What makes the allegation credible? Simply because it was physically possible? What in your mind would be an “incredible” allegation?
What if I said (and mods, I am not really making this allegation) that I met Kavanaugh at a legal conference some years ago, maybe in 2003, let’s say, and that he invited me back to his room and attempted to force homosexual intercourse on me? Let’s say I said that tomorrow. Should the committee investigate? Should the vote be delayed? Do I get to be on national TV?
As I understand it, there’s plenty of evidence to make it credible – for example:
Ford lived in the area and went to school in the area at the time in question;
One of the alleged attempted rapists (Judge) has written a memoir in which he tells stories about his own and his friend Kavanaugh’s drunken misbehavior in high school (no attempted rapes are mentioned, of course);
Ford told her therapist and husband about the assault several years ago.
Further, nothing has come to light that would cast an negative light on Ford’s honesty – no criminal record, no history of dishonesty, etc.
With all that in mind, it seems entirely reasonable to call her allegations credible.
But you just described a political downside. I never said it wasn’t a “real” downside from the perspective of the Republicans. But it’s still a political downside. You haven’t offered any non-political downside for investigating these allegations.
Yes; the alternate reality iiandyiiii had postulated, and to which I was ultimately responding, is one in which Kavanaugh hadn’t done all of those things.
In real reality, of course, he has simply denied everything.
Were you at that conference in 2003? Was Kavanaugh? Did you tell your therapist several years later about it? Did you tell your spouse? If all these answers are “yes” (and have been confirmed by journalists), then your allegation is credible.
Ford did go to school in that area, at the time in question, she told her therapist and husband decades later, etc. All this has been confirmed by journalists.
It’s roughly correct, although I may not be clear on the timeline of the WH’s involvement. And she did apparently go to the press, but refused to go on the record.
So would you disagree with the assertion that it’s not reasonable to value partisan political concerns over getting to the bottom of a credible allegation of attempted rape prior to seating someone on SCOTUS?
I see that Sen. Hatch has taken the F-P position: it doesn’t matter if Kavanaugh tried to rape a girl.
Speaking in purely political terms, a bunch of GOP Senators taking that position strikes me as the best outcome Dems could hope for. They aren’t gonna get a better SCOTUS nominee (politically speaking, again). But they might win some more seats in Congress with another round of proof that a lot of Republicans don’t really care about sexual assault.
If this is a frame job, Ford is playing a seriously long game. She told her husband and therapist about this years ago, well preceding any thought that this guy would be nominated for the SC. She didn’t go right to TMZ with it, she sent a quiet letter to a Rep, requesting anonymity, and didn’t demand promotion of the incident.
That’s not to say that her accusation is valid, but it doesn’t smell like a dishonest frame job.
Democrats still can’t stop the nomination (by themselves) and never could, but McConnell was clearly right to have cold feet about Kavanaugh initially. I suspect that there were equally conservative candidates who would have already had their commission by now and maybe even with some Democratic votes, at that. If this drags on some of those people may look increasingly attractive.
Sure. I’m not saying it’s gonna alter the course of history or anything. But I do think given the high levels of political engagement among liberal and moderate women right now, it does not help the GOP hold both chambers to have the central news story be that they are OK enough with attempted rape to not hold it against a SCOTUS nominee.
There are lot of good reasons apart from politics to want the GOP to nix Kavanaugh and replace him with Hardiman or whoever. I’m just saying that the best scenario in terms of victory for liberal policies is probably confirming Kavanaugh on Hatch’s rationale.
If Ford cannot name the exact year or place that the alleged assault occurred, would it it even be possible for Kavanaugh to have an alibi? What possible way could he disprove these allegations other than denying it?
I thought somebody other than Ford sent it to her Rep, who gave it to Feinstein, who discussed with her staff and concluded that it couldn’t be acted on. Then nothing else was sticking to Kavanaugh, so Feinstein announced it publicly and referred it to the FBI, who responded that they couldn’t do anything with it because it was thirtyfive years old.
Feinstein said she was respecting the wishes, either of the letter writer, or Ms. Ford, or both, or something, in not pursuing it. But, like I say, nothing was sticking to Kavanaugh, so Feinstein dropped her bombshell after sitting on it for six weeks. The chance that Feinstein believed it wouldn’t be leaked immediately after it was made public are approximately 0%.
As I mentioned, this is somewhat similar to what happened to Anita Hill, who wanted to make her accusations anonymously and force Thomas to withdraw. Then Nina Totenberg got Hill’s affidavit leaked to her, and contacted Hill to tell her that she was going to be made public whether she liked it or not. Same thing here - Feinstein said “you don’t want your name dragged thru the mud? Tough toenails, honey - we need to stop Kavanaugh, and we haven’t got anything else. You’re going public - get used to it.”
In the immortal words of Animal House - “You fucked up - you trusted us. Don’t dwell on the past.”
So, had she come forward in 2005 prior to Kavanaugh’s appointment to the D.C. Circuit, you would have said that her allegation was not credible?
You make much of the fact that she went to school in the area, but she cannot show that her and Kavanaugh were in the same house (much like how I cannot show that we were at the same conference).