While we wait for the withdrawal, I want to address the bolded line. Of all the defenses of Kavanaugh, this is the most ridiculous. In GOP-land at the moment, a teen with a gun is an adult, and can or will get shot by the police or passerby. 17-years old are tried as adults in the justice system. Depending on the crime, they can face sentences up to the death penalty. Yet, if the perpetrator is sufficiently important, it was a “few minutes of fun” (Brock Turner anyone) and shouldn’t ruin a promising future.
Who hasn’t been drunk as a teenager is not a defense.
Who hasn’t been stupid as a teenager is not a defense.
Who hasn’t pushed too hard without assent is not a defense.
It happened a long time ago is not a defense.
Anyone trotting those lines out in defense of Kavanaugh should think very hard about what they’re saying. More, supporters of the GOP ought to think very carefully about what women voters across the country are hearing right now. Or not. Personally, I’m fine if they don’t (if saddened by what that means for our society). Women voters are already leaving the GOP. I imagine that will continue.
What’s interesting is that Ms. King doesn’t say “I was against him before the accusation was made because I knew he was a rapist”. She was against him because he is against everything she believes as a woman and mother and professional and latina. What does being latina or professional have to do with being against a rapist?
To me it sounds very much like opposing him because he is a rapist never occurred to her until after the allegation was made. Then she suddenly recovered the memory of some second-hand rumors she heard - and she believed them, because Kavanaugh is anti-abortion/Republican/etc.
And the same problem as with the accuser - if she thought he was a rapist, based on some rumors she heard in high school, why did she never speak out when he was being made a federal judge? Didn’t she remember the rumors then?
So what Ms. King says is not informative, then. Good - I agree.
While it certainly doesn’t confirm that everything went down the way Dr. Ford describes, it’s still pretty significant IMHO. The fact that Ford didn’t recently invent her claim demolishes the notion that this accusation was invented out of thin air in order to derail the Kavanaugh nomination.
And if King remembers people talking about this, then there were others who were doing the talking, and ISTM that they’re more likely to remember more of what they heard and said, and (if they were not at the party) who they heard it from.
This screams for an investigation. There are only two reasonable courses of action: investigate, or deep-six the nomination (withdraw it if you’re Trump or Kavanaugh, postpone a vote indefinitely if you’re McConnell or Grassley, or whatever).
The only first-hand testimony I am aware of is that of Ford, Kavanaugh, and Judge. Ford claims it happened, although she doesn’t remember many of the details about it, like where or when it happened, and some other details like how many people attacked her is not clear - she now says two, her therapist reports her as saying there were four. Kavanaugh and Judge say it didn’t. If this PJ was in the house, then he would be a more-or-less first-hand witness, and he also does not corroborate.
But you are correct - neither Ms. King nor the 65 have any first-hand testimony to offer.
Depends on what particular element you are trying to prove/disprove. (For the sake of argument lets say everything Prof Ford says is true).
Maryland Code Ss 3-309-312 deal with attempted rape or sexual assault. To successfully convict the accused, the prosecution has to show that the accused attempted to rape or undertake a sexual assault with intent to do so (this last bit important, since criminal attempts require specific intent in Maryland, even if the completed act needs only General intent, ie recklessness, see State v. Wilson, 546 A.2d 1041). Generally speaking, being drunk means a person cannot form specific intent. Making the issue even more problematic is that Courts require actual drunkenness, not merely lowered inhibitions.
So for us (simplified) two facts in issue are
The act itself
The Mens Rea and the drunkenness.
For the first, only the three people in the room are witnesses. Everyone else, is hearsay if the evidence is adduced for the purpose of truth. They could be witnesses for supporting evidence (heard sounds, saw people escaping etc), for rebuttal of fabrication (Ford shared with others, Kavanaugh bragged about it etc).
For the second, as Ford is a witness, but not Judge. Drunkenness would be Ford and other people at the party who saw Kavanaugh drinking etc.
I submit that the procurement of any such evidence refuting something that happened at an unspecified date, time and place in the early 1980s is impossible. For the FBI or anyone else.
I disagree. While I believe there are things Ford could conceivably provide to bolster her claim that it did happen, I don’t believe Kavanaugh could provide any further evidence that he did not do something at an unspecified date, time and place. Precisely because it is unspecified. Even with today’s papertrails, location tracking and surveillance, I do not believe, in 2048, that one could provide strong evidence that you did not attempt to rape someone somewhere in your county between 2016 and 2018, let alone the early 1980s.
As there are understandable motives to release this after the hearings and not before. I honestly don’t care how any politician looks. That’s their problem.
Well, it’s a claim. Ms. King doesn’t mention when she heard these rumors, and we don’t know exactly when the alleged assault occurred. If we don’t know when she heard the rumors and we don’t know when the alleged assault happened, I don’t think we can determine if they were contemporaneous.
Or maybe everything she believes as a woman, a mother, a daughter and a professional make her not want a would-be rapist on the Supreme Court. I’ll admit that this status posturing doesn’t add much to her complaint but it doesn’t really take anything away as you seem to be suggesting.
I can’t read Ford’s mind and answer this question for her but there could be lots of reasons she didn’t come forward earlier. Maybe Ford didn’t know when Kavanaugh was appointed to the federal bench. Maybe she wasn’t prepared to discuss it publicly then; she was willing to discuss it with her husband and therapist only after Kavanaugh was already confirmed to the DC Circuit. Maybe she recognizes that being on the Supreme Court is more important than being on a district court and so she is willing to take on more personal risk to take a public stand.
Agreed that a real investigation is the best course of action. In fact, those who are arguing that this shouldn’t be an FBI matter are wrong. Kavanaugh could still be charged and tried for this crime. People who are advocating to rush the confirmation should consider that these allegations present the very real risk that a sitting Supreme Court justice could be arrested and imprisoned for most of his term if state authorities can establish the veracity of this claim while the FBI cannot be bothered to even look into it.
There is no reason she can’t pursue charges and voice her objections to his being appointed Supreme Court justice. The criminal process is slow and there is no need for urgency. She lives in California and has apparently gone somewhat into hiding due to death threats. She has more pressing things to do now than file a police complaint. She may also recognize that convincing 51 Senators that Kavanaugh is an unsuitable Supreme Court nominee is easier than convincing law enforcement to investigate, a prosecutor to prosecute, and 12 jurors to convict, so she is pragmatically focusing her effort where it may have the most effect.
According to Ford, there were other people in the house, and 2 others in the room, so even if she didn’t tell anyone, the information still may have gotten out.
I’m giving Ms. Ford’s statement its most normal interpretation. Ms. King says she heard the statements in school and that she went to school at Holton Arms with Ms. Ford, who was “a year or two behind her.” If you believe even these minor points need a ton of clarification, you should acknowledge that an FBI investigation could easily resolve it. That’s what they do.
Nobody else would have seen behind a locked door. The only people who could have said anything would be Judge or Kavanaugh. You think one of those guys complained to their buds about how slippery these bitches are and ain’t so easy to rape?