There is a bunch of evidence. Circumstantial evidence is a kind of evidence. There isn’t proof (yet?), but there is a growing pile of evidence.
The admitted sexual abuser in chief tweets the following, thus proving yet again he has no understanding of sexual assault and rape in this country (aside from, perhaps, the best way to perpetrate these acts and get away with it):
“I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn date, time, and place!”
No, but this ‘mistaken identity’ theory was clearly a coordinated push on behalf of Kavanaugh, and whether or not he named anyone himself, he was part of that push.
The best that can be said for him is that he hangs out with a nasty crowd. But remembering his work re Vince Foster and the Clintons back when he was working for Ken Starr, it’s hardly out of character for him personally.
He was a nasty piece of work then, and he’s a nasty piece of work now.
It’s almost trivially easy to think of a line of questioning by professional investigators that would have a decent chance of revealing more information about the alleged attack. Such professionals aren’t dummies. They’ll ask questions of Ford about what she remembers – not just the attack, but her life around the attack.
“Do you remember going out to the movies, or watching something on TV, or going to a game, shortly before or after the incident?”, for example. “Do you remember taking any flights that summer?” “Do you remember going to camp?” And so on, not only for Ford, but for the other witnesses she identifies. And many of these things might have associated records (flight records, movie/TV release dates, camp attendance records, etc.) that could help narrow down a time, and maybe a place. Investigators aren’t buffoons with no experience. They actually can ask questions that have a decent likelihood of revealing information even about something that happened decades ago.
Oh! I thought it was clear that I did not intend to back up the S. The S is retracted.
Your turn.
Here’s the story of a girl who was raped by two guys in 2006. She reported it. DNA identified one of the perps she’d identified as the rapists. Yet the legal system did nothing, and her entire community turned against her, at least partly because the guys were popular jocks.
Anyone who blames women for not coming forward when they’re assaulted really needs to have their eyes opened. (In Trump’s case, it would take a crowbar, but I’m thinking more of all the other folks out there who don’t understand, but possibly could.)
And that’s the relevant to Kavanaugh case, how?
Like I said at the time, the important thing about this isn’t whether or not Cristina King thought it proved that this incident happened, but that people at her school were talking about an incident that seemed to match up with it. And if there were an investigation, that’s one place to start. Who did she hear it from? Who was doing the talking? What did they know?
Set the FBI on that, and inside of a day, they’d know whether the trail led back to an encounter involving Ford, Kavanaugh, and Judge, or whether it was just bullshit. And that’s why I said this screams for an investigation.
If that’s “[drinking] too much of the #BelieveWomen kool-aid” then that’s all about you.
Just out of curiosity, whose post were you responding to?
I saw an interesting point made by Lindsay Graham. He observed that she had hired a lawyer and took a lie detector test back in August, at a time when she ostensibly didn’t intend to go public with this. At any rate, it’s not like this is being sprung on her out of the blue. She’s obviously thought about testifying about this for at least a month.
IMO that misses the point.
The speculation is not that Ford confused one for the other at the time. The speculation is that she forgot who it was and confused the two over the years, with them being similar looking guys that she vaguely knew in the same context.
ISTM that this type of thing is SOP for lawyers in criminal cases. The horror being expressed by many here seems highly situational.
I once started a thread on the very subject of the appropriateness of this type of tactic. Not one SDMB lawyer had any qualms about it. (Can’t say the same for myself, but then I don’t have such a favorable view of legal ethics.)
How many times do people have to tell you that this is not a criminal prosecution?
Of course it is proper for an attorney to implicate someone else during a criminal prosecution. The reason is that the right at stake–the right to not be imprisoned by the state–is so core to freedom that we guard it very jealously even at the cost of harming other people. The alternative, forbidding this kind of speculation, would prevent us from making conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt.
When what’s on the line is someone getting an appointment to a position of honor and trust, it is not appropriate to try to secure that appointment through negligent speculation.
It isn’t libel. It’s just cruel and irresponsible, which is why Whelan has apologized and why Kavanaugh will do everything he can to avoid being tarred by association, even though the two were strategizing and Senate staffers working with Kavanaugh were told about Whelan’s theory.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that that placed some obligation on her to begin preparing to give formal testimony.
At any rate, right now it sounds like it’s more important to call Kavanaugh back, along with Whelan, Leo, McGahn, [ETA:] Matt Whitlock,[/ETA] and several others, to get their testimony on this latest bit of attempted ratfucking that blew up in their faces.
Ratfucker for SCOTUS!! - the new GOP rallying cry.
Actually I don’t recall this coming up to this point. Are you actually referring to something or is this just some of your typical condescending snark?
Sez you. I think SC appointments are pretty high stakes too. Your line seems arbitrary, however compelling you may prefer to see it.
I’d add that the witness list should include various media types who were hinting at the mistaken-identity story over the past few days. Who fed you the story, Kathleen Parker? How about you, Erick Erickson? Did all of you just happen to come up with this notion independently, or what?
Yeah, at this point, I want to see Kavanaugh grilled on his role in Doppelgänger-gate more than anything else. And please please please have Sen. Harris do the grilling.
Furthermore, Evil Economist, if you’re truly interested in clearing your name, you must call for an FBI investigation.
1-800-CALL-FBI
Only guilty people won’t call the FBI to clear their names.
The distinction has come up multiple times in this thread.
I am not typically condescending, but bad motivated reasoning tends to bring it out in me.
No, says the law. For example, you are privileged against libel in a criminal context for exactly the reason I gave. That is not true elsewhere.
You may think that we should appoint Kavanaugh to the Court unless there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he tried to rape Dr. Blasey. But not even most Senate GOP members would agree with that extreme position.
Do you seriously not understand the difference between a denial of an accusation by an alleged victim and a denial without an accusation by an alleged victim? If so, what’s the point of this line of thought?
She isn’t obliged to do any prep at all - she could just do it cold if she wanted to. The point isn’t that she has an obligation; it’s that she has had several weeks of opportunity.
Now that Ms. King has retracted her post, and said that she does not know whether or not it happened, I don’t think we can tell if anyone was talking about it, or not, nor what the timeline was. And given this -
it does not sound like she is willing to provide any details.
So, to some extent at least, investigation (albeit not FBI investigation) found someone who has no first-hand knowledge, cannot corroborate any details, and is not willing to testify.
Doesn’t get us very much further.
And you may think we should not appoint him unless there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not. Unfortunately, most Senate Democratic members would agree with this extreme position.
Regards,
Shodan
Of course I don’t think that. It would be absurd to import an unrelated criminal standard into this question. Right?