BANKS: OK. Well, I think much as was reported in The Washington Post, which was accurate. When in high school, Ms. Blasey was at a party in the early summer around her junior year, before her junior year, where she ran into or was there with four boys, two girls. Two of the boys were Brett Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge. Those at the party were drinking. She describes Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge as stumbling drunk.
Notice the word “boys” after the word “four”? And then the word “girls” after the word “two”? So I think the math might be: 1+2+4=7.
But I could be mistaken. Seems like a silly point to argue.
Probably why I wrote “6 other people besides Ford.”
Or it be a clarification that she was referring to boys when she said “four others”. Or the lawyer could be wrong. Seems a silly nitpick, and deliberate distraction, from the issue that a SCOTUS nominee might have committed felony sexual assault.
Her concern is duly noted. At any rate, Amy Chua had plenty of opportunity to express this concern before the Committee hearings began, which she didn’t do for whatever reason. Someone as famous as she is could surely have gained a sympathetic ear from one of the Democrats on the committee.
So, you don’t see an outcome where, when trying to avoid the appointment of a second progressive down the line that the Republicans might not try and find everyone who went to school with the prospective USSC candidate and if they have anything at all that could be used against them? Something thin like a hazy party they went to when they were 17 that we don’t know many of the details on but that the accuser is sure happened? And that they wouldn’t bring this person forth at the last minute with their accusation and then go ‘well, recall what you all said about Kavanaugh’? Because my devious mind indicates that the Republicans would totally do this, and they would do it as part of this seemingly endless game of ramping things up. Hell, they might just do it simply to point out the hypocrisy of those who are currently buying this story and totally don’t think there are political implications, that this is really just about a woman wronged 36 years ago.
I can completely see a slippery slope here if we start accepting this sort of ‘evidence’ as enough to warrant a full on FBI investigation (and I’m willing to come back to this thread in a month or so when Kavanaugh doesn’t get the appointment and this is still a hot topic being totally investigated by the FBI and eat crow…since I think that once he’s out this will not even be on the back page). And not just for politicians. There has to be some level of proof to the accusation, some details or some evidence. But, as you pointed out, I’m no LEO or lawyer, so what do I know?
I’m totally sympathetic to women who have been and continue to be abused. I think it’s a travesty that this has happened and continues to happen. I have two daughters and don’t want to see something like this EVER happen to them. But this thing has a pretty obvious political dimension, it’s something that should have been reported 36 years ago, and the fact that nothing about this has been brought forth until now (why not, say, during the process for his current appointment? Or at myriad other points in his career? Why wait until now?), at this late date and with so little corroborating evidence is pretty freaking suspicious…and to me, it would be a precedence for abuse in the future. I don’t think that would do much good for women’s rights on sexual abuse in the future as well as a bad precedence for future USSC appointments if something this thin keeps someone off the bench.
More than tone and body language, when you put out a written statement it’s not you yourself answering on the spot. It’s your lawyer and whoever else carefully crafting it with all sorts of other considerations - including credibility, impact, etc. - in mind. When it’s you answering live, you get much less chance to script things.
I’m sure the Republicans might try such a thing, but the Democrats could then proceed with a full and thorough investigation, which would be likely to reveal more information.
No one is discussing Ford’s “guilt or innocence”. They’re discussing her credibility. She originally wrote a letter that said “The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.” Now you’re saying that her lawyer is “clarifying” that she didn’t mean “a gathering that included me and four others”, but that she really meant “a gathering that included me and four [DEL]others[/DEL] other boys and two other girls”. That change in her story calls her credibility into question.
I started reading that article, but stopped after getting to this gem: “There is no allegation that the female students who worked for Kavanaugh were chosen because of their physical appearance or that they were not qualified.”
Could you do me a favor and clarify exactly why you posted this link and the conclusions you may draw from it?
No it doesn’t. Not knowing the exact number of people at a party 35 years ago has fuckall to do with remembering if Brett Kavanaugh tried to stick his dick inside her against her will while his hand was over her mouth.
I hope you are right, and that this isn’t another filibuster fiasco. But I think people are being short sighted on this stuff and that it’s likely to come back and bite them on the ass, and that there are some serious unintended consequences that are being hand waved away.
If it was a bullshit accusation, maybe. But all that Democrats are demanding is serious consideration and a full investigation. The only “slippery slope” for that would be serious consideration and a full investigation for future credible accusations, and that would be a FUCKING AMAZING THING FOR AMERICA.