Below is my column in USA Today on the upcoming hearing on the allegations of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford against Judge Bret Kavanaugh. There has been a strange disconnect as Democrats denounce Republicans for prejudging Ford or denying her an impartial hearing while they announced in advance that they believe her — and by extension they do not believe Kavanaugh. While the Senate is not a court of law, both sides recognize that they are supposed to afford witnesses a fair and unbiased hearing, particularly when the subject is such a serious allegation as attempted rape.
Here is the column:
It is a growing mantra on and off Capitol Hill. Both members and commentators have insisted that Christine Blasey Ford “has a right to be believed.” Hawaii’s Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono not only has insisted that she and other women alleging abuse “need to be believed,” but men need to “just shut up and step up.” It is a jarring disconnect for members who insist that they confirm a nominee who will approach legal questions with a fair and open mind while dispensing with such considerations in their own treatment of his nomination. The fact is that Ford has a right to be heard and to be treated fairly. Neither she nor Kavanaugh have a right to be believed on the basis for an allegation or a denial.
Throughout the confirmation hearings, Democratic Senators pressed Kavanaugh as to whether he was a lock for business and corporate interests — favoring certain types of litigants and not giving a fair hearing to others. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse denounced the conservatives on the Court — and by extension Kavanaugh — as changing their approach based on who was making allegations. He decried conservative jurists who spared corporate or business litigation from what they viewed as the “indignity of equal treatment.”
Kavanaugh and Ford deserve blind justice
Yet, the touchstone of legal process is neutral, consistent, and fair review. That means that no one has an advantage because who they are or what they represent or what they are alleging. Law is objective and, yes, blind.
These politicians however insist that blind justice means turning a blind eye to abuse. Various Democratic senators announced within days of Ford’s allegations that they believe her, including Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Hillary Clinton and others have insisted that the test is whether you believe any woman alleging abuse. Clinton declared “I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault … You have the right to be believed, and we’re with you.”
What precisely does that mean? In the case of Ford, she is a highly credible person with a distinguished background as a college professor. However, does that alone mean that you should believe her over Kavanaugh, a person with a similarly distinguished background? Ford has only offered an allegation with minimal factual support. Indeed, she admits that she cannot recall the specific date or specific party involved in the assault. That does not mean that she lacks credibility but no reasonable judge would declare that they believe one party based solely on the initial (and contested) allegation.
It is a curious standard to maintain in this context. What would be the response if a nominee insisted that corporate parties “have a right to be believed” or people had a right to be believed based on their race or their religion? Indeed, judges received far more detailed allegations in the form of complaints in every case but maintain their strict neutrality in judging the case until after testimony and evidence has been fully placed into the record. A statement that a judge “believes” one party would be grounds for immediate removal for a lack of impartiality.
It is certainly true that senators are not judges, but they have repeatedly acknowledged their obligation to allow for a fair hearing. A hearing on an allegation of this kind comes closest in the Senate to a judicial proceeding other than an impeachment trial. Witnesses appear in the expectation that the committee will afford both parties the basic protections of due process, including an open mind. It is not enough to say that your mind can be changed but you are starting with a belief that Ford is telling the truth and Kavanaugh is a liar.
Justice means no preferences, prejudices
This hearing shows more vividly why such impartiality is so important. This is an alleged incident that occurred 36 years ago. Recently, ranking member Sen. Diane Feinstein (D., Calif.) said that she could not recall speaking or corresponding with Ford or her lawyer just days ago.
Yet, members are rushing to the airways to assure voters that they have made up their minds before any hearing. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D. Conn.) declared “Let me say right at the outset, I believe Dr. Ford, I believe the survivor here.” Others have insisted that they will not allow Kavanaugh to paint Ford as a “liar” by denying her allegations. Of course, Ford is labeling Kavanaugh as a liar in making the allegation. That is part of the zero-sum aspect to sexual abuse cases. Someone is usually lying, but that does not mean that you declare one to be a “survivor” and one a “liar” before any sworn testimony or evidence is put into the record.
Moreover, it is possible to believe Ford while believing that she could be mistaken on the identity of the attacker. It is possible to pass a polygraph examination with a false memory or association.
By the same token, the fact that Kavanaugh can produce former girlfriends and dozens of women who speak highly of him is of little import in judging these facts. He is in no more of a position to claim the right to be believed. It is his alleged treatment of this woman, not all other women, that is at issue. Moreover, Kavanaugh has categorically denied being at this party despite the fact that Ford cannot clearly recall the details of which party and house was involved in the alleged attack.
In 2016, Justice Anthony Kennedy (who Kavanaugh hopes to replace) wrote the majority opinion overturning a conviction based on the bias of the presiding judge. Kennedy wrote “Bias is easy to attribute to others and difficult to discern in oneself.” Members cannot demand an assurance from a nominee that he will approach all cases with an open mind when they are promising voters that their minds are already made up before any testimony is given on these allegations. That is the meaning of blind justice. There are no peaks, no prejudices, no preferences.
Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley
My guess is a soon as the Democrats regain the majority they will have a hard time trying to pick a new name for the J. E. H. FBI building.
Will it be the Mcabe, Comey or the Strzok FBI Headquarters Building?
Talk about the Deep State.
https://www.redstate.com/tladuke/2018/09/22/fired-fbi-dep-director-andrew-mccabe-lawyer-joins-christine-fords-legal-team/
The only one who is clearly gulity in all of this is Diane Feinstein.
Her actions have actually clouded any chance of impartiality that Ford could possibly have received.
Talk about “no there there”.
I guess she needs a distraction from the fact that she had a Chinese spy on her staff for years.
That’s an investigation I want to see happen.
DF is like the police inspector who muddies up all the evidence so that the truth can never be found and then complains. Maybe she should be charged with obstruction of justice. 🙁
Allan, I agree.
The deal breaker for me was Ford giving her letter to Rep. Eshoo NOT Diane Feinstein. Why?
Because she could get popped for making a false statement to a committee member directly attached to this nomination. So obviously she was not so sure of her accusations holding up without repercussions if she lied about them.
From @seanmdav:”A plain reading of 18 USC 1001 suggests that in the matter of a specific presidential nomination pending before the U.S. Senate, statements made to a House member on that matter may not be covered by the statute’s prohibition on false statements.”
This is so dead in the water.
The Democrats still continue to be sore loser sabatuers instead of removing their old guard with new blood and convincing people to vote for them.
Pathetic.
Dr. Ford still might back out & not testify
If Dr. Ford wins either the $193 million Power Ball or $303 million Mega Million jackpot next week, she definitely will be a no show. Think of all the family & friends that will come out of woodwork…..from 36 years ago….And then some!
Brett’s probably buying tickets too….Just for a hedge
The Ford blabber was on a website and stated that she was having oral sex with Kavannaugh or some other guy who looked like him back then and that “his thing spoke”.
People around my church are referring to her as Lady Gaga. If she is a true Cat O Lick then have here swear her testimony to a Cardinal. Not a baseball Cardinal.
“People around my church are referring to her as Lady Gaga.”
***************
Not sure which is funnier — the quip or the geography from whence it derived. Either way: lol.
mespo – Lady Gaga could lead to some interesting testimony. Maybe demonstrations?
Professor Turley forgot to note that prior to a “fair” hearing, Mr McConnell said, “Kavenaugh will become the next Supreme Court Justice.” He also forgot to note that men have every reason to commit such heinous crimes because of the ease of denial, and little chance of punishment, while women must summon enormous strength and courage to report such crimes. The scale is heavily weighted from beginning to end of such a “fair” process.
He also forgot to note that men have every reason to commit such heinous crimes because of the ease of denial, and little chance of punishment, while women must summon enormous strength and courage to report such crimes. The scale is heavily weighted from beginning to end of such a “fair” process.
Your mom wants you to play outside today.
SAM
In addition, Kavanaugh is a proven perjurer. Is he also lying when he denies trying to rape Ms. Ford?
Bill, show proof that “Kavanaugh is a proven perjurer.”
You can’t. Unless you can you have proven yourself a liar and comitted libel.
That’s the meme partisan Democrats like Michael Tomasky have been pushing. Their excuse is that he answered some questions at his 2006 confirmation hearings about business he’d handled while employed in the White House Counsel’s office. It’s a matter of no consequence except to someone setting perjury traps. Kavanaugh says ‘X’ matter wasn’t within his book of business and cretins like Tomasky say he’s ‘lying’ because he attended meetings at which X was discussed or was a participant in email threads about X. Of course, there aren’t Chinese walls between employees in an ordinary office (as there are in securities firms) and an ordinary employee doesn’t regard every matter he’s discussed as his specific responsibility, but Tomasky is willing to pretend for effect. The culture of the Democratic Party could hardly be more rancid.
“Yet, the touchstone of legal process is neutral, consistent, and fair review. That means that no one has an advantage because who they are or what they represent or what they are alleging. Law is objective and, yes, blind.”
********************
This is just fundamentally wrong. The law holds as s basic tenet that “he who asserts must prove.” That means the two sides do not start even – one has a decided advantage. The complainant has the obligation to prove the claim. The accused need prove nothing as he is presumed innocent of the claim of wrongdoing. And a corollary to this rule is that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Hence, the different standards of proof in criminal versus civil matters. Judge Kavanaugh enters this hearing presumed to have done nothing untoward to this complainer. She had to overcome this presumption of innocence with proof – or climb the mountain as they say. The reason for this system is obvious. Claims of wrongdoing are easily made for all types of nefarious reasons and upon human frailties like greed, revenge, meanspiritedness and political mania. That claims have to proven by the asserter doesn’t mean Justice is blind or neutral; it means she is neither stupid nor naive.
Good point. Kinda curious the biases of law professors work in her favor. Ann Althouse offered the opinion that Kavanaugh was more likely to be lying than Blasey, in spite of all the odoriferous features of Blasey’s account.
TSD:
Law professors tend to run Left and, due to their lack of frequent client and opponent contact, sometimes naively so.
Ann likes to be controversial and so she is. Not rigorously intellectual mind you, just controversial. She knows better.
Mespo, excellent. You corrected a failed point of Professor Turley that is too important for one to miss. Professor Turley obviously knows that what you say is true but I think he was too attached to the law being blind.
I think for educational purposes Professor Turley should correct his statement that provides the wrong impression.
Later in that section Professor Turley writes: ” It is not enough to say that your mind can be changed but you are starting with a belief that Ford is telling the truth and Kavanaugh is a liar.” I am not sure if I am interpreting him correctly.
+100
Allen:
The crazy part of the premise here is you start neutral- you actually start skeptical of the claim since it is contrary to the presumption. That’s what a presumption means. JT knows this as does every Plaintiff’s lawyer. It’s just makes for good public fodder to seem neutral and detached. Do you really want a system where it’s just a swearing contest? Tie goes to the claimant. I don’t and usually I have the burden of proof! You don’t uproot folks’ lives when it’s he said-she said.
“The crazy part of the premise here is you start neutral- you actually start skeptical of the claim since it is contrary to the presumption.”
” JT knows this as does every Plaintiff’s lawyer.”
I thought we we learned this early on in life and I am puzzled that JT ignored this fact of life that exists in our free and civil society. As you say, he desires to appear neutral and detached. That is NOT good enough. He should be siding with the law unconcerned about his appearance in front of the public.
This one blog post in my mind severely damages his reputation. I always looked at him as a man that had an ideology but the law came first. It now seems that has been reversed. I am sorely disappointed.
Allen;
Don’t be. It’s just as likely a “deadline beater” as my one journalist friend might say. With all that implies. “Never ascribe to malice or corruption what is just as easily explained by laziness or haste,” a judge once told me. He was right.
Mespo, maybe you are correct. I have always looked up to JT even though I disagree ideologically from his basic points. I have found the ignorance on this blog so appalling that I actually started reading fiction something I seldom do. I just started the book and think you might like it. Imperium by Robert Harris (Cicero)
Thanks, you know I’m a Cicero-Phile.
I can’t say for Imperium for I just started it but his book on Dreyfus, An Officer and a Spy, was incredibly good. Munich was good but not as good. This one very early on I think promises to excel. If you ever end up reading it I beg you let me know what you think about the historical relevance
compared to what you already know about Cicero.
It is certainly true that senators are not judges,
Excellent point Mark, but this is not a court of law. In my opinion, we’re dealing with politicians who have punted away any real connection to what is lawful and what is just a long time ago. This is pure politics and if Ford and Kavanaugh are looking for justice, they are not going to receive it from a body whose livelihood depends on the opinions of their constituents.
If this were a courtroom for instance, aren’t the Senators both Judge and Jury? If this were a courtroom, how many of these Judges and how many of the Jury pool would need to recuse themselves or be dismissed outright?
This is not the forum to settle this matter. This is a criminal complaint and this highly partisan body is essentially going to put a man on trial for an alleged 36 year old crime. Ford’s memory will magically become more clear. Kavanaugh’s memory will be equally clear. Without any physical evidence, we’ll be left with a case being decided by what? No prosecutor would bring this case, no law enforcement entity would even refer this for prosecution.
The tragic irony of this political stunt is the only qualified Judge in this room will be the accused. And he knows the judges and jury before him have already decided his fate.
One of the subsidiary features of feminism is the belief that common conceptions accountability does not apply to women, especially when accountability is assessed by a man. Ordinary rules of evidence are a component of assessing accountability. Another is that women have options, whereas men have obligations. Among those options is that of reconceptualizing their past decisions and personal history as a means of transferring culpability to the nearest available man.
From Merriam Webster: Definition of jaded–
1 : fatigued by overwork : exhausted
//a jaded horse
2 : made dull, apathetic, or cynical by experience or by having or seeing too much of something
By the same token, the fact that Kavanaugh can produce former girlfriends and dozens of women who speak highly of him is of little import in judging these facts.
It’s an indicator of how he behaved under ordinary circumstances.
He is in no more of a position to claim the right to be believed. It is his alleged treatment of this woman, not all other women, that is at issue. Moreover, Kavanaugh has categorically denied being at this party despite the fact that Ford cannot clearly recall the details of which party and house was involved in the alleged attack.
Are you for real? The credibility of his statement is compromised by her lack of specificity? A precis of what is supposed to have happened is sent to Eshoo / Feinstein. Kavanaugh, Judge, and Smyth say there was no such incident in their pasts. One party where this did not happen is much like any other party where this did not happen.
Has anyone to date produced a single piece of evidence (other than her claims) that in 1982 Christine Blasey had ever exchanged two words with Kavanaugh, Judge, Smyth, or Garrett? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
TSD:
“By the same token, the fact that Kavanaugh can produce former girlfriends and dozens of women who speak highly of him is of little import in judging these facts.”
**************
Again JT knows better. This is an allegation of violence by Kavanaugh. His Propensity for violence or lack thereof in the context of his dating relationships is certainly relevant and material. Also character/habit evidence in the form of prior observed conduct is likewise relevant and material on the fundamental issue of his credibility. Think about how anybody judges credibility. Observations of the asserter’s character don’t matter? It might be all that matters!
Oops, make that “defendant’s” character.
What precisely does that mean? In the case of Ford, she is a highly credible person with a distinguished background as a college professor.
She is nothing of the kind. Another example, in case we needed one, that academics are loyal to their class and subculture and screw the rest of us. Affluence and education are not markers of credibility. The only thing you carry with you before your precise statements are evaluated are markers of your character. If anything, a faculty position is a delict. Being a clinical psychologists living in a lush suburb but enrolled in couples therapy certainly is.
Now, what has she done? She made allegations structured in a way that they cannot be disproven. Her letter to Eshoo contradicts her marriage counseler’s notes on consequential details. And ain’t in inneresting that one of her dramatis personae just happens to be the only person enrolled at Georgetown Prep at the time who has published memoirs. And, of course, the timing of the allegations and the games she and her attorney have played with the committee stink on ice.
B*S*.
Excellent statement followed by a response B*S* absent any explantion. What does that tell us about the responder? The responder is acting in a typical ignorant fashion.
Allen:
I think DBB’s coffee cup just fell on his keyboard.
From TStD: If anything a faculty position is a delict.
From Merriam Webster: Definition of delict–an offense against law.
From Dr. Benson: B*S*
From Allan: The responder is acting in a typical ignorant fashion.
Does anyone here seriously think that Allan knows what the word “delict” in TStD’s sentence means?
Diane, are you drunk or are you in another one of your psychotic states? Yes, I think I know what DSS means in his sentence “If anything, a faculty position is a delict.”, but due to your psychotic type nature you probably don’t recognize that the thrust of the argument made by DSS doesn’t even base itself on that statement which is clear enough. We already know that you talk to yourself and have difficulty following a complete argument. Take some Haldol before posting again.
The meaning of the word “delict” in TStD’s sentence explains the meaning of Dr. Benson’s B*S* comment. Consequently, Allan’s accusation of ignorance against Dr. Benson’s comment was clearly based upon Allan’s ignorance of the meaning of the word “delict” in TStD’s sentence.
It appears Diane that you think yourself a mind reader and know what is in everyone’s mind. You don’t. As I said I think I comprehend what DSS said and that is good enough for me especially since it was a minor point in a much bigger statement. If you have a problem with DSS’s use of the word take it up with him. He made his point clear enough to me. David B made no point and you just played the fool.
I would like someone on the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask Dr. Blasey a series of questions designed to find out whether Dr. Blasey was familiar with the written works of Mark Judge before Dr. Blasey wrote her letter to Eshoo. If Dr. Blasey’s answer is yes, then I will entertain considerable suspicion against Dr. Blasey allegation against Kavanaugh. Otherwise, I’ll have to remain undecided until something else tips the scales.
L4D;
Good thought. I want to know about her writings (and hence payments) for the birth control pill manufacturer.
Child of Watergate. Follow the money. You know.
Mark Judge’s writing looks ripe for the picking. Recovering alcoholic confesses sins. Rediscovered Catholic confesses sins. And Judge makes a living at it. Of course, there’s an alternate take on the subject. But I’m not ready to go there. For now it’s mostly just suspicious. Maybe too suspicious.
Never too suspicious.
And Judge makes a living at it.
He almost certainly does not. Little of his published work antedates 1997 and little post-dates 2010. His articles were written for small audience quality publications like the Claremont Review and First Things which offer scant (if any compensation). He was not on the staff of any of these publications. All of his books have niche audiences and two were published by Spence, a small house that closed in 2004. Supposedly, he’s been making films and videos in recent years, but I doubt you could find any commercially distributed.
Judge’s capsule biographies do not actually say how he makes rent. He doesn’t have a LinkedIn profile, the personal webpage his brother set up for him (roughly 20 years ago) is spare and hasn’t been updated in a dozen years, and no company or public agency employing him puts his name and mug on their site. It’s possible he does not wish to associate his employer with his writing life. It’s also possible that he has a very mundane job of a sort you’d not put in a capsule biography. For Eric Hoffer, his life as a longshoreman was an engaging curio, and he rejected any attempts to refer to his occupation as something other than ‘longshoreman’. Judge may not see it that way. Noodling around in various databases, it appears he lives in DC and has lived in and around DC his whole life. It also appears he’s a bachelor or was only briefly married.
L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – the challenge is that Judge only appears to mention Kavanaugh once in the book and that is throwing up in the back of the car. He did not confessed to helping assault Dr. Ford and he didn’t mention Dr. Ford at all, it seems. I have not read the book, but since the Lame Stream Media is harping on this one event, I guess this is the only thing they could find.
The tragedy here is that we now have a system in place where a man can be accused, his wife and family humiliated and his desire swiftly bat this away and defend his name are treated as signs of guilt.
How long would any of you be willing to sit by while your little girls were subjected to this?
When did we lose the right to hear the charges against us and confront evidence and witnesses?
TURLEY MAKES APPEAL FOR KAVANAUGH
BUT NEW TESTIMONY WILL FOCUS ON DRINKING
KAVANAUGH’S ACHILLES HEEL
In his answers during the practice runs, aides said, Kavanaugh condemned sexual assault and carefully avoided seeming to discredit Christine Blasey Ford, a psychology professor in Northern California who has accused the nominee of pinning her to a bed, groping her and putting his hand over her mouth to stifle her screams as he tried to take off her clothes at a drunken high school party in the early 1980s.
But Kavanaugh grew frustrated when it came to questions that dug into his private life, particularly his drinking habits and his sexual proclivities, according to three people familiar with the preparations, who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. He declined to answer some questions altogether, saying they were too personal, these people said.
“I’m not going to answer that,” Kavanaugh said at one point according to a senior White House official, who said that the questions were designed to go over the line and that he struck the right tone.
The tense preparations underscore the monumental stakes of public testimony from Kavanaugh and Ford, who signaled on Saturday through her lawyers that she has accepted the Judiciary Committee’s request to speak about her allegation next week, though there is no final agreement and Republicans viewed the response as a delaying tactic.
Edited from: “Incredibly Frustrated: Inside The GOP Effort To Save Kavanaugh”
THE WASHINGTON POST, 1/22/18
Always empathy fer all TRUE victims.
But, millions o’ lil Boyz got/get their dicks pulled ‘n butts-probed by naZty lil Galz.
Then they all GROW UP!!
Here is a fact with a singular lack of bias: all the people that Ford fingered as witnesses – including the lone female witness that Ford calls her long time friend – denied story under oath. Democrats (along with Flake/Collins) about to destroy an innocent man’s life over uncorroborated fiction. I say innocent simply because there is now no possibility of proof, and, you know, ‘innocent until proven guilty’.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/third-named-witness-rejects-kavanaughs-accusers-allegations/
No one’s denied anything under oath. A long time friend of Blasey said she (Blasey) had never mentioned anything about this to her; she never identified herself as the supposed now-you-see-her-now-you-don’t gal pal ‘present’, nor has she signed any affidavits.
That having been said, it’s hard to see how Blasey’s testimony should affect the decisions of an impartial evaluator. These are stale allegations which cannot be either refuted or proven, and dubious for that reason (as well as the timing).
“Under 18 U.S.C § 1001, letters to the Judiciary Committee are subject to criminal penalty if false.”
Evidently, the Bezos Birdcage Liner has contacted another period friend of Blasey’s and asked her if she was the now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t gal pal. The public reply from this woman is that she’s never met Brett Kavanaugh. The moderator’s smarmy ‘even-handedness’ fails to acknowledge that there isn’t any there there, and that the Debra Katz is stalling and playing games with the committee. (The contention by Blasey that she’d have to drive to Washington is pretty funny given that she had a fellowship in Hawaii).
Spekang of bias, note how Turkey makes mention of Republican congressmen who have likewise declared their belief in Kavanough’s innocence before listening to sworn testimony in this hearing.
Why don’t you give us the list then?
JT does mention the fact that the array of women speaking up for Kavanaugh have no real bearing on this case.
What he left out is that neither does Anita Hill, or whether a woman was abused earlier by someone else.
The nadir of this episode so far is Kirsten Gillibrand screaming into a Mike that not wanting an FBI investigation shows that he’s guilty.
They may well destroy this man and his family but I fear we are approaching the end of the republic.
Sister, explain to us why they should take this woman seriously.
I wonder who is funding this charade.
No but not surprised. It’s the I want it and I want it now and I am more important than any trifling stumbling block placed in the way. Nature has a way to dictating these things. When nature dictates nothing left in their llves but ’causes’; without a purpose.
Check out her high school yearbook? What are they hiding with all the redactions?
Subpoena her communist handlers.
Her “affiliations” are all redacted.
Liberty2nd – I want to know why she was in family counseling and I want all the notes from the sessions. Tapes if possible. Repressed memories are usually with small children, not late teens. As a psychologist she would have been required to take therapy as part of her degrees, certainly this would have come up during 30 years of therapy.
As a psychologist she would have been required to take therapy as part of her degree
No she wouldn’t. Psychoanalytic institutes required their graduates undergo analysis, but psychoanalitic training was quite unusual when Blasey was a graduate student ca. 1994. I think psychiatric residents were badgered into undergoing therapy at one time, but I don’t think that’s a common part of the program and I’m not sure it was common to require it. By way of example, Charles Krauthammer refused to undergo psychotherapy when he was a medical resident. I have a psychiatrist and two psychologists among my proximate relations. All three do clinical work, though one of the three is primarily a researcher. One might have undergone some sort of therapy in her graduate program (completed in 1978). The other two not. Only an odd minority of academic psychologists undertake clinical research or practice, btw.
“common part of the program nowadays”
Don’t forget that Dr. Blasey is also a statistician and an epidemiologist who specializes in designing biostatistical models for peer-review studies on the effectiveness of pharmaceuticals in treating mental illness as well as the rates of incidence for depression and anxiety disorders amongst the victims of child abuse and amongst people who experience gender dysphoria. The point being that, since Dr. Blasey is a recognized expert on the correct design of testable hypotheses, she knows how to evaluate the testability of her accusation against Kavanaugh. (I’m still undecided, anyhow).
also a statistician and an epidemiologist who specializes in designing biostatistical models for peer-review studies
Her dissertation was not on a methodological topic and none of her post baccalaureate degrees were in statistics or epidemiology. I’ve found three papers on GoogleScholar (out of scores) on which she was the lead author, all having to do with studies of RU-486, an abortifacient. She’s been a co-author of a couple of papers on statistics / methodology, but that really is not her book.
From the Wikipedia article on Christine Blasey Ford:
She earned an undergraduate degree in psychology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1988. She received a master’s degree in psychology from Pepperdine University. In 2009, she garnered a master’s degree in epidemiology, with a focus on the subject of biostatistics, from Stanford University. She has a Ph.D. in educational psychology from the University of Southern California. Her 1995 dissertation was entitled Measuring Young Children’s Coping Responses to Interpersonal Conflict.
Ford began teaching at Stanford University in 1988. She works at Palo Alto University teaching students clinical trial design and data analysis. She participates in educational programs with the Stanford University School of Medicine as a member of a consortium group with Palo Alto University. Through this consortium group, called the Pacific Graduate School of Psychology (PGSP), Ford teaches subjects including psychometrics, study methodologies, and statistics. She performed consulting work for multiple pharmaceutical companies. Ford worked as the director of biostatistics at Corcept Therapeutics, and collaborated with FDA statisticians. Ford is widely published within her field.
Ford “specializes in designing statistical models for research projects in order to make sure they come to accurate conclusions,” as summarized by Helena Chmura Kraemer, a Stanford professor emeritus in biostatistics who co-authored a book and several articles with Ford. Ford has written or co-written several books about psychological topics, including depression. Her other research topics published in academic journal articles have included child abuse and the September 11 attacks. In 2015, she co-authored a book entitled How Many Subjects? Statistical Power Analysis in Research. Ford’s research into the social impact of hiding one’s sexual orientation was published in 2016 in the journal Behavior Therapy, and reviewed by psychologist William Gibson of the American Psychological Association, who found their research “demonstrates that issues of identity have relevance to mental health outcomes in ways that much of previous work . . . ” [oops].
” . . . in ways that much of previous work misses.”
It’s Wiki. Her dissertation is dated 1997 and it’s from USC.
“Palo Alto University” is not a university. It’s a stand-alone professional school for clinical psychologists.
And, again, there are two GoogleScholar papers on methodological topics. Maybe you can find more on IBSS or PsychINFO. She’s not the lead author on either of them.
DDS – she would not have make her choice for clinical psychologist until late or after her terminal degree. Most degree programs demand that she participate in therapy.
PC Schulte,…
-According to the Washington Post, she provided them with some of the notes from the couples’ therapy session.
I don’t think that notes from the session(s) can be obtained without her consent.
It looks like she can selectively produce segments of those notes/ records, but I doubt that she would agree to release all of them.
Would Hillary tip the scales in favor of the female accuser of the Scottsboro boys? That’s the real test.
It has been alleged on the internet that she has had sex with students. They were over 18 and consented. Men and women. They call her “Bent Lady”. Did you folks not know any of this?
Speaking of not knowing, did YOU read the articles on Kavenaugh’s depraved fraternity at Yale?
Have you bathed in the last week?
From Merriam Webster: Definition of cranky (Entry 1 of 2)–
1a : given to fretful fussiness : readily angered when opposed : crotchety
//our long wait … left us a tad cranky
In a non thinking fashion you probably have condemned the vast majority of university trained males since fraternity and nonfraternity men interact with one another and some of them acted in a depraved manner during those years.That probably extends to non university trained men as well.
Guilt by association seems to be what you live by. I assume to protect your integrity from being depraved by being unmarried, live alone and have nothing to do with other people. That is where your lack of logic and misunderstanding of the law take you.
.
Supposedly, Kavanaugh was a member of DKE, a fraternity with a large membership you find all over the country. Of course, Sam / Chris P. Bacon hasn’t a clue whether or not the Yale chapter is peculiarly ‘depraved’ now or in 1984 when Kavanaugh joined it. He just knows that when he gets to be 19, no fraternity will have him for a member. And he’s pissed.