Why do you think this nomination “never should have happened”?
As I’ve said earlier, I think Kavanagh should be confirmed even if the allegations are 100% true. But leaving that aside, I don’t see what investigating could possibly accomplish.
The alleged victim says she didn’t tell anyone about it for 30 years. She doesn’t remember any details that would allow for corroboration. The only other person she named (who turned out to be her alleged rescuer, not attacker as previously reported) denies it strongly. What’s the likelihood that it could end up anything other than an allegation? What’s to “investigate”?
I agree with this.
If someone came forward and accused Kavanagh (or anyone) of murder in the exact same manner as this accusation - 35 years ago, zero detail that would allow for corroboration or refutation - I would (continue to) support that person’s nomination for anything in particular.
To do otherwise hands a weapon to anyone in the world to take down anyone else. “Many years ago, some place or other, I once saw the guy do X …”
If he could plausibly be accused of murder, there would be a trial and a dead body and he might even be in jail, so I’m not seeing that as a very good analogy.
But if there was no dead body, no trial, and the only witness was someone who said he saw something 35 years ago while he was drinking, I don’t think I’d keep him off the court based just on that.
An investigation might find out whether Kavanaugh lied to the committee (as well as providing more time for potential other alleged victims to come forward). If Ford was truthful, than Kavanaugh lied. You don’t think lying during the Senate’s consideration process should be disqualifying?
The whole point of my post is that the “investigation” won’t be able to find out anything at all.
The therapist’s notes allegedly say that Ford claimed that she was attacked by four people, not two. Ford says that’s incorrect, and there were four people in the house. (Cite.) I wonder if she remembers the other two.
She said it derailed her for four or five years, but it is not clear if that means during the 80s when this allegedly occurred, or later, around 2012 when she was doing the couples therapy.
Feinstein is continuing to cover herself in glory, of course. She is calling for the FBI to investigate right after they said they couldn’t.
That’s certainly true.
Regards,
Shodan
Not great for Ford when she herself is impeaching the accuracy of the one piece of corroborating physical evidence (albeit generated decades after the incident) that she has.
Sure it could. They could ask Kavanaugh if he’s ever met Ford. They could ask him if he ever had any intimate encounters with Ford. They could ask him if he ever drank too much as a student. They could ask him if he ever blacked out from drinking as a student. They could ask him many other things that could be very revealing both about this incident and his overall character.
Maybe he’d deny everything, or maybe he “wouldn’t recall” anything, or maybe he’d say “yes” to some of the questions, or many other possibilities. Much of that would be revealing.
Further, perception is a real thing for this process. It’s important that the SCOTUS be seen as a legitimate institution. If someone is forced through the process and a credible accusation of attempted rape is totally ignored and not investigated at all, then that will reasonably harm the legitimacy of the SCOTUS in the minds of many Americans. The Senate has a duty to try and prevent its legitimacy from being harmed, and thus a full investigation (including calling witnesses and asking questions) is warranted.
Would you like to resume the conversation we were having some pages ago, regarding Sen Leahy’s accusations? You bailed. And now you want to pretend you haven’t heard anything I said? As Sen Leahy said “I was born at night, but not last night!”.
Actually, I was born at dawn. I wasn’t ready, it was too early and there was no coffee…
Could you provide some specifics? A cite maybe? What particular question would you like me to answer for you?
The investigation may consist of nothing more than interviewing Ford. And Kavanaugh. It might find inconsistencies in one of their stories. The investigation might also consist of an interview with Judge (not likely to be productive, but you never know until you do it) and possibly the other person or 2 people who were allegedly in the house at the time. Ford might have other people she would recommend interviewing as might Kavanaugh.
And it’s going to happen in some way shape or form whether anyone here wants it to or not. You already said nothing they could say will affect your decision. Some of the Senators on the GOP side think otherwise, and maybe a few Democrats, too.
I don’t agree that any of these potential answers would be revealing about either the incident or his overall character.
This seems entirely self-fulfilling.
But it’s 35 years later. No amount of inconsistencies are going to prove or disprove the story (especially disprove it, since there’s also the “trauma” trump card to explain it all away).
Certainly she’ll have a chance to tell her story if she wants to. I just don’t see that anything meaningful can possibly come out of it.
We’ll see. If what comes out of it is a change to the support of Kavanugh, then that will be very “meaningful”.
Here’s an article linked to by Drudge, and based on the comments is likely from a right-wing site, but according to the article she’s highly unpopular with her students. Not only a bad teacher (“something is wrong with her”), but is also vindictive and someone you don’t want to get on the bad side of. She’s also a Democrat of course.
Also, and of questionable veracity since these assertions come from the comment section, are claims that she told her therapist four guys were involved in the alleged assault; that the allegation comes from a “repressed memory” during a therapy session; and that it conveniently came out during a time when Romney was ahead of Obama in the polls and Kavanaugh was thought to be a potential SCOTUS nominee should Romney win.
At any rate it looks like this woman is going to come in for some pretty heavy scrutiny and she’s far from a slam dunk to kill Kananaugh’s confirmation.
:rolleyes:
If an allegation that he had murdered someone came out of 35 years came out, unless there was a body and DNA evidence which could be linked to him, there would be mass laughter and he’d be getting himself measured for his Supreme Court gown.
??? Are they talking about another person with the same name?
Interesting piece about false rape accusations. According to the author, they fall into a handful of distinct categories.
nm, chinatown
Like if I stand in the deep end of a swimming pool, and my kid stands at the shallow end, I am exaggerating the danger of drowning to children.
Makes perfect sense. I mean, what crystal clear logic right there.
And if you don’t want to talk about your silly, off-topic jabs, why not restrain yourself in the first place?