk of oversimplifying, people seem to forget that Kavanaugh is not entitled to a Supreme Court seat. The confirmation process is his job interview. Would you blindly hire a doctor, lawyer, car mechanic, babysitter, etc. etc. if someone told you that he/she had committed crime? Of course not. Common sense says you would research further to make sure you had the all of the information.
The idea that he should be insulated from further scrutiny because the information is coming to light at an inconvenient time is absurd. If confirmed, he would get a lifetime appointment. Is giving this woman extra time to organize herself really that much to ask given the risk she has taken in speaking out? The only deadline here has been politically imposed.
124
@Lola People still get disqualified all the time from much lesser jobs for lying on job applications. Even from being suspected of lying.
8
If President Trump has no interest in asking the FBI to investigate Christine Ford's allegations about Brett Kavanagh, he should at least order the FBI to track down and prosecute the hateful cowards who are threatening her and have driven her in fear from her home.
57
I believe that Brett Kavanaugh himself should be calling for a full investigation by law-enforcement professionals. His failure to do so in my view presents a prima facie case against his confirmation: does he have so little belief in his own innocence and in our justice system?
73
@felixfelix
I agree. And I am recalling that Senator Al Franken, when accused of sexual harassment, asked for an ethics hearing and was refused one, instead being run out of the Senate, including by members of his own party. He apologized and was willing to have his behavior examined. If Kavanaugh has nothing to hide and is hoping to occupy one of the most highly responsible positions in the land for the rest of his life, what's the problem with taking more time? The rush is for political reasons, obviously. The country is poorer for having missed the opportunity to have Obama's nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, confirmed as a Justice. As a result of another situation in which the Republicans misused the power of their majority.
7
@felixfelix -- Perhaps you are unfamiliar with American law. No one is required to incriminate themselves.
1
@Keeping It Smart So you are stating that he is guilty, in addition to misstating my comment. I did not say that he should be required to but that he should call for an investigation as a demonstration of his innocence and his belief in the justice system.
I am sorry for both of them. I wish that Christine had reached out to Brett when she knew this affected the depth of her relational
self, and if he would have helped at that time to reconcile this
memory that both of them might have been able to talk about.
He might have just shrugged it off as now but I wonder if the
pure intent on the part of Christine without the public spotlight
might have helped bring needed recognition and reconciliation
or just the admission that given the demon spirit of alcohol something awful happened. Darkness buried coming to light
at such a significant moment displaces a challenge on us all
as we seek the truth of portent human behavior.
1
@Michael Buck Why do you think this is about reconciliation? Is there some obligation for assault victims to reconcile with the perpetrators? Dr. Ford didn't write a letter because she wanted to reconcile; she wrote because she thought that people considering a lifetime appointment to our highest court ought to know about this aspect of the nominee's past. Now they do. The question is how many are willing to ignore a very credible question as to whether the nominee got drunk, sexually assaulted a girl, and is now lying about it, just because it would be inconvenient to vet another nominee.
7
@Michael Buck No such chance in the time frame at issue here.
1
@Michael Buck
What? Christine should have reached out to BK? Are you out of your mind?
BK should have gone to her and begged her to forgive for his awful actions. While he has continued to live a charmed life, she has suffered from the nightmare of that night. His silence to evade guilt and responsibility is disgusting.
7
“I forgot all about this and now my memory has been jogged. i will step down from consideration.” Not likely. Dr Blasey has led a quiet and successful life. She has no motivation other than her sense of duty and the possibility of saving the country from having TWO sexual abusers on the Court.
71
@Judith
She has one of the most powerful reasons to lie. An ideological one.
3
@Mencken -- Yet everyone seems to conveniently forget this. Book deal, anyone?
@Keeping It Smart Why don't you wait until the hearing to start smearing her.
"Innocent until proven guilty" Kavanaugh has the law on his side.
The prosecution has to produce evidence, including psychological records 15 years old and lie detector test results. These are not conclusive, smoking gun evidence.
Anyway this all boils down to whether or not Kavanaugh is morally fit for the job. The justices will be watching him like a hawk to detect any whiff of dishonesty; but Kavanaugh as a judge knows this, and probably knows how to perfect that lie-telling ability. He's smart to avoid the lie detector machine.
It would be easier to "take the 5th" but it's not a criminal hearing, more like a job interview. He'll have to testify, and make it as convincing as he possibly can. You can bet Trump is pulling all the backroom levers as hard as he can go...
1
This is not a criminal charge, there is no prosecution.
3
Innocent until proven guilty is a bedrock American principle of criminal law that applies to criminal charges that can result in the loss of liberty: being locked in a cage.
It does not apply to a lifetime appointment to our nation’s highest court. Kavanaugh has no entitlement to a seat on the Supreme Court.
12
@Grunchy you're talking as if this is a trial, it is not. What is involved is interpretation of our laws for maybe 50 more years people are living a long time today. It's not about him it's about the country.
6
Let's imagine a different scenario. It's 2016, Merrick Garland is getting a hearing in front of the senate, and a woman comes forward alleging a sexual assault 36 years prior. Would the Democrats be so vociferously in favor of delaying the vote and dragging the hearing out until after the election in hopes of getting more support in the Senate? Doubtful. This is another example of the partisan politics that in the 90s saw the Clinton supporters denouncing the women who accused Bill of assault.
6
@Linda Big difference: If Merrick Garland had been accused of sexual assault his nomination would have been immediately withdrawn.
47
@Linda:
Lovely scenario, considering he didn't even get the time of day from the republicans! This means, by the way, the democrats at this point owe them NOTHING. ZERO. ZILCH.
NO one is *entitled* to a SCOTUS seat. It's high privilege that should and MUST have a high bar to admission.
It's the republicans who owe the democrats a Supreme Court Seat.
9
@Linda
Actually, because the Democrats want to court the women's vote, they would fall all over themselves trying to back out of the nomination and find someone else. Trump could do the same. Ivanka is, in fact, urging him to do so.
5
There are many issues of concern surrounding the Kavanaugh nomination. The attempt by the Republicans to "jam through" the nomination without a thorough vetting of Kavanaugh is in itself concerning. What is in the thousands of documents they are hiding?
I am also very concerned about the clear evidence of alcohol abuse as a under-age teen by Kavanaugh and his friends. As a winner in the lottery of life he was able to attend an elite private school which offered him many opportunities others his age did not have. What he did with those opportunities should be part of his "vetting" to accept a lifetime appointment at age 51 to the Supreme Court. Alcohol abuse seems to have been part of his life during law school as well. The financial concerns already part of the record reflect poorly on his personal management and possibly point to a gambling addiction which may or may not be under control. In short this is a man with some personal character concerns which the Republicans have not allowed a thorough public vetting of.
Under-age drinking is a crime. Kavanaugh's sense that he was above the law as a teen is concerning.
Stop the confirmation process. Do more thorough vetting on the documents. Find a better candidate. Trump owes it to the US to not be lazy about nominating qualified individuals to important posts. So far his record is poor in that presidential duty.
80
America is a representative democracy. Our leaders reflect who we are as a people. We have elected Donald Trump as our president. These are the facts.
If we want to consider ourselves decent, law abiding citizens, we need to ensure that our leaders are decent, law abiding men and women. Dr Blasey has alleged that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. It's pretty simple; she has everything to lose to by divulging this from her past. There is no reason she would make this up. The incident has to be investigated.
The Senate Judiciary Committee does not have the tools or the will to do a thorough and unbiased investigation. The FBI is the proper agency to determine the facts. The WhiteHouse needs to order the FBI to reopen the background check into Judge Kavavaugh then present their findings to the Senate. If the facts show that Judge Kavanaugh did not engage in this activity, then the nomination process should continue. If it is found that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Dr Blasey, then he would be disqualified from becoming a Justice on the Supreme Court.
Dr Blasey is a courageous American with nothing to gain from fabricating a story like this. Judge Kavanaugh has everything to lose if the story is true, therefore, he is highly motivated to deny it. But as citizens, we need to demand decency in our leaders. Let the FBI investigate.
63
@thetruthfirst Neither major party nominated a decent law abiding man or woman in 2016.
2
@thetruthfirst
Unless another eye-witness comes forth and says
they saw what happened in the room, then all you
have is She-Said/ He Said, He Said.
If someone comes forward and says Ms. Blasey told
her x days, weeks, months, years or decades after the
alleged assault, all you have is hearsay, but if said before Kavanaugh ever became a political figure or Judge - then either she is telling the truth or she has
a fixation on Kavanaugh, or a case of mistaken identity.
How do you resolve that ?
If you think the FBI can ferret out exactly who was
at a party some 36 years ago and be able to distinguish whom among them is telling the Truth
then you must think the FBI can read minds.
Why hasn't the NY Times investigated and at least
told us how many teenagers were at the party,
when it took place and where in the world were the
parents ?
3
@John Brown You resolve the "he said, she said" by determining who is more credible, whose story makes sense, and who has more to lose or gain by deception. Judge Judy does it all the time; its a cop-out for Senators to say they can't.
Obviously Ford has the most to gain.
The main fear among.democrats is having their right to abortion jeopardized since that is their Holy Grail. The issue is important enough that Soros is willing to finance it. If Ford succeeds, she will immediately become a feminist heroine.
The American Left is so disrespectful of women that they cannot envision even expecting responsible behavior from them. Women used to have real power in civilized societies, but unfortunately they voluntarily gave that up .
4
@fourpmfox
I’d be interested in hearing about these supposed powers that women used to have in civilized societies. Powers that they “ voluntarily gave up.” Name one.
I’d also like to hear how you have arrived at the conclusion that the American left is disrespectful of women. You mean encouraging women to make their own decisions? For shame! (Back to the kitchen ladies...)
42
@fourpmfox and if she were a feminist heroine (wouldn't happen) she'd still be in hiding. Suppose he did it. If he did it he has every reason to lie - he becomes a right wing hero with all the power and prestige of a Supreme Court judge. Give me a break...
6
@JustJoe - Why do the other witnesses have an incentive to lie? So they might know someone on the Supreme Court? Give me a break.
I guess if Dr. Ford must be believed because she has no reason to lie and therefore Judge Kavanaugh has to prove he is innocent we have moved into a new period of "justice" in the US. Guilty based on accusations that can't be refuted. Dr. Ford can't remember when it happened, where it happened, who was in the room other than the nominee and possibly someone else. She was also intoxicated and doesn't know how she got there or how she got home. Exactly what does one investigate in this case from 36 years ago?
Mr. Kavanaugh clearly has a lot to gain by getting on the Supreme Court. The Democrats have a lot to gain by preventing it. Who knew about this for months but sat on it? Who interviewed the Judge but never asked about it? Who brought it up at the last minute? None other than Senator Feinstein who is in a tough election battle with a super progressive Democrat running against her. She has a lot to gain by looking super tough and a RESISTANCE type. Has anyone considered her motivations?
I hope all of the people interested in this accusation will move on next to Keith Ellison who is running as a Democrat for AG in Minnesota. He is accused of domestic violence by someone he was involved with and has made numerous complaints about him. Somehow no one is interested in that case....
14
@Bill you state "Judge Kavanaugh has to prove he is innocent we have moved into a new period of "justice" in the US."
I keep reading comments about this theory or belief. That standard is only applied to the most severe felonies. Civil standards are more along the line of "more likely than not. The Supreme Court even coined a new phrase several years ago using the words "reasonable to believe." for use in certain matters. The question then becomes is it "reasonable to believe" professor Ford. If so the burden shifts to the accused.Why take a chance unnecessarily that he is not morally or emotionally qualified for a life time appointment with the duty to establish the boundaries protecting ALL citizens from harm and threat. There are literally dozens of fine upstanding conservative judges able to serve if given the opportunity.
7
@Bill Maybe if Ellison were the Supreme Court nominee the whole country would be interested. As it is, his home district is very interested.
4
@Bill
Two additional factors to add to your thoughts on this:
Dr. Ford asked Diane Feinstein to maintain her privacy until she decided whether or not to testify. She was concerned for her personal safety and the safety of her family. Now it turns out, those fears were legitimate. She has received death threats and the family has had to move. Subsequently Dr. Ford submitted to a polygraph test which demonstrated she was telling the truth. This matched up with the notes at her psychiatrist ‘s office. I’d like to see Judge Kavannaugh take a polygraph. At a minimum, let the FBI do its due diligence.
This is the fair way to proceed.
9
Who has the greatest incentive to lie? Ford and the Dims because they have the most to loose if Kavanaugh is confirmed vs. republicans if he’s not confirmed.
14
@Ryan:
What do Republicans really have to lose? Some face, perhaps (and that's HUGE to the Boy King), but Blondie still has two more years and they'll just nominate another conservative.
2
@Ryan I don't think so - I think anyone Trump nominates will be about the same - heck, the next nominee could be even worse. So I don't think this is about the nomination for people like Ford.
2
Democrats always have the incentive to lie to save their power. they dont care what is best for the US citizen ,,,, only or themselves and their positions of power... they lie as easily as they breathe
10
@Mike W
You are absolutely right. There hasn't been a decent Democrat politician since Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York left this earth.
1
What is important in all this is that the person we install for a lifetime job in a highly influential and powerful position is of a character and mindset worthy of that position. That the accusation came out when it did is not the point. That anyone can be accused of sexual assault in a "he said / she said" scenario is not the point. When you put yourself in the running for Supreme Court Judge this is something that could very much happen and if he was too stupid to know that this could happen then maybe he is too stupid to sit on the court. Dr. Blasey knew full well what she was getting into which is why she wanted to remain anonymous. She has little to gain from lying. He has a lifetime job that is extremely powerful to gain - he should be put through the ringer.
The least that should happen is the FBI investigates this accusation. Even 30 years after the fact many things could be verified or proven false. The interesting thing is that Dr. Blasey said there was an eyewitness which makes it less a he said she said event. Kavanaugh should have simply said this was something that happened under the influence of alcohol when he was young and stupid that he does not remember and apologize for unintentionally hurting Dr. Blasey and most people would have understood. Instead he is calling her a liar and that he is above reproach.
30
@Lucas Lynch I really don't see how anything could be investigated in this case. She has already stated that she told no one about it at the time, so that precludes the possibility of someone at least saying that she told them about it.
She doesn't remember when or where it was, so it can't be proven that anyone was somewhere else on that date or that a party occurred on that date at that location. I just don't see how an investigation is possible.
2
She gave very specific details of the house - a narrow staircase and other details - such that the host could well recognize the home as his/here. It was a small gathering. Someone may remember an event where Blasey, Kavanaugh, and Judge were all there.
@Ron The least that could be done is get both of their statements under oath and then also get Judge under oath. Try to find parties where all three were present. I think it's possible to do an investigation at least to figure out when and where it could have potentially happened.
I do think Kavanaugh should be considered not guilty until there is strong evidence of his guilt. At the moment, either he is lying or doesn't remember (I'm assuming this, giving him the benefit of the doubt). At the moment, either she is lying or it's a case of mistaken identity or she's telling the truth (I'm assuming this too, giving her the benefit of the doubt).
Christine Blasey Ford has taken responsibility as a citizen seriously, in spite of knowing that she will again in her life be treated with lack of respect. She wasn’t the perpetrator who made this happen; she is the victim. She has no reason to lie and Kavanaugh has every reason to lie. This is about Kavanaugh’s soul. Kavanaugh’s behavior put him in this situation and his lying keeps him there.
Many commenters focus on how hard this is for the judge. Past actions catch up to a person, often at inconvient times. What about the victim‘s suffering? Christine has had 30+ years of pain because of Kavanaugh’s drunken determination to sexually penetrate her body without her permission and with no respect for her humanity. What about the terror she felt when he covered her mouth, causing her fear that she might die, that he might smother her? What about her pain and fear before telling her fiancé about her trauma, not knowing if he would still marry her? And even now, after many years, she has been fearful of exposing the truth, knowing that many of you would make light of her long painful nightmare. This has to do with Kavanaugh’s lack of humanity, his lack of compassion for the person he hurt, and his continued lack of acknowledgement of his responsibility by still lying about it. This is about Kavanaugh’s soul, without which his career is severely marginalized.
48
@JI guess you believe the accusations that have been presented without a shred of proof. Usually when major things happen to people remember the details vividly. But I guess in this case vague recollections are sufficient. Sort of like me "remembering" that Dr. Ford was drunk at numerous parties even though I couldn't tell you when, where, and who attended. That assertion would rightfully be dismissed.
3
@J - So does that mean you are willing to open investigations into Bill Clinton's raping and assault of several women who came forward (and not 36 years later I might add), and who were mocked and belittled by the woman who was almost President?
Are you going to demand that Keith Ellison step down immediately because he beat and belittled and bullied his girlfriend? Or is your outrage only reserved for Conservatives?
7
You’re right. Sexism and the habit of disbelieving women is non-partisan.
6
The Democrats have fashioned the new McCarthyism. Guilty by innuendo, guilty without any proof, guilty by the whim of one person, guilty by any type of slander. And woe be to anyone who dare speak out in his defense, they must be guilty is SOMETHING too. McCarthyism was wrong in the 50’s and it’s wrong today. When the Weinstein and Lauer and Rose accusations surfaced it’s like the floodgates broke and several accusers came forward at once. It’s been a week now the silence from other victims is defeaning.
17
@Jim Furlong if I were you I would look up the definition of innuendo
1
Burden of proof is on Ford. It is the rule of law in the USA. Otherwise anyone can accuse anybody of anything.
13
@vinko You are absolutely right. But in the "new world" of the Democrats, there will be denunciations and open doors to any and all who want to smear anyone who they see as an obstacle to their power.
2
You’re right. That’s why there should be an investigation.
6
@vinko: But it's NOT a criminal case, and it's not in court. It is Kavanaugh being vetted and evaluated as to whether he's qualified or a lifetime position requiring high standards of morality.
This is part of Kavanaugh's flipping JOB interview process, for God's sake. And supposedly 'we the people' are the employers - not DJT and certainly not the Republican party.
7
After reading many of these comments I can only say male commenters are mostly women haters and wrongly assume Dr. Blasey, like all women, lie about men. I am amazed to see this. It is like a peek into men's heads about their impressions of women. Not all men but enough for real disappointment.
19
@BKCDo you believe that all women tell the truth all of the time about incidents like this? I remember the Duke Lacrosse players being dragged through the mud over false accusations that the NYT gladly embraced. How about the UVA case? Made up completely. No all women do not lie but some do...
8
@Bill I think women lie as much as men (i.e., neither are intrinsically more honest than the other as a group), but about different things. I think sexual assault is far more prevalent man -> woman/man than the other way around but this is statistically. There will always be exceptions and people will lie but just the fact that men are far more physically violent than women is going to tilt the scale about these kinds of accusations.
It's something society has to work through.
@Bill There is a big difference between being expelled from college due to a conclusion that you committed a sexual assault (what the Duke players faced) and being denied a promotion because you might have committed a sexual assault (and lied about it). Going back to the DC Circuit would not be a life-altering event for Judge Kavanaugh.
The obvious answer is: who has the most to gain or lose? Wouldn't that be Kavanau? Also, who has been widely suspected of prevarication before: that would be Kavanau as well.
21
@Glenn Thomas I think the Democrat Party has the most to lose, hence them trotting out this claim at the 11th hour. questionable story, short of specifics, but certainly inflammatory. Her history and her lawyer's of hard Left ideology.
But i do think that you should be looking hard at your party for 'outing' her. she didn't want to be brought into the light, but your leadership decided that the rest of her life was less important than scoring political points.
Essentially, Ms. Ford is nothing more than cannon fodder for your 'Hate America First' Party.
3
@Brian M
Dr. Ford made her own decision to come forward. That is the way women do things in the 21st century. No one “ outed” anybody.
@Brian M, you know there is no reason to accuse someone of hating America for asking who has the most to lose in this situation (much less the other half of the country). People across the political spectrum care about this country, want what is best for it, and fear what we believe is interfering in that outcome.
I saw many of the current arguments from certain individuals on the right regarding Kavanaugh, coming from certain individuals on the left regard Al Franken. At the time, it seems unfair and "rigged." But, in reality, they are but one person in a vast country. The most important thing is doing what is right for the country, and the legitimacy of our government and legal system. There are other conservative judges without these issues. I see no reason to not nominate one of them instead.
Whatever becomes of Kavanaugh, this week has made clear a truth well-known but rarely talked about- we already have a sexual abuser on the High Court.
31
The obvious answer is: It would be the one with the most to gain or lose and that would be Kavanau.
But a better measure would be: who has been suspected of prevarication before by the same body and, once again, that would be Kavanau.
Kavanau wins - hands down!
10
I agree with this writer:
"With the Anita Hill travesty as a backdrop, a self-described sexual predator in the White House, a sea of old, privileged men in the Senate and media at the ready to smear and bully, why take on this abuse? That Dr. Blasey decided to come forward is an act of patriotism and courage.
— Julie Bannerman, San Francisco
62
@Susan Murphy - Actually, she got outed by Diane Feinstein even though she said she didn't want to have her name out there. Your party decided to use her as cannon fodder, destroy her life, in order to push a political ideology - one of obstruction against the current administration.
Even DiFi is backing off the validity of her claims, now that there are so many questions.
So before you make her out to be a heroine, know that she didn't want any of this and asked her congressman to keep her name out of it.
She's not a hero, she is a Liberal who got thrown under the bus by DiFi.
2
@Brian M Huh? Feinstein didn't out her (and has been roundly criticized for sitting on the letter in order to preserve Dr. Ford's privacy, per her wishes). There is no evidence whatsoever that it is Democrats who leaked the name -- it seems far more likely it was someone on the other side seeking to punish the accuser.
@Brian M
Dr. Ford made the decision to “control her own narrative” and then went to The Washington Post to tell her story.
This sets an impossible precedent, regardless of where you stand on this particular case. This isn't left-right; it is and always will be 'he says / she says.' MeToo crosses political lines like no other movement and could be an ironclad last-minute move to block any future nominee. If the burden of proof is out the window and we are going to try otherwise qualified candidates in the court of public opinion, then we need a different process to fill the Supreme Court.
11
@RM Why exactly do we need a different process? How many times have you seen a credible allegation of sexual assault against a Supreme Court nominee? This is not something that happens every day.
Something not being reported very much is that this woman is highly political. Some donations to were reported, see heavy.com, but there's way more listed on the opensecrets website under Catherine Ford, for a person with an occupation listed as "psychotherapist" and "marriage and family therapist". Catherine Ford also signed s petition against Trump's border enforcement policy and participated in the women's march reportedly saying (though I can't find it online) "The women's march didn't go far enough"
Discussing her political contributions and activity does not entirely disqualify her claim. What it does it develop background as to a motive, which speaks to credibility
The idea that coming forward as the accuser will harm her is not really accurate. Anita Hill is celebrated and on a speaking tour. Let's not forget that Catherine Ford is a college professor and probably has tenure, hence she can't be removed. Plus, she's in Palo Alto outside San Fran where she's likely to be celebrated widely regardless of whether her claim is true or not
10
@Baboo Tabouli
Highly political?
Her records show she gave $100.00 to democratic causes in 2017.
3
I believe her. I have a problem accepting the basic fairness of a process that will not involve trained and experienced investigators or call upon any possible witnesses. As for how old the event was, that became less important than his denials if it in fact did happen. It’s now a character issue. And, he’s upheld laws that criminalized that behavior of teenagers to the point of waivers to the adult criminal courts. Off point, I have a problem with the fairness or value of a system filled with the grown children of privileged parents who go to private schools, live in insulated communities, and pursue careers serving in the upper echelons of government from the start. Where is there gained any understanding of the ordinary lives of most others? This is especially pertinent if they make no effort to even try through experiences to understand or evidence a hubris that they don’t need to. How can we reasonably expect such persons to be able to administer justice regardless of whether they are Democrats or Republicans? It’s a Truth that underlies the saying that “If you want justice, go to God”.
20
@Moxnix67 - you didn't entertain the possibility that she is fabricating the claim... you slam white male elitism, but it certainly looks like she was a prep school kid who went to good schools and is no slouch professionally either.
As for investigating - you are aware that Kavenaugh has been investigated by the FBI no less than 6 times for the various positions he has held in government. I would think that in all of those times, all the people who were interviewed, something would have come up.
Maybe she never told anyone as a teen. the problem with not telling anyone is that there is no one to back up your story when you tell it.
1
Dr. Ford is not a "Stanford Professor." She is a qualified Ph.D. with a solid publication record in both clinical psychology and applied statistics.
There are several distinct issues.
1. Timing. Ford suposedly had no intention of going public, yet she (1) hired an attorney, (2) scrubbed her online record clean, and (3)and sought a (basically useless) polygraph fairly early in the sequence of events. Feinstein waited until the last possible moment before bringing forward the facts which do not include either a time or a place for an offence allegedly committed by a minor. This begs several questions, none of which Ford will want to answer: (1) Who paid for the polygraph? (2) Who provided the expertise to scrub clean the online record, and (3) why was this done?
2. An accuser's certainty is meaningless, especially 35 years after the fact. (a) Women lie about sexual assault for a wide variety of reasons, just as men do. Ford may be seeking fame as the next Anita Hill, or, like countless correspondents in internet forums, she may simply hate Kavanaugh for political reasons. (b) She may be telling her truth, but be making an incorrect identification. It happens all the time.
3. Evidence. There is absolutely none supporting Ford, and her selective memory makes it impossible to obtain any.
Kavanaugh deserves the presumption of innocence. Our country will descend into chaos if men are denied due process simply to satisfy the current political fads.
21
@JimInNashville - Nicely done. I hadn't even thought about those points. I am sure that you will be demonized now by the other side, but thank you for presenting a solid case for the presumption of innocence. After all the Democrats demand it all the time!
1
@JimInNashville I would also be curious WHO IS PAYING for her high priced attorney? She stated Her life turned upside down- WHO's fault it is? Does she care What she did to Judge KAVANAUGH life, how it affected his wife, daughters, parents? As someone who had served on Jury DUTY many many times I would question. What kind of witness would she make. She doesn't remember exactly what year supposed incident occur. She doesn't remember what house it happened in. She doesn't know exactly how many people were there. She stated there were only guys there, the lawyer is saying now there was another girl??She doesn't remember how she got home. She never told anyone about a Supposed assault until 2012. Was she drinking? What was she doing at the age 14-or 15 (age is unclear since she doesn't know exactly the year it occurred) alone at this party? How did she get to this house , did she know the boys who supposedly were at the party. Why she never mentioned anyone's name before now?
As A JUROR I would have no choice but dismiss her entire allegations as Unsubstantiated , not credible.
WE cant start accusing people just because we disagree with them politically. Wish there was a strict law punishing people for false accusations, for destroying people's lives !!!!
@JimInNashville You say Ford is "seeking fame" like Anita Hill ??? Really? Sorry Jim, but not too many women are anxious for that sort of experience. Anita Hill was smeared and shamed and mocked in front of the nation for speaking her truth. Gee, wouldn't we all just love to have that kind of fame?
1
WE THE PEOPLE are sick of these dangerous games. Every single American who values true democracy must take action NOW by telling OUR U.S. Senators NO KAVANAUGH.
It's not a republican/democrat issue. It's not a red/blue state issue. It's not a gender issue. OUR very democratic way of life is at stake because he would destroy every social safely net we have and allow The Con Don to evade justice.
Below is a link to all the U.S. Senator's phone numbers. Call every member of the judicial committee, your senator and traitor Mitch McConnell right now and tell them
NO KAVANAUGH.
Call your senator, also. Call as often as you can. OUR United States of America democracy is at stake.
https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
16
@njgleaActually we should as Americans decry the notion that the accused is guilty and must prove himself / herself innocent. That is Soviet style justice.
1
@njglea No, my dear. The "dangerous game" is that people (in this case, Kavanaugh - tomorrow, maybe you?) can now be convicted on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.
4
@njglea - I guess I missed the part where women NEVER lie about sexual assault. fact is that it happens a lot for a lot of different reasons.
Anyone who values true democracy will look at your post and realize that it is you that wants to destroy democracy. One of the cornerstones of this country is the presumption of innocence. she has made a claim that is vague at best, with no additional witnesses to collaborate her story, outside of a therapist who took notes of HER recollection (in a court that would be stricken as heresay evidence). Mr. Kavenaugh has two witnesses who say it never happened, and they were allegedly there according to Ms. Ford.
Why would a woman who wanted to remain anonymous retain a high powered, Soros funded lawyer and scrub her social media presence if she had nothing to hide?
2
Here's what really bugs me about this situation.
We're expected to believe this woman, 35 years after the fact, although she has no corroboration for the story and has a history (per her social media and witness accounts) of being a progressive activist that hates Trump. Thus giving her an ulterior motive for lodging these accusations now.
Juanita Broaddrick alleged to have been raped by Bill Clinton. She made the allegations decades ago. At the time of the supposed rape, she voted for Democrats... she was a volunteer for Clinton's campaign. She was not a political opponent. She was not trying to squeeze money out of him. Yet, she was not to be believed.
Compare and contrast.
27
@matt Does a person's political affiliation make them any more or less a victim? This is an extremely violent crime and whether it happened yesterday or 40 years ago shouldn't make a difference. She is alleging that he dragged her into a room, assaulted her, and covered her mouth so she couldn't scream for help. This is not an accusation that should be taken lightly and is very disturbing if it is found to be true. Many states view sexual assault as one step below homicide in seriousness. Supreme Court Justices need to be held to the highest standard and if he did do this, he does not deserve to sit on that bench. There are many more qualified people out there who deserve that spot over a criminal.
11
It seems rather convenient timing where two known Liberal Activists named Anita Hill and Christine Ford come out with tales of rape against two supreme Court nominee when the could've brought it up years ago. It's made up hogwash, neither of them were molested and both had political agendas backing them up.
11
@John Rudolph
Right... because it's so much fun to up against the President of the United States and the GOP establishment...
7
@John Rudolph, Lets not forget about the conservative activist hoping to sit on the Supreme Court of all places!
5
@John Rudolph Anita Hill was a Republican. Facts matter.
What I keep hearing from Kavanaugh’s supporters is utter disbelief that such a fine man could have done such a thing. Without proof, they defend him and dismiss or dispute Professor Blasey’s story.
On the other hand, she has asked for an Investigation and those of us who opposed his nomination even before this accusation was brought forward also support a thorough investigation before the parties appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee. That doesn’t sound like someone who is afraid of the truth.
I could ask what they are afraid of but I don’t need to. The urgency to get him on the SCOTUS before possible voter reprisal in November looms large in their minds.
30
@MG
The purpose of the investigation is to delay the vote.... at least until the midterms so Dem senators in Trump states do not have to vote before the election - but moreover in hopes that the Senate changes majority.
Note that none of this came public until polls indicated that there might be a slim possibility that the senate changes to a Dem majority.
6
@MG -- And exactly WHAT do you want 'investigated'? The unhinged woman doesn't know what year it allegedly took place, where the house was, whose house it was, who was at the party, how she got there, how she got home.
So kindly explain HOW this 36 year old alleged groping is to be 'Investigated'?
11
@Cuthbert J Twillie, there are at least two witnesses—Judge and an unnamed guy. Is it too hard to start by questioning them? I mean, that’s what usually happens to crime witnesses, no?
Whether or not Kavanaugh assaulted Dr. Blasey - and I believe that he did - by all accounts he was drunk at the age of 17. He was drinking to excess, while under the legal drinking age. That in itself suggests questionable judgment. Does he have a drinking problem? What else might he have done over the years under the influence of alcohol, and what other laws might he have broken? We need answers to these questions as well as to the question of what happened to Dr. Blasey.
30
@Troubled You reference "by all accounts" but fail to describe what they were. Are you referring merely to Dr. Ford's uncorroborated account? I know of no common description of Kavanaugh having been a "serious drinker" during his teen years.
4
@Troubled Possible Dr Blasey pursued him and he denied her.
@Troubled ... so does the comment "what happens in x, remains in x" is an admission of guilt? What intellectually honest person will argue this? Truth is there is no reason here just emotion. This is why rightly biased people are excluded from juries. IF he had a drinking problem what does that have to do with as a 17 year old boy he did this.
3
I think she came forward thinking this would be both anonymous and enough to stop process; when it looked like this ploy wouldn't work she was 'outed' buy sympathizers in order to force the issue.
As for what she has to gain, victimhood in modern America is the ultimate status.
11
It seems his drinking to excess continued at least through his young adulthood while he was at Yale law school - see his remarks about, “what happens on the bus stays on the bus.“
He’s worked in high salaried positions since Yale yet his personal finances do not reflect mature prudence.
He should be investigated more thoroughly before any votes are taken.
83
Well... I don't think he's necessarily the right choice any more. I certainly don't want someone who has possibly sexually assaulted a woman on the Supreme Court. Isn't the Supreme Court supposed to be the best of the best, or has that faded into partisanship?
22
@Tyler Harris
So, should we now decide that anyone can have their future derailed by an accusation from anyone - known or unknown, true or false, provable or unprovable?
You are advocating for completely Orwellian times indeed.
12
@Elizabeth Erwin Apparently the presumption of innocence is only for Democrats now.
@Elizabeth Erwin
It’s remarkable how many people up for office HAVEN’T been accused of such things since Anita Hill, even, indeed, since #Metoo has begun. Where’s there’s smoke there’s fire?
Republicans (and Democrats) are deluding themselves if they believe that leftist rage will be assuaged by tossing Kavanaugh into the volcano. MeToo is ravenous, and Kavanaugh would be just the first course in this feast of horrors.
11
Dr. Blasey has nothing to gain by coming forward, as events have shown. She has received death threats. She has been forced to leave her home and to hire security services for her and her family. Her veracity and integrity have been questioned widely. I believe that Dr. Blasey is telling the truth as she sees it.
Judge Kavanaugh, by contrast, has his professional and personal reputation to uphold. He has every reason to deny Dr. Blasey’s account, even if his denial is untruthful.
I would be neutral on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination, but for the question of his truthfulness. Emails establish his receipt of purloined information from the Senate Judiciary Committee while he was a Bush White House counsel. Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony on this subject during his judicial confirmation hearings has not been credible, leading me to believe that he repeatedly sacrifices the truth on the altar of ambition.
On the basis of his shaded testimony, Judge Kavanaugh should not be seated on the Supreme Court.
87
@ANetliner NetLiner -- there wasn't any 'shaded testimony'. That goofy charge of Leahy's was disproved the last time Kavanaugh was confirmed.
1
@ANetliner NetLinerI'm glad you have the facts that no one else apparently has.
1
What I still don't get is why republicans are in such a hurry. They have a 70% chance of keeping the Senate, and even if they lost it they would still have the remainder of the year to confirm whoever they want anyway.
So why the rush?
37
@François, I agree, but the Republicans have backed themselves into the proverbial corner.
Having refused to grant Merrick Garland a hearing on the basis of elections yet to be held, Republicans could not easily justify confirming Brett Kavanaugh if the Senate goes Democratic in November— although I have every confidence that they would attempt to do just that.
@François, rush? After 30+ years after the fact when the information was in the hands of Sen. Feinstein since July, after about 6 vettings over the years for his different vettings for other positions, there is now a RUSH for an investigation with no recollection of time and place at the 11th hour of a confirmation scheduled vote? What was her RUSH after 35 years to keep such a "dangerous predator" from harming other women? Obviously not! But is it a threat to women with babies in their belly? Isn't that the focus?
All anyone is asking is for a little truth. But that is a losing proposition in itself, isn't it?
1
@François
Who says their rushing it? A much better question would be why are the Democrats expending so much time and energy to try and stalll the process and using what appears to be a manufactured charge to do it? Right now it appears that they're trying to humor her and give her a chance to testify and she just seems to be playing partisan games with it.
She's really giving a bad name to women that have actually been victimized.
5
Typical NY Times democrat propaganda report..... Tell me IF this happened (and I don't believe it did) THEN why wasn't the accusation brought out shortly after it happened, OR when he was nominated and appointed to the DC court of Appeals in 2006 ? WHY did Fienstein sit on it since July ? BECAUSE this is all a shameless Democrat orchestrated smear and lie job.... Nothing more, nothing less... The US democrat WANTS POWER at ANY COST ....They dont care about what is best for this country or for the working US citizen.. They only want their power and control...
21
@Mike W: I wish that Senator Feinstein had made this public earlier on, but the charges warrant full investigation. If they are flimsy, Judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed.
2
@Mike W You are just repeating the rhetorical question.
1
@ANetliner NetLiner
They don't warrant anything. If she hadn't brought up the fact that the whole encounter was stopped when his friend came in and he has said that the encounter never happened, you may have a leg to stand on. The fact that you ignore this piece of information shows your partisanship and your willingness to have someones name smeared to further your agenda.
The point is not really whether it happened or not. The point is the Judge is lying when he said it did not happen. This woman did not make this up out of her imagination. He should have admitted it and moved on from a careless teen age event. But he is choosing to lie.
Yes I went through the same situations as an abused teen male. I remember precisely what happened 60 years later. Not dates and times, but who. I look back at it as stupid older teen boy's trying to have sex. Doesn't haunt me, but I do remember who and what as I am sure she does.
19
@GARRY And precisely how do you know that Kavanaugh is lying?
8
@GARRY
What???? How can the Judge be guilty of of lying about something that did not happen? Determining if the incident happened like Ford is claiming (if it happened at all) is that start of dealing with the situation. You presuppose that Ford did not make it up. Your argument really has be solid logic behind it. Ford's claims are far from proven. She has provided no solid details that can be verified. Everyone else who know her and Kavanaugh say nothing happened. Can she produce a witness that will back her story? If she could it would have been real helpful to drag them out into the light during the last three months while Feinstein sat on the letter. The Democrats have had plenty of time to find the raw meat in these accusations. I feel they have not because there is very little chance that the incident is as described or if it even ocured.
11
@GARRYYour comment is illogical in my opinion. You say it doesn't matter whether it happened or not but the judge is lying??
This accuser can't say when the "incident" occurred, where it occurred, how she got there, how she got home, she has given contradictory information about what happened (claiming this was the fault of a therapist of course) hired a "#MeToo" attorney and arranged a sham "lie detector" test during a time that she claims she had no intention of going public. And after demanding to be heard her attorney now says that she won't testify until an FBI investigation takes place - which of course could not possibly prove anything 30 some years after the fact.
No reasonable person could possibly consider these accusations to be "credible", and even that most ardent democrat party activist can see this is nothing more than a desperate political ploy to derail the nomination (but of course they won't admit it).
This incident will do nothing other than to ensure that the "#MeToo" movement will go down in history as a movement that began with a noble purpose and quickly degenerated into a sickening mob mentality that ignored due process, cast aside any consideration of core legal principles and permitted women to make unfounded, uncorroborated and - yes - unbelievable claims against any man and to demand that the accuser be believed (and permitted to destroy the lives of those they accuse) simply due to the fact that the accuser is a woman.
31
@Winston Galt: I believe that Dr. Blasey is telling the truth as she sees it.
Were this case being brought forth as a criminal complaint, a police investigation would precede testimony in court. The analog in this setting is to conduct an FBI investigation before public testimony, although this is not a hard and fast requirement.
I agree that Judge Kavanaugh could not be convicted in a court of law on the basis of Dr. Blasey’s complaint. Too many questions remain, establishing reasonable doubt. But the award of a Supreme Court seat is a honor that can be denied on the basis of evidence that does not meet the reasonable doubt test.
10
@Winston Galt
If she cannot say with precision where the party was held, how can Kavanaugh claim that he was not at that party??
20
@michael Paine
The same way they expect him to know every lawyer of every law firm as they did in his hearing.
Here we go again. Anita Hill most certainly was a liar in my opinoin. I don't believe this one as well. If it was so bad then she would have mentioned this to her parents back in high school and they would have contacted the police all those years ago. Nope not buying it
14
@notasocialist Did not tell my mom any scary things. Bet you didn't tell them either.
7
@notasocialist I think it is easy to pass judgement on what someone "should" do after a traumatic event when it is not an event that we have ever experienced ourselves. There is not one-size-fits-all response to a trauma, especially trauma that is violent and sexual in nature and that has been proven time and time again. Often people need time to process/understand/heal from/get perspective before they are ready to talk about things like this and to expect someone to just deal with it the moment it happens is oversimplifying an extremely complex issue.
8
Who is the one presenting a ever changing, unsubstantiated, and uncorrobarated allegation? Ford. She cannot even remember the year she claimed the incident happened. She never mentioned names before now. When asking who has the greater incentive to lie is the correct question. The correct question is who would lose anything by lying? Ford loses nothing. She won't lose her job, and since she didn't not file an actual complaint to authorities, she can't be legally punished. Giving to her congresswoman was very much not to stay anonymous and saying the FBI should investigate is not the same as going to Maryland to file a complaint with MD authorities. There is no statute of limitations for felony sexual assault in MD. She chose to write to a Congresswoman not to MD law enforcement. Nough said.
She did not pass a lie detector test, she didn't even pass a polygraph, since you do not "pass" a poly. She and her attorney do not want to reveal anything about the poly, because it would be shot down. So, stop echoing fake information that she actually passed the poly, when we know nothing about it. Is your name Christine. Yes. Ok, you passed a polygraph. Details of the poly as well as who gave it beyond just a "former FBI agent", means the contention she passed as it pertains to her allegations against Kavanaugh is completely false and itself a lie by her attorney.
23
@Sierra: Your post shows that Christine Blasey Ford has already lost a great deal by coming forward. Many, like you, are questioning her character and integrity and vilifying her in the media.
22
@ANetliner NetLiner Carefully dissecting Ford's possible motives and logical inconsistencies is not "vilifying her," it is simply analyzing her. She chose to come forward 35-37 years after the fact, and she can't have it both ways.
@ANetliner NetLiner
As well she should. She should be ashamed at bringing an allegation against a judge with an outstanding record just to further her political agenda. She has no proof and can not even recall the exact events that have scarred her so.
Kavanaugh might have a greater incentive to lie in this situation, but that doesn't make him a liar or guilty of the allegation. Ford can lie and suffer no career repercussions, unless she's put under oath and conclusive evidence can be produced to show that she lied. If she's telling the truth, why we she even hesitate to tell her story under oath or to the FBI, for example?
The more disturbing prospect is that Ford is being used as a political pawn is the current climate of entrenched polarization.
27
@Robert
I do not think for one minute Ford is being unwillingly used by the left. To me, the mode she is going about this with her lawyer, with Feinstein sitting on this wild yarn over two months, and the lack of any formal complaint with law enforcement of this alleged assault (that has no statute of limitations), simply tells me she is complicit as the leftist Hail Mary of obstructionism hurled by Democrats into the hearing out of pathetic desperation.
1
In what alternate reality am I stuck in where someone makes an allegation for something that may or may not have happened 36 years ago when they were in high school, without a shred of proof, that can't even remember the day or date of the alleged incident and those who she mentioned were present have denoed the allegation and yet so many mindless drones believe her?
30
@Anthony
You are stuck in the alternative reality of wanting to seat a perjurer on the highest court in the land. Thank god I do not share your corrupt reality of alternative facts and out and out lies and liars.
Who is more believable? In this era of “guilty before proven innocent” in cases of sexual assault accusations it depends on one’s character and moral base. This country has always protected the rights of the accused and accuser. The burden of proof is on the accuser. Otherwise there is injustice. But progressive women use the highly emotionally charged nature of these allegations to subvert the rights of any man who does not share their radical beliefs.
It is disingenuous and obvious. How do I know this? A woman has accused Keith Ellison of physical abuse with evidence yet these same women couldn’t care less about her accusations. Keith Elliso shares their radical beliefs.
No politician abused women more than Bill Clinton yet many, many progressive women excused his behavior while the president. Including Ms. Ford’s attorney today. He began the idea that oral sex is not sex at all. An activity many, many young people now think exactly as he did.
Ms. Ford is being used by democrats. She made it clear she wanted to remain anonymous. But someone leaked the confidential information in the letter in Ms. Feinstein’s possession. Wonder who? I have a good idea. Simply for partisan politics they have destroyed her life with the intention of destroying his. They have moved the goal posts twice in an effort to delay. The allegation cannot be proven so she will likely turn out to be a pawn thrown to the wolves.
26
@Michael Sanders
Well, if Americans and other humans were less vicious and more rational, perhaps this could have been brought up in a commonsense fashion and resolved successfully. By the latter, it would mean Kavanaugh withdrawing his denigrating self (did you see how he treated the Parkland father? The father introduced himself and stretched out his hand, and Kavanaugh treated him with contempt - for that rudeness alone, he should be demoted as dog catcher, not to mention a judiciary post). Then the powers-that-be could re-nominate Merrick Garland who has had a stellar career, and has served the USA well.
3
"Who has incentive to lie?"
How about 47 Democrat senators?
I'm incredibly skeptical of any 11th hour accusation, particularly after seeing the juvenile, ludicrous "protests" at the beginning of the confirmation hearings.
After learning about Ms. Ford's political leanings, I can surmise that this was a last ditch effort to smear, slander, and derail Kavenaugh's confirmation. Was she complicit in a political hack-job, conceived and enacted by the Democrats? It's entirely possible, and exactly the type of thing that I would expect from the Democrats
The Democrat party has been exposed for what it really is, a bunch of socialist activists who will do anything to advance their toxic agenda.
Truth always comes out, but it's conveniently ignored by the Democrats (and their cohort media pals) when it contradicts their plans.
P.S. The Republicans aren't much better.
28
@TStephen Setting aside that getting 47 politicians to agree to lie about something would be a spectacular feat.... The Democrat's "toxic agenda?" Which part are you referring to - health care for all? better education? clean air? decent housing? a living wage?
the elimination of hunger?
4
@TStephen
When Democrats are accused (see Al Franken) they step down. When republicans are accused they smear the women and lie to protect themselves.
2
It’s not what happened all those years ago that is the most important thing here. It is Mr. Kavanaugh’s relentless denial of the incident - not even a “Well, it may have happened, and I am sorry if it did”. He very much appears to have told less than the truth in several other areas, so why not this? That’s what troubles me - the man appears to be willing to lie when it’s convenient, so what makes us think he won’t do the same thing once confirmed? We don’t need a liar on the Supreme Court - for life, no less! He’s just another entitled white male.
36
@Birdmom9726: I agree with your assessment that Judge Kavanaugh has appeared to shade the truth during these hearings, raising a reasonable concern that he will lie when convenient. Judge Kavanaugh is not worthy of a lifelong Supreme Court seat.
18
@Birdmom9726
Is that how you would want Judge Kavanaugh - or any other judge - to act on the bench? A kid is accused of a crime and Kavanaugh finds him guilty because he dared to deny the charge rather than just admit it could have happened.
From another article in today's NYT: "An apparently truncated video clip of Judge Kavanaugh giving another speech emerged. Referring to his high school in 2015, he again modified the frequently used cliché: “What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep.” He added: “That’s been a good thing for all of us, I think.”
Hopefully, Kavanaugh's "good things" will soon come to an end. I too commend Dr. Blasey for her courage in coming forward with this allegation.
64
@AEK in NYC
Who with any sense or objectivity would extrapolate from a joke about mischievous antics in high school to "proof" of sexual assault? You really think that if Kavanaugh had any thoughts of this type of evil in his mind he would have joked about it in a speech? Absurd!
6
@AEK in NYC Such "evidence" would be laughed out of court. Virtually *any* male who attended an all-boy school could make exactly the same joke. I know I could. Moreover, if he's so devious and evil, why would he make such a joke?
3
@AEK in NYC
And if he was so devious and evil, where pray tell is the record of a life filled with similar and repeated offenses of assaulting women (see Bill Clinton). Instead, you have everyone and their sister, and many Democrat friends of his as well, willing to unequivocally defend this character, honesty, and intellect as a man, a father, a husband, a judge, a coach, and even someone who volunteers to help the homeless.
2
"I believe both Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey."
If Dr. Blasey is telling the truth, then either Judge Kavanaugh is either lying or was drunk out of his mind enough not to remember the event. If the latter, then he would know that, at least once in his life, he was drunk enough not to remember what he did at a party. Thus, he would know that he COULD NOT say, as definitively as he has, that the event never happened. That would be a misleading statement, similar to the other misleading statements he's been making during his testimony before Congress - when he isn't being totally evasive.
"The cynical handling of the accusation against Judge Kavanaugh (holding it until the last minute)" is not quite accurate; Feinstein was torn between Blasey not wanting to go public and allowing someone possibly guilty of attempted rape to sit on the SC. This wouldn't be an issue without the Republican ungodly rush to confirm Kavanaugh because of impending elections, even though they used the opposite reasoning to withhold a nomination by President Obama for almost a year. Talk about cynical!
"Who has not done something that they are not proud of? It should not be a death sentence for our aspirations to help others."
Not being on the Supreme court is not a death sentence. And it's not about the act, which Kavanaugh might have regretted so much that he never did similar again. It's about lying to America about it, to get on the Supreme Court. Which is scary, if you think about it.
20
@Barry Williams Barry, there are numerous possibilities you haven't considered.
1. Incorrect eyewitness identifications occur all the time. Some cases are legendary. The accusers were telling the truth, they were simply wrong. Take a look at Kavanaugh's high school picture. He has a very generic appearance. As someone who has a very generic appearance, I've been mistaken for other people *at least 25 times* in my life. In one case, when I was in the Army, a guy at a bar punched me in the face because he confused me with someone else!
So Dr. Ford may be "telling the truth," but be wrong.
2. "Not being on the Supreme Court is not a death sentence." Indeed. Let's try to trace your "logic" there.
Not getting into medical school isn't a "death sentence." Not getting a promotion isn't a "death sentence." Who appointed you the arbiter of whose hopes, dreams, and lifetimes of hard work should be crushed?
11
@JimInNashville Please.
1. The point is, a Supreme Court pick is so momentous, you have to look for as much truth as possible. You're saying that because Dr. Ford may be truthful and wrong, we shouldn't try to determine if that is so? Balderdash. FBI investigators would marshal as much corroborating evidence as possible, beyond just her word versus his. Such as the curious speech he gave to a Georgetown Prep audience, I believe for commencement, in which he revealed an evidently well known saying (at that school, and probably to the other schools in the vicinity): what happens at Georgetown prep, stays at Georgetown prep. And went on to say it was good for "many of us" that this was so. Hmm. One person already said she heard about the incident with Dr. Blasey, but didn't want to get involved because she couldn't prove it.
What if she's right, and he's a liar?
2. What about the dream of living a life free of having experienced attempted rape and possible manslaughter? I wager that it is much more likely that experience, and seeing that proto-rapist prosper and become lauded as a "wonderful person" while you relive the horror of that moment forever, is closer to a death sentence than not getting on the Supreme Court. To equate not getting into medical school, or not getting a promotion (both of which can be attempted again, or surpassed by other efforts, as happens all the time), with death (which completely and finally ends all options) is patently ludicrous.
It isn't a matter of choosing which side to believe. This isn't a faith based process. Burden of proof is on the accuser. No evidence has been offered except conflicting testimony. Vote should proceed for confirmation. The democrats sat on this for weeks. I see no reason to delay.
39
This is not a trial. There is no burden of proof.
10
@Somedude, If Democrats brought it up sooner, you would be complaining they were, 'jumping the gun.' Nothing would make an appropriate response for you.
16
@JF, thats utterly ridiculous. So I can say 30 years ago JF did this or that to me with absolutely no evidence, or corroboration and it is to be believed? and the TWO people I name as witnesses both say they have no recollection of anything like this ever happening. yet still I am to be believed?
If it was a Democratic nominee would you feel the same way?
This woman had nothing to gain by coming forward. Kavanaugh carries far too much baggage to be on the Supreme Court. He must be dropped.
91
@Karn Griffen: sure she does. she gains whatever political motivations she has. she loses nothing though, which should be the question.
13
@Sierra
Feinstein is one of the most corrupt politicians in washington. She tried to make it look like she was so righteous in holding on to it till the last minute like she is some kind of hero. She is a despicable human and should have been kicked out of Congress years ago. This woman Ford is exactly the same.
I commend Dr. Blasey for disclosing Judge Kavanaugh's attempt to rape her when they were teenagers. For her to do this and knowing the possibility that she and her family would face threats and torment from Kavanaugh's supporters, means that she was doing this for the sake of our country--to prevent Kavanaugh from sliding smoothly into becoming our new Supreme Court judge without facing his own past behavior--attempted rape.
We need a supreme court judge who is willing to slow down, to have a thorough investigation that is handled by the FBI in order for political bias to removed from finding the truth about this nominee. Perhaps a lie-detector test should be applied to Kavenaugh, as well. Our citizens need to have a Supreme Court judge selected who is honest, trustworthy, and respects the rights of all people, who will uphold our rights.
Time is needed in order for Dr. Blasely's allegation, which is a serious one, to be correctly investigated. Thank you, Dr. Blasely. Your painful disclosure is one that needs to be considered respectfully and with as much unbiased precision by investigators as is possible.
95
@Patti Bezzo, what it more likely means is that she is a never-Trumper that the Dems dug up to fling some mud that can never be proven. It's shady politics at its finest. To suddenly produce someone claiming a misconduct from over 30 years ago with conflicting stories and no real evidence is appalling, and the Dems should realize that theyr'e setting a really ugly precedent to go this route.
18
@Patti Bezzo: she actually never alleged rape until now when the media and her lawyer started promoting her story. She was doing this for herself, not for the good of the country. She never complained to Maryland law enforcement which is what she should have and should do if she wants this to be about the good of the country. She chose not to do so and still has not. There is no statute of limitations in maryland for felony sexual assault, so ask yourself why she went the political route? She cna play victim because she can hide behind that it wasn't her that made it public, but her congresswoman and Feinstein.
Amusing you claim to want someone on the Supreme Court "who will uphold our rights", yet you deny Kavanaugh his right of due process. The burden of proof is on Ford, not on Kavanaugh to prove his innocence.
Until Ford wants to actually file an actual complaint with law enforcement there is no time needed to try and disprove an allegation about an incident Ford cannot even remember the year of it.
19
Go back to Russia.
Let there be an investigation. Or are the Republicans and Kavanaugh afraid of facts?
3
He has lied in previous confirmation hearings about other matters. There needs to be a continued background investigation of Judge Kavanaugh to gather as much objective facts about the accusation. The rush to ride roughshod over any and all information that might derail the political agenda and timetable of Judge Kavanaugh's becoming a Supreme Court Justice is a disservce to him, to Dr. Blasey, and most of all to the people of this country, who deserve to have as apolitical and untainted persons on its nation's highest, most powerful court.
75
@Pat C: your contention he lied in previous confirmaiton has been soundly debunked. There needs to be no background investigation until Ford actually files a formal complaint with Maryland law enforcement, which she chose not to do and chooses not to do. He remains untainted, since the burden of proof is on Ford to substantiate and corroborate her allegations which have changed more times that i do my hair color.
13
@Pat C
What proof do you have that he lied ??? Other then democrat fantasies
6
@Sierra: Emails released during these Supreme Court hearings unequivocally establish that Judge Kavanaugh received confidential information purloined from the Democratic staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Judge Kavanaugh has repeatedly denied receiving such information. At best, he is shading the truth by relying on convoluted legalistic formulations, a la Bill Clinton’s “meaning of is” defense. At worst, Judge Kavanaugh has lied repeatedly.
Either way, Judge Kavanaugh has been neither forthright nor forthcoming. He does not have the character to sit on the Supreme Court.
3
I find Dr Blasey credible. Should the incident which happend so long age prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the Supreme Court now? I'm not sure. My problem is with his flat denial of it. If he's lying about it - that surely disqualifies him from serving on the highest court of the US. An independent FBI inquiry is needed.
39
@Natalie Shemer
Tell me how does the FBI investigate a high school party from 36 years ago where the accuser doesn’t remember the date/year, who was at the party, or location of the alleged assault?
Her story is not believable. My guess is she lobbed this false accusation of a letter out there thinking it would harm Kavanaugh, but she’d be immune and get away with it. Now Kavanaugh and the senate have called her bluff, and she’s standing alone without a bathing suit when the tide has gone out (no pun intended.)
14
@BobShe probably doesn't want to testify since perjury is a crime. Funny she wanted to keep this all a secret but took a lie detector test. Who paid for that? The DNC, Senator Feinstein??
Once again, the press has been diverted from maintaining focus on America’s major issue: Russia’s interference in our elections. November is in the headlights and closing rapidly.
What will it take for the press to refocus like a laser on Russia’s ongoing threat to the very existence of our democracy?
8
Clearly the one with the greater incentive to lie is the liberal who is about to lose her side’s majority on the SCOTUS.
7
I agree with all of this, but what if Kavanaugh and Judge are telling the truth and Dr. Blaisey is not?
"Who has the greater incentive to lie: Dr. Blasey or Judge Kavanaugh? Obviously he does. He wants to be on the Supreme Court. His accuser has no incentive to lie..."
I have no reason to disbelieve Dr. Blaisey, but don't you want to decide that for yourself? She doesn't even have to show up? She just makes anonymous allegations, we accept them, and that's the end of it? Seriously?
Every effort should be made to enable Dr. Blaisey to keep this as private as she'd like, and we certainly should punish anyone who seeks to punish her for making the allegations.
But Kavanaugh has rights too. He flatly denies he did this or anything like it -- ever, to Dr. Blaisey or anyone else. Clearly his denial is an overstatement, since all he can really know is whether he remembers it (and that's what Mark Judge said). But his denial must be taken as at least a denial of any memory of it.
Maybe Kavanaugh is lying and maybe he's not. I, for one, would like to see him repeat his denials under oath in front of TV cameras. But if he does that, as he says he's willing to do, and she refuses present her story to anyone, publicly or privately, should we really just accept her anonymous allegations?
Attempted rape is a horrible crime, and attempted-rape allegations are nearly always difficult or impossible to prove. But that's not reason enough to simply accept allegations as evidence.
18
@MyThreeCents, Let's put Kavanaugh on a lie detector in front of TV cameras. Let the process move on. The truth will come out sooner or later and our children will see both parties in action and draw their own conclusions.
2
@MyThreeCents:
I agree that:
1)Dr. Blasey should testify before the Senate, either before or after the FBI inquiry.
2)The FBI should investigate.
The American people deserve this before confirming Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
5
@Glenn ThomasLie detectors are not allowed to be entered as evidence as evidence in the court of law. They are used mostly to bully people into giving information they might ordinarily not give.
The arguments defending Mr. Kavanaugh are evasive and poorly reasoned. Pinning someone to a bed and covering her mouth so that she can't get help is not typical teenage male behavior. Anyone who is arguing that it is is being willfully ignorant.
There is a strange notion being floated that decades ago people didn't know any better. Utter nonsense. I am the same age as the principals here. In the early 80s, people knew what assault was, they knew what rape was. The behavior Dr. Blasey describes is not typical or normal, as so many commenters want to claim.
27
@Robert F: a claim is not fact. So the basis of your comments is poorly reasoned. Her story has changed and she cannot even remember the year of her alleged incident.
5
@Robert F
Dr. Ford has presented no proof that this ever happened other than her cloudy recollection. Yet we are to believe her automatically?
@Bill no not automatically she wants the FBI to investigate
A female sex crimes detective that was interviewed says 95 out of 100 of these types of accusations she’s seen in her career are false when investigated.
But by all means lets ruin a man's reputation and career by allowing unsubstantiated and mainly un-provable allegations to dictate our response. Are we going to set the standard that people can lob accusations from the sidelines and then refuse to even appear anywhere to substantiate them as the level needed to convict someone?
14
What's the detectives' name ?
7
@Bob, Facts lead professionals to the opposite conclusion.
That much is well documented.
6
@Bob: The opinion of the female sex crimes detective is the opposite of what substantial research has proven. The research results across many cases is that 90% to 98% of rape/sexual assault charges are truthful.
2
Um, excuse me but a polygraph is not a lie detector - really, it is not, go do a little research and it has no validity in a court of law, for good reasons. So, her ability … as a psychologist, to pass a polygraph test, means nothing. But nice try and no not all women are truthful and their emotions are more of an obstacle than an asset. I do think something happened to her, but she is confused 36 years later about whom, what and where. Even Di Fi is hesitating on this aspect.
20
@Michael M. Its true. Polygraphs are not admissible in court because the tests are considered pseudoscience
6
To me, this appears to be rather simple... If after a proper investigation the allegations are generally considered true and a nominee for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court who is the subject of said allegations continues to not be truthful during the investigation and subsequent hearings, they should be ineligible for consideration and appointment.
Not only because of the incident (a separate matter) but because they have demonstrated a willingness to perjure themselves under oath.
Is that we want of our Supreme Court justices or any judges for that matter - dishonesty? We should demand that such individuals who are the stewards of justice are, beyond a reasonable doubt, above reproach.
Simple indeed...
16
@Greg Algarin: @Greg Algarin: My how you try to over simplify! Now that this scandal is out in the open, the accuser doesn't seem too cooperative and wants any investigation conducted on her terms (i.e., the FBI). The FBI is refusing because this type of case is not in their jurisdiction. The alleged incident took place in MD, but was never reported to the local police over 35 years ago. Unless she can get some witness(es) to come forward and corroborate her accusations, what defense does she have for her unsubstantiated claim?
The accuser was certainly politically motivated in telling her story to her congress representative and The Washington post, rather than discreetly going to the FBI or Justice Department in the first place. What is playing out here is politics at their dirtiest best by the Democrats. It looks like you have already convicted Kavanaugh in your "court of public opinion" mind.
6
In case law practice when questions arise over the veracity of a plaintiff alleging a crime decades after the supposed occurrence of same, any later evidence almost always takes precedence over the earlier. If due process were being followed here (vs. a partisan trial via the media), a Judge would instruct the jury to give more credence to her therapist's notes, wherein "four" males are referenced. The huge conflict this sets up between her statement about "two" males is material, and goes to the problematic issue of relying solely on human memory, especially memory that is nearly four decades old and, quite likely, dulled by mind-altering substances at the time, such as alcohol.
10
@Nancy Knowles:
Except:
1. Dr. Blasey says that she described 4 males at the party, 2 of whom participated in the assault incident. The therapist’s notes are either sketchy or inaccurate on this point.
2. Dr. Blasey also discussed the event with her husband in 2012, naming 2 assailants. This corroborates Dr. Blasey’s account.
4
@ANetliner NetLiner
So the notes are wrong - the only independent fact that we have. But everything else she says is true but can't be proven.
She had no personal axe to grind?!? Look a little deeper into Ms. Ford's background and political activism and then tell me she's just an innocent babe in the woods who is coming out with this allegation (which is all it still is) to stand up for right vs. wrong (35 years after it supposedly happened, BTW, and 2 weeks before a vote was to be held)
11
Although on the face of it, the "who has more incentive to lie" argument seems sound, in reality its sophistry. After all, that same question can be asked in every court case in which police make an allegation that the defendant denies. Who has more motivation to lie, a police officer or an accused criminal?
Also, this argument would mean we have to believe everything Alex Jones says about Barack Obama; he was born in Africa, and is a Communist. Why would Jones lie? Because he hates Obama, for political reasons.
The argument also assumes that humans are perfectly rational and do things that will always benefit them. Why would a shooter try to kill Steve Scalise? The shooter threw his life away because of rage.
Who had more motivation to lie, Jackie Coakley of the now infamous "A Rape on Campus" UVA episode, or the fraternity which in the end, was falsely accused and awarded cash compensation?
In the end, this argument ignores factors that have led to wars between entire civilizations. While arguments of motivation are absolutely necessary, they are far from sufficient.
17
@Douglas Moore. A beautifully stated rebuttal to the left wing diehards who, in the face of Ford’s refusal to testify, ask “why would she do this if it weren’t true”, in the face of the U Va episode, the Duke lacrosse team and let’s not forget my favorite, Tawana Bradley.
11
@Douglas Moore:
Excellent argument that an accuser’s motivation should be considered, but does not establish the truth.
That is why a complete FBI investigation and testimony are needed to evaluate Dr. Blasey’s charges.
6
@Douglas Moore That's one of the best-written comments I've read in these pages. Too bad the writer of the article didn't see it a couple of days ago.
2
Can't remember the place, approximate time, or anyone else in the house party that was not in that bedroom. She had told the couples therapist that there were 4 assailants. She didn't name the assailants. Now apparently there were just 2.
Something might have indeed happened to Blasey Ford 36 years ago, but there's absolutely no evidence given that the assailant was Kavanaugh.
Given Kavanaugh's possible stance on abortion and women's rights and lifetime appointment to the Court that may tip its balance, a reasonable person could logically see a motive in Blasey Ford's action. Especially since she appears to pretty outspoken politically.
22
@Jonathan: you can't even say 36 years ago, since she can't remmeber the year that it happened. We aren't talking about the time, day, or even month, but the year. you are correct, her story changes. In the selective excerpts of the therapist's notes it has one thing, which very well may be the therapist's opinion versus what Ford had stated. Then we have from attempted groping to attempted rape and attempted murder.
If Ford wants an actual investigation, she should have filed an actual complaint with Maryland law enforcement, where felony sexual assault has no statute of limitations. Instead, she chose to send a note to her congresswoman who passed to Feinstein.
14
@Jonathan:
1. Blasey named the assailants to her husband in 2012.
2. Blasey says that she mentioned 4 men at the party to her therapists, 2 of whom were the assailants. The therapist’s notes might therefore be accurate.
2
@ANetliner NetLiner
Unfortunately we have no independent evidence of anything other than uncorroborated statements to a therapist which differ from the facts now claimed. What she told her husband hardly qualifies as independent evidence.
So odd that the angry leftist obstructionists are always lying and expect informed Americans to believe them. This woman is a political hack and a clear Trump Resistor and has a lot to gain in stopping Kavanaugh confirmation. This is such a calculated hit job that it will totally backfire by the weekend.
15
Clearly the one with the greater incentive to lie is the liberal whose side is about to lose their SCOTUS majority.
20
@toldyaso Liberals have not held the majority in the court for 45 years. And 15 people recommended this comment - what are you all reading as it's not based in easily found facts?
5
@toldyaso
Lose their SCOTUS majority???!!! What planet do you spend most of your time on. There has not been a liberal majority on the Court for decades. How do you think Bush II was illegally proclaimed president in 2000? By the CONSERVATIVE majority on the Court. Kennedy, the guy being replaced, was a conservative justice, appointed by a Conservative Republican president.
The primary motivation of the accuser is to derail the nomination, not to seek real justice, or else she would have sought justice long ago. The motive of today’s action is completely political and transparent to all honest people. This is another classic dishonest action by liberals, who never cease in trying to brand their political foe as “liar.”
13
@Edwin Women more often than not do not report rape because they are shamed and blamed by people like you. It did take courage to face the likes of you. And the reason for the now is this rapist is about to be confirmed.
Get it?
12
@sinagua
This comment is contradicted by facts. First, Dr. Ford was not raped, and has not claimed she was.
Second, it is most definitely NOT true that women "more often than not do not report rape."
The best available research, including the highly authoritative BJS study that assessed non-reporting rates, indicates exactly the opposite.
A significant number of women do not report "rapes," but quite a few of these cases involve a woman realizing that what may "technically" be a rape might be a misunderstanding. The TV show "Switched at Birth" had a plot line involving two people drinking heavily that illuminated many of the issues.
When a US Senator can stand in front of a TV camera and tell all men to just sit down, shut up and do the right thing, I would have to question the sanity of that person. I would also have to question the democrat party that she represents.
First we are derogatorily told by the President, a representative of that democrat party that we as Americans bitterly cling to our guns and religion. That statement alone alienates quite a large portion of Americans.
Second we are again derogatorily described as a "basket of deplorables" by a former Secretary of State and Presidential contender, also a representative of that democrat party. That statement alienated a substantial portion of the electorate, and probably cost the candidate the election.
Now we have a US Senator from that same democrat party, derogatorily telling half the country to sit down and shut up because we are men.
Hey democrats, kiss the Supreme court, the midterms and any chance at a future presidency goodbye.
16
@Skeptic for some strange reason I find this President very less than admirable
1
People make good cases on both sides.
But there is nothing Democrats can do that compares to Mitch McConnell refusing to consider Merrick Garland and stealing a Supreme Court seat. Democrats must make every effort to postpone confirmation of the next SC nominee until after the midterms. That's the only way we can get a moderate to replace Kennedy's seat.
26
@Eric: advise and consent of congress means Congress can choose not to advise and give consent. There was no stealing supreme court seat, because that his how our democracy works.
4
@Eric We don't need moderates, liberals, or conservatives wearing SCOTUS robes. We need constitutionalists wearing those robes. Their job is to hear the cases they decide to hear and rule on them based on the constitution and what it states. There is not supposed to be any room for magically finding something in the constitution that isn't there and personal feelings, political leanings, and looking outside the constitution at that level is strictly forbidden according to the constitution. THAT'S the law of the land. And there are no laws that says we need X number of conservatives, X number of liberals, and X number of moderates. The nominees are left up to the president per the constitution and, unless there is something FACTUAL and realistic that would keep a nominee from being appointed, they need to be confirmed. The Senate needs to learn their place as well.
7
@Sierra: The Senate’s responsibility is to advise and consent, not to refuse to perform its constitutional role.
My view: Had I been Obama, I would have seated Garland after the Senate abrogated its responsibilities.
Yes, a legal challenge would have ensued and the Supreme Court (with Garland recused) would have taken the case. But at least we’d resolve whether the Senate can abandon its constitutional responsibilities on a whim.
3
There is no excuse for Kavanaugh's absolutely brute behavior.
The issue is can anybody that attacks a women be trusted to judge any moral issue without cynicism? Now he is ashamed and not feeling worthy. Not a good foundation to judge others. I hear many people say the environment is doomed, and social security is doomed. I would not be surprised to learn they have a shameful experience that makes them also cynical.
Not a childhood prank, but huge like Trump's and our Republican leadership- Grassley, McConnel, Graham... They probably all have tons of past shame. Many people are better qualified and worthy to lead and judge, just not cynics. We can not afford cynics running the show.
Oh, and Bill Clinton did not attempt rape, nor did Clarence Thomas. This is not the same case. This was attempted rape, a violent act. oh and Al Franken, it was a joke at the woman's expense and the Senator paid dearly for the joke. Kavanaugh will get a pass from his fellow cynics.
7
@sinagua Such a large amount of nonsense in one comment. The obvious issue is did he do it, not your ridiculous version of an issue. Also, ever hear of Juanita Broderrick (sp?). She was among a number of women who accused Bill Clinton of rape as a Governor, not a minor. Where was all the Democratic indignation then?
7
The issue is Kavanaugh attempted to rape.
It is not the issue, but Clinton would not make it today either.
@sinagua
“Bill Clinton did not attempt rape”
Anita Broderick for years has claimed it wasn’t attempted rape, that Clinton actually DID rape her!
So if the Dems are calling for the FBI to investigate Ford’s accusations, shouldn’t they investigate Broderick’s also?
What’s good for the goose....
1
To say that Christine Ford has nothing to gain is a complete falsehood. She would gain tremendously in that she would be credited by her far left compatriots for being solely responsible for preventing the most qualified (ever) constitutionalist candidate from being appointed to the Supreme Court. She would attain hero statis which would overshadow her alleged victim status. So sad!
28
@Dee Cee Dr. Ford has been forced to relocate her entire family because of death threats. Her professional career will be derailed for some time and her life may never be the same. You call that a win?
27
@Dee Cee. As a professor she might have tenure, which means she wouldn't be removed anyway. Actually, as you say she'll be celebrated. She's in Palo Slto, outside San Francisco.
Is NYT going to look at this woman's political activity? Very significant donations listed on open secrets are listed for a Catherine Ford with occupation as psychotherapist and marriage and family therapist. She's not exactly non-partisan
10
@Maxie Really? Has she reported the death threats to the police? Are they investigating the threats? How about some facts or are the claims just claims???
Denial won't work. Let him take a polygraph test. He's a job applicant, not royalty.
67
@Pia, The test will not be conclusive, but his refusal will be very telling.
9
@Pia: Keep in mind that we don't know the details of the polygraph test taken by the accuser (e.g, questions asked). If Kavanaugh were to agree to a polygraph test, the accuser should take another polygraph test using the same tester, under controlled circumstances for consistency.
@Glenn Thomas Not really.
1. No details of her polygraph analysis (done by a consultant *she paid*) have been released.
2. Numerous experts have debunked the usefulness of a polygraph in situations such as these.
I guess I see two distinct issues at work here. First is the Senate confirmation of Kavanaugh based on his legal qualifications. Politics are politics, but he can and should be confirmed on his qualifications, those on the Senate confirmation committee who disagree can vote no. That is the political process.
The second is this accusation. If the Senate could actually determine the truth and not merely make a decision on a preponderance of evidence (which is looking like it will be contradictory based on initial comments by Kavanaugh, Ford and Judge) then sure, it would and should disqualify the man. But we all know this won't happen, regardless of the length of an investigation. 36 years ago. No charges filed. No complaint lodged. The confirmation should proceed, and then an investigation should be opened. If it is found to be true, then impeach the man per Article 3 of the constitution. Surely Democrats are expecting to control congress after the 2018 elections.
We'll never have the answers that would actually yield a just result. Any number of things were possible; Ford could recall with total clarity and Kavanaugh is lying, Ford could have made all of this up and Kavanaugh is truthful, or maybe something happened that neither remembers accurately, or their memories have faded over the years. It's entirely possible to get conflicting testimony with both parties answering as truthfully as possible. It's the shame of this whole mess.
8