There’s also been speculation on Twitter that McConnell may not have the votes, but wants to force a vote sooner rather than later to allow for time for another nominee if the vote fails.
I didn’t read the article, just what you quoted, but I have a question…should we believe everyone who has a 35 year old story, as long as they have no reason (we know of) to lie? Should we accept every story as long as there is no clear motivation for the person telling it to fabricate? Should we accept every story because the person telling it really believes it happened as they are telling it?
I’m really curious if this goes for everyone, or if you and others are ready to believe this story for particular reasons (i.e. because it’s a woman saying it, so it’s plausible, or perhaps because it’s politically convenient to believe it, etc). At this point I still haven’t seen any hard evidence, so I’m curious how folks have such rock solid faith that this happened (or didn’t happen, to look at the other side), how they have such certainty in what seems, to me, to be a pretty nebulous he said/she said case thus far.
I’m certain he doesn’t yet have the votes - that’s what his rant the other day (yesterday? I lose track) was about. But in terms of getting another nominee in there, the difference between running through their 30 hours of debate Saturday and Sunday v. Monday and Tuesday is pretty inconsequential. But it could get Kavanaugh in that picture.
It depends what’s at stake and what the consequences of “believing” are. In this case it’s largely the opposite of the “reasonable doubt” required for a criminal conviction. It’s an appointment to a lifetime position of such import that reasonable doubt as to fitness ought to be disqualifying, and there is ample reason to believe that Kavanaugh is lying about many things – not just the attempted rape, but the heavy drinking and bouts of drunken incoherence, and thus by extension perhaps also lying about many things relating to his judicial views. This is a guy I wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot barge pole for any judicial position even if I agreed with his politics.
Her story seems completely believable. In fact, many people are arguing that “this sort of thing happens all the time” and so shouldn’t be disqualifying. Her story seems truthful, *especially *the lack of detail. Her classmates have come forward in support of her, saying she’s an honest and believable person.
She’s a 51-year-old professor with kids, who gained no benefit from going public, and in fact was immediately subject to horrendous death threats (which anyone who is familiar with the ugliness in the right wing in this country would reasonably be expected to know would happen).
She knew him. He drank heavily. He’s known to become angry and belligerent after drinking. He’s repeatedly lied about other things. There’s evidence (e.g., from his yearbook) of him treating women horribly. Other women have come forward.
Not only do I believe her, I doubt the sincerity of people who claim not to believe her.
Well, when you have two sides of a story, with one teller having no reason to fabricate, and the other EVERY reason to fabricate, with neither of them having objective proof of anything, who are you going to believe?
Ford is not telling an inherently unreasonable story, she has no particular reason to lie, nor a reason to be subjecting herself to public scrutiny outside of her belief in her story. Nor is she a known liar.
Kavanaugh, is also not telling an inherently unreasonable story, but he has many reasons to lie. Is he a known liar? Well he did say this “No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination” which, personally, makes me think he’d say just about anything to get this position, but you can make your own decision about that.
And the answer to your specific question is … drum roll…if the accusations are believable they should be investigated before confirming someone to the most powerful position in the country.
How has this been confirmed in your mind? What’s the available evidence that even this much of her story is true? Are there any photos of the two of them together? Did he sign her yearbook, or she his? Are there witnesses who remember seeing them talking together / hanging out at parties?
None of the other attendees can remember the one party that Ford alleges they attended together. Leland Keyser said (through her lawyer) “Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford”.
For his part, Kavanaugh seemed to not recall her (although he did appear open to the possibility that they had met):
Forgot to add: she mentioned the attack to her therapist years before the nomination.
The problem with this is that the important part of it is false. We do not know that Dr. Ford’s allegations are basically true. Democrats do not know that it is true any more than Republicans know that it is false.
All we have is her word for it. None of the other people she claims were there back her up. The first evidence we have is what she allegedly told her therapist, which differs somewhat from what she is saying now, and does not mention either Kavanaugh or Judge.
It is also not true that she has no reason to lie. Nor does she need one - people can talk themselves into lots of things, they can make mistakes, even serious ones, about events of thirty five years ago.
Or worst case scenario - she is making this up to try to keep Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court. What evidence is there of that? Pretty much not much. The point is, it is no more fair for the author of the Mother Jones piece to assume the truth of her statement than it would be for anyone else to assume she was telling a politically motivated lie. Because there is nothing to back it up.
Regards,
Shodan
If she didn’t know him, then how did she know who his high school friend was (Judge, who she put in the same room as him)? In her story, Judge, a known drinker, was drunk, consistent with his behavior. Strange detail if she didn’t know him.
Anyway, if this is an open question for you, then the way to answer it is an investigation.
Did you know I was going to say that?
Now, maybe I’ve missed something in the hailstorm of information, but I was pretty sure that I read that Dr. Ford wasn’t sure of the exact year, nor of the exact location, of the party (and that, in fact, is something that critics have seized on as a reason to doubt her story). In the above, Kavanaugh is naming an exact year (and a time of year), and an exact location. Where is Kavanaugh pulling that information from?
His calendar, in which he kept meticulous details of every event in his life.
Yeah, uh-huh. Senate Democrats (the only Democrats that mean a damn in this case), who literally openly opposed Kavanaugh within hours of being nominated, would have shrugged their shoulders, and said, “Hey, did you hear that guys? He ‘sincerely apologized’ for attempted rape. Nothing to see here. CNN go home.”
Do you guys really believe that? Gimmee a break. He would have been DONE, that very second. That is, assuming he did it (which I don’t).
Additional add: there are creepy stories about what he looked for in his female interns (physical attractiveness)
So, this happened? He joined a frat that protested the “women’s movement” with “No means yes, yes means anal”? Never mind “participated”, did he tolerate that? What did it take to get the young Mr Kavanaugh to say “Oh, Hell, no!”.
Please tell me its all a bunch of made up shit. Never happened, no such thing. Now!
Democrats don’t have enough votes to do anything other than talk. And the “I’m so sorry, I’m a better person now” talk is really effective with Republicans (though they should have learned better by now).
It would 100% have worked, no question.
I think calling this the gathering a party is also confusing things. A few people hanging out at a house sounds like an impromptu gathering. I’m sure many of us had similar gatherings where you’d call someone or see someone in town and then go hang out at their house. How many of us remember every time we went over to a friend’s house? And also remember who all was over there every time? I’ve probably forgotten 90% of the times I was hanging out with my friends at their house. I see no contradiction with the other people not remembering this specific event since they didn’t have a traumatic event happen to them. It’s the same how I can’t remember all the times I went to watch TV at Joe’s house, but I remember the time he ran into the patio door so hard he cracked it.
Using the term “party” is making it seem like it’s a much more significant event. Like it was planned out in advance, people were invited, etc. Those kinds of events are better remembered, but they are also better attended. A “party” where only 4 people showed up would be a dud of a party.
Ms. Ford “believes” it was the summer of 1982. i.e., she’s not sure. It’s from the original WaPo article.
Now, what struck me about that part of the interview is how he answered it. It’s something a lawyer would do. He told a very specific fact pattern, “…a party in the summer of 1982 at a house near Connecticut Avenue and East-West Highway with five people present” and denied being at that very specific party. Or rather, he’s not necessarily denying he might have been at a party with her that had four people, or at a different house, or in the spring…etc.
Just caught my eye - maybe just a habit since it’s his profession. I think overall he denied it fairly straightforward, though.
Right, another supportive fact I missed: he was a member of a frat that got suspended for chanting “no means yes and yes means anal” outside a women’s shelter. He was also a member of the “Tit and Clit” club in college.
Boy does not have good judgment.