Here is the Senate investigators (and some FBI) record. Read it.
Ignore the memorandum’ (which is the committees’ opinion), or rather the first 6 pages, which are that, the bit after contains details of witnesses interviewed.
Contrary to what iiandyiiii is claiming, as far as I can tell, the committee investigator made a pretty thorough investigation.
Fact, Ford didn’t know where or when her alleged assault took place and could not provide witnesses to back it up. The investigation went as far as the accusation sent it.
If the Democrats in the Senate were nearly as interested in bringing this up it would have been the first thing on the agenda. that didn’t happen. Feinstein would have vetted this early on and known it was without merit. She should be investigated for her part in fronting a baseless accusation.
According to Farmer’s Almanac, there was heavy rain on June 13th 1982 (1.79 inches) and significant rain on June 30th (.39 inches) in the Potomac Maryland area. So we can rules out those dates as being when the party took place as well.
What a joke. We live on different planets, apparently.
The devil’s triangle is in the details…
She was in the appropriate area at the appropriate time - right age group, peer groups with minor intersecting. She said she had met Kavanaugh but did not socialize with him, and certainly not after the (alleged) incident.
She may have forgotten a lot of the surrounding details, but the incident itself she claims to remember well. She identified several people that he hung out with, by their nicknames (“PJ”), 35 years later. There is even a calendar entry that appears to match the timeline she gives (July 1st) where those boys were together. She gives a decent amount of detail about the attack. Of course, nobody else remembers because the event does not stick out in anyone’s mind 35 years later, because to them there was nothing notable or traumatic to make it more memorable than dozens of other get-togethers and parties every year during high school.
(I went to several parties in high school 40 years ago - I remember some details, but I sure as heck couldn’t remember any addresses or who all attended or how I got there - I would guess transit…and I was sober)
Then there’s what she didn’t say. She also claims a limited attack - if this were fictionalized, why stop at “they couldn’t get my bathing suit off”? why not claim out-and-out rape? it would certainly be more shocking, more likely to tilt people against him. There’s no evidence she was a rabid activist in any of the causes that indicate the inclination to fabricate a desperate take-down accusation.
Now consider Kavanaugh. His calendar and associated data - yearbook, Judge’s writings - revealed a significant degree of drunken loutishness, which of course he tried to deny. (IMHO, unconvincingly) Of course, he had to deny - admitting he got too drunk to remember things would lend weight to her story. His attempts to deny and cover up simply add to lack or credibility, and attacking the Democrats should have immediately disqualified him. On top of that, he outright lied about a number of things. (Seriously - Renate Alumni? or “I threw up on the way back from the beach because I have a weak stomach”? or “devil’s triangle isn’t what the world said it is, it’s a drinking game that nobody every heard of”, or “ralph does not mean throwing up. Oh wait, it does, but I have a weak stomach.”
The republicans and the white house didn’t help things by making the FBI limit the list of interviewees for the follow-up background check. It just added to the suspicion they were hiding things.
This is not criminal (although it could have been). This is vetting a person for one of the most serious jobs in the land. If there was any hint that this person was less than pure, that he ha committed drunken sexual assault or condoned torture of arrestees, or any other suspicions of shortcomings… well, there are several better-qualified candidates. What’s the line about “Caesar’s wife must not only be above suspicion but also be seen to be above suspicion.”
As to the OP - when you hear an accusation, the process is to listen to both sides and assess who has the most credible story, the most credible character. In a criminal case, you need evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, because the consequences are severe. When you are managing a restaurant or a world power and need to safeguard its future reputation, you must make judgements based on the smallest of character indicators.
The Devils Triangle claim made by Kavanaugh is backed up in the senate report. As is the weak stomach and “ boofing”.
Pretty much everyone has also stated that i) he did drink, sometime to excess and ii) They cannot remember him blacking out. Even those not well disposed to Kavanaugh.
His friends won’t know that. Other people won’t realize that he blacked out. Blacking out is not passing out. Blacking out just means you’re not forming memories. Unless he told someone the next day that he blacked out, people around him wouldn’t know. Even if you black out yourself, you might not realize it. If you just wake up and go about your day, you might not realize you don’t remember how you got back home. Or your friends might say “that was crazy when you did XYZ”, but you have no memory of it. That’s blacking out. His friends wouldn’t automatically realize it.
Then why did she scrub her social media accounts? Why is it we know so little about Ford and her family?
That’s about the most naive thing I’ve read in a long time.
[quote=“LAZombie, post:207, topic:824383”]
How does someone mount a reasonable defense when the accusation is so vague?/QUOTE]
What accusation is vague? Mine? Pretty specific and detailed. Ford’s? Pretty specific and detailed. The average assault victim? Pretty specific and detailed. So please explain what accusation you’re referring to.
Is your point that some people lie in their testimony? Sure they do. Sometimes witnesses lie (or are mistaken). Sometimes the alleged victim lies. And sometimes the alleged perpetrator lies–more often if he’s guilty but pleading not guilty. That’s why there’s the process of discovery and each side cross-examines, presents evidence, and tries to convince the judge/jury their version of what the evidence shows should be believed. Once in awhile, someone is falsely convicted. That’s why we have an appeals process. Usually, exculpatory evidence (evidence that clears the defendant) is presented at trial. It’s so rare for that evidence to show up later that it’s newsworthy.
Do a little reading on how the judicial system works. It’s interesting and will help you understand.
We know she doesn’t want to public to see her posts in media accounts. We know she built a second door in her house which is now used to rent a room to Google Interns so she got over her claustrophobia.
What else do you need to know?
The trouble with Ford’s accusation is that it is pretty vague, and the details she does allege are either uncorroborated, or contradicted. She doesn’t know exactly when it happened, she doesn’t know exactly where it happened, she specifically mentions four other people who were there, and none of them remember being there. And Keyser, her friend, doesn’t remember ever being at a party with Kavanaugh.
She claims the incident sent her into a tailspin. There is no evidence of such a tailspin - her best friend and college roommate says she showed no sign of any tailspin, and never mentioned the assault to her. Or anyone else.
Ford claims she mentioned the assault to her therapist. In that account, she alleges that she was attacked by four men, not one. So that detail is also uncorroborated. She claims her therapist got it wrong. So her therapist can’t corroborate the detail either.
Regards,
Shodan
what amazes me is that she didn’t grab her friend at the party and immediately warn her of the extreme danger nearby.
Actually it doesn’t amaze me at all. She lied about the extra door in her house. None of her story pans out.
This is false.
This is true. Her testimony about the door is linked to the alleged incident and a fear of entrapment. The door in question is not used for that purpose. It is for commercial use of the house.
Not even close to accurate.
In particular the door could have been added for her fear of entrapment and also used for a commercial purpose. There is literally nothing contradictory about that.
Well, I wasn’t replying to you but to LAZombie, so is this your guess as to what LAZombie meant? If so, not too interested. I’ll wait for LAZombie’s reply.
SO many things to respond to here, but let me start with things from your previous response to me. First, kindly do not twist my words. I did not claim Ford’s inability to recall the date and whose house the party was at proved she was telling the truth. I said her inability to recall details does not cast suspicion on her case, as trauma victims commonly don’t recall details that are not intrinsic to the trauma itself.
Second, cues from how someone tells his/her story are nonverbal cues: micro-expressions, vocal pitch and tone, etc. A strong bias may hinder such observations.
OK, on to this post. First, you’re doubting she was in a tailspin because she didn’t blab to her friends that she was in a tailspin? Shame on you. Victims of sexual assault often don’t tell others they’re in a tailspin. I sure didn’t, and I went into a doozy of a tailspin. I was so intent on firmly trying to push the assault aside that I didn’t recognize that the panic attacks and misery were a result of the assault until later. Victims often don’t want to discuss the attacks in detail or repeatedly. It stands to reason we don’t want to discuss the tailspin either. Here’s an idea: study Rape Trauma Syndrome before you decree that Ford’s not talking about her mental state to others is a suspicious sign.
Second, what’s your source that Ford said she was attacked by four men? The Washington Post, which first got a portion of her notes, said Ford told her therapist four males were there, and one girl, NOT that four males attacked her. What the therapist’s notes DID say was that two males attacked her. This is understandable: Kavanaugh physically attacked Ford while Judge was an accessory. You aren’t under the impression that therapists write notes in complete sentences, are you?
Nope. From the Washington Post. My bolding:
"The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” **The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. **Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room. "
If it’s for a commercial purpose it separates the commercial room from the house. So yes it’s absolutely contradictory. If Kavanaugh sues her for defamation of character she’s toast.
Ah, I see the problem. You see, sometimes a thing that was at first meant for a certain purpose is later repurposed for a different function. This is actually pretty common, in fact.