In a new twist, Committee staff has reportedly interviewed two men who say that they were actually the two teens who may as assaulted Christine Blasey Ford in 1982 and not Judge Brett Kavanaugh. It is not clear what further information will be released on this latest disclosure but it raises an obviously serious matter for both sides. I remain leery of this lat minute leak and the lack of details — unfortunately a common element in this ongoing controversy.
The report says that a man gave details about the assault and that a second man corroborated the account. Those details could be inserted into questions for Ford today and, if she confirms them, could be used to reaffirm the accounts of these men.
Ford maintains that she may not remember details but does remember Kavanaugh. Moreover, the lack of details here is unfair to Ford. If there are two such witnesses, either they are credible or they are not. The burden is on the Committee to come forward with information on whether they believe that this is credible and not just leak the incomplete story.
Watching Kavanaugh’s testimony. He’s killing it. The Democrats look REALLY REALLY bad. Rightfully so. This smear job is reprehensible.
TBob……….I broke out in tears when he said his 10 yr old wanted to pray for the lady. This is the most compelling statement I have ever heard anywhere!
Slam dunk. Confirm him now.
The Democrats are looking not just really really really bad, but evil. Evil, disgraceful, shameful, reprehensible. What they did, led by Feinstein, to intentionally destroy a good, honorable man, and his wife, and his family is evil and despicable. Pure evil in action. This is the Democrat party of today. Absolute disgrace.
If the Republicans screw this up and don’t confirm this good man, then shame shame on every single one of them.
TBob – if nothing else, confirm his son. 😉
TBob……….Totally agree. He is so compelling, believable, compassionate while being a sympathetic figure. Those who vote against him do not have a soul!
Thank you for sharing that. Tears came to my eyes as well. I have a 10yr old son who humbles me when he wants my wife and I to pray with him for strangers.
“Did you pay for the polygraph yourself?”
“I don’t think so.”
“Do you know who did pay for the polygraph?”
“Not yet, no.”
What! You don’t who’s paying your bills?
The lawyers come back and say “the lawyers have paid for the polygraph.” Who’s paying the lawyers? I’m guessing everything is pro bono.
Pro bono you say? That’s this blogs very own Markitty’s territory.
Who is paying for the polygraph, who determined those strange two polygraph questions, and who paid for her lawyers are important information when determining the political component.
I’ll lay odds it was the DNC. Ronan Farrow is on record saying the DNC was canvassing for alleged victims.
oh hell no they aint. they say pro bono, lol, a lie, really they prolly get expenses etc and maybe plenty off fees too, advanced by some deep pockets politicos that’s how it works
its not just patreon out there collecting war chest money for these kinds of things it’s also deep pockets manipulators
She has two lawyers. Sen. Feinstein’s office recommended she go wtih Katz. Interesting. Then someone from Feinstein’s office leaked Ford’s letter against Ford’s explicit request to keep it confidential? Huh.
Ford doesn’t know who is paying her lawyers or how they are being paid? The lawyers are working pro bono but Ford didn’t know this?
The Democrats could give a rats ass about Christine Ford. They are using her as a political pawn. So much for being the party that’s all about protecting women, respecting women, treating women with dignity. What a load. Voters see through this circus.
she doesnt know because they never made her a fee agreement because they want the case so badly they don’t care if she pays. trust me the lawyers will get paid by somebody important, for sure. lol. of course they didn’t ask her to pay even though she could afford it. ha, people understand this thing if they just think about it. it’s a cold, bogus case, even if she seems sincere, even if somebody assaulted her, no credible proof against Kav. call the vote.
I’ve watched part of her testimony so far, I see two obvious lies:
(1) The story about her being afraid to fly and therefore the committee meeting had to be delayed was a lie. She flies long distance regularly and has done so throughout her life.
(2) She lied when she said she didn’t understand that Sen. Grassley had offered for the committee to come to her. The offer was made publicly for all to see and directly.
I agree. They even offered to get her testimony over the telephone. That would have been helpful to have her testimony earlier, by any means necessary.
Yet she refused.
It was also telling that her attorneys kept whispering to her when she was asked questions. Can’t she answer on her own?
The Republicans did not even try to ask the hard questions about her story. The problems with her story have been well established and discussed into the ground. And yet, it wasn’t even touched on. Ford never had to face any tough questions. They’ve left Kavanaugh on her own. Based on the facts, I believe he has been unjustly accused for political motivation. I believe that Ford might have suffered some sort of trauma. The repressed memory is suspect. She may have conflated different issues – her feeling of threat from a conservative rising through the ranks in federal court, and whatever happened to her when she was young. Perhaps she was the victim of abuse, and that memory is still repressed. Who knows.
Brett Kavanaugh has appeared to be a gentle, calm, and composed man. Will he be able to bring the wrath of God of a wronged man to this circus? His demeanor today probably reflects his demeanor when he was younger. He certainly is no hothead. That not only makes the accusations of his being a rapist less credible, but it also makes it difficult for him to defend himself. He may not be fiery enough. Hopefully his sincerity and truthfulness will come through.
The Republicans proved themselves ineffective once again in the political warfare waged by the Left. If they cannot fend off this attack, then each and every candidate they name for any high office will fall under the same volley of arrows. It will encourage more of this.
Ford’s accusation has been effectively contradicted over the course of the past few weeks. The committee walked out of her testimony not having that displayed at all to them.
Otherwise, when the Democrats lose Congress and the White House, they will still demand, and get, to pick Supreme Court justices that please them.
The days when each side confirmed the other’s picks, without a fuss, are long gone.
But what comes around won’t go around because the Republicans keep trying to appease the other side. That is how voters sent Trump to the White House. They got tired of this. And they will get tired of them, replacing them with stronger fighters. Democrats may miss the day when they had colleagues eager to work with them across the aisle.
they don’t want to be seen as beating up on her. they are too worried that can backfire. right?> because they can confirm him anyhow. its mostly just a chance for her to say her peace. then the vote comes and he is confirmed anyways
Ford’s friend Leland Keyser said in her sworn statement that she doesn’t even know Kavanaugh. So Ford tells us her friend Leland was with her at a small, intimate gathering with Kavanaugh but Leland says unequivocally that she doesn’t even know, nor has she ever met, BK?
Ford says her friend is suffering medical issues now. And that’s her explanation for why perhaps Leland can’t quite recall these details? Details like not even knowing Brett Kavanaugh?
This is a circus.
I agree…Kavanaugh gets confirmed.
What a wonderful performance.
She is an exceptional “actress”.
She seems very childlike. It’s strange. Isn’t she a college professor?
Karen S – if that is her regular demeanor in the classroom it would by hard to take her seriously.
No kidding.
Two unnamed men have admitted to committee members that they were the boys/men who did it.
For what that’s worth.
It’s all testimony, it all story versus story.
By these standards anyone with any plausible proximity to anyone involved at around the right time period ~35 years ago, has standing to say something of equivalent evidentiary value.
These are strange standards of proof that anyone who is involved in actual law practice will be very uncomfortable. One is reminded more of Inquisition standards, or other medieval courts.
It truly is a matter of a court of public opinion as translated into/by their representatives.
This is a bit like the Spanish Inquisition. His gender, race, political views, and bourgeois status render him low down on the victim valuation scale, and therefore less credible.
There has been a similar argument about applying the standard of law to accusations of sexual misconduct against students in college. A mere accusation has been enough to get a man kicked out of college under the Obama administration. The criticism is that this denies due process to the expelled student, whose chances of success in life may be permanently and irrevocably ruined merely by someone’s word, not even spoken under oath or penalty of perjury.
In this case, Dr Ford’s entire accusation is based on nothing more than her word. In fact, the eye witnesses she named contradict her story and said it never happened.
Will her word be enough to bar a judge from attaining the Supreme Court? If so, is that fair to apply such a low standard? This may be enough to ruin any man’s career, a woman’s unsubstantiated accusation. This seems like a big step backward to the lynch mobs that terrorized the South, declaring that evidence and the rule of law was not needed to apply their brand of “justice.”
It’s a lynching…but he’s an old, straight, white, Christian male so it’s all good as far as the left is concerned. The ideology we’re confronted with is pure evil.
old straight white Christian men are getting the memo. they are watching and learning and losing their stupid naivete, at least one hopes. this is war and the main goal is not to be kind to the enemy it is rather to inflict punishment and survive and conquer. if they want to make us enemy number one then at least we will know where we stand and have a chance of getting together so we can hit back. there can be great joy in fighting and straight old Christian white men have a pretty good track record at fighting judging by history… be careful what you wish for, it may come
Amen.
Therapeutic recall has been shown in at least one case, mine, to be untrustworthy.
She said she remembered few details of the attack. Eye witnesses she named denied this happened. Her polygraph test only asked 2 questions, and nothing about Kavanaugh or the attack itself. Her therapist’s notes contradicted her current story. Her story also evolved several times over the past few weeks. She told no one about the alleged attack until after 2012, when she discovered this repressed memory. She did not name Kavanaugh to her therapist.
I do not believe her story could convict anyone in court, even were it not 36 years ago. I am concerned she may have been politically motivated. Perhaps something happened. Over the years, she heard about this prominent federal judge who grew up near her town. She knew who he was. He became a prominent conservative. Conservatives are evil and abhorrent and wage war on women in her lexicon. Eventually, perhaps the two stories merged – an attempted assault when she was 15 (or 17, as late teens was her original story), and a conservative federal judge grew up near her. The stories merged in her mind, and she sincerely believed it was a conservative judge who tried to rape her. Obviously, this is just a theory based on nothing more than my own supposition, and the fact that no one supported her story, which also had contradictions. She has also blamed her poor grades in college on Kavanaugh. Did her high school grades suddenly plummet at age 15, after a particular date? That could be helpful, to look at her high school records.
She has been quite clear that the only reason why she came forward was because Brett Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court. Not for justice. Not to protect other women. Not to stop a serial rapist. But to stop a conservative from rising to the Supreme Court. That is an admission of a political motivation.
On the other hand, since she stated few details about her attack, politically motivated opponents could fabricate that they were to blame. They could fall on their sword to help a conservative attain the Supreme Court. Or they could be telling the truth and not politically motivated. Perhaps their testimony will be shared with Democratic members of the committee, who will tip off Dr. Ford to change her testimony to contradict theirs.
Ruining a man’s career or blocking him from the pinnacle of his career is tantamount to a conviction. You have to be quite sure, without a reasonable doubt, to convict. There is zero supporting evidence of her allegations. No pattern of behavior for Kavanaugh. Such predators typically have complaints going back decades. There was not a breath of reproach of sexual assault until his nomination to the Supreme Court.
This is the problem with accusations 36 years late. They are quite difficult to prove. There is no similar pattern over time. People she said were there disagree. When someone makes the decision not to tell anyone about an assault or attempted rape, then the consequences of that is there is no record of it at the time. That can cause problems later on. If she had only told someone, made a report, lodged a complaint, wrote about it in a diary…anything, it could have established a date, place, and time. That could have been instrumental in either clearing or establishing guilt.
On another note, I honestly don’t understand anyone’s complaint about a sex crimes prosecutor questioning her. Alleged victims of sexual assault have nothing to fear from a prosecutor. Her job is to be kind and careful with alleged victims, and the wrath of God with alleged perpetrators.
If her grades stayed consistent in high school and only dropped in college, then it might help place the alleged assault in her late teens, 17, as she had originally told her therapist.
These kinds of things could have been investigated if Diane Feinstein had not sat on the accusation since July.
This is so ridiculous having a prosecutor asking her questions minutes at a time, so far just going through her testimony rather than looking for holes.
If the Republicans don’t take the opportunity to ask about inconsistencies, then they will lose the opportunity to do so. By the time the hearing ends, Mitchell will still be asking Ford, so did you live at this address in high school, or that address? Is everything you wrote in that letter correct? They will never get to the problems with her story. As others have said, it’s like she’s taking a deposition rather than cross examining her.
This is yet another example of the ineffectiveness of Republicans in the face of political assault.
If the two other men are credible, then perhaps she merged one story with another.
If you have impeaching information or have identified inconsistencies, it is not uncommon to go though the witness’ whole story in detail to lock it down completely before you even begin asking the hard questions.
That’s fine as long as they get to the hard questions within the time allowed.
There is one detail you seemed to have missed.It’s been reported that Kavenau was the judge who ruled against her mother in a foreclosure case. So there’s a revenge motive to consider.
Thomas Canfield – the house thing is a non-issue.
But to stop a conservative from rising to the Supreme Court. That is an admission of a political motivation.
Judge Kavanaugh is guilty of one thing: he is a serial conservative and for the Left, that is far worse than any alleged crime they will smear him with. This is also why they don’t care about the hypocrisy in these allegations, their motive is not to bring justice for alleged victims, their motive it to prevent another conservative getting on the court.
After all, they feel proud of the Resistance. They may not understand they are resisting democracy and trying to impose a single party state. The resistance does not look so laudable in that light.
they would shove every bit of their agenda down our throats and rape the whole lot of the Republican party if they could. think about that and look to history and see.
Boy are the Republicans desperate –not one, but 2 alleged alternate perps have a sudden attack of conscience. I don’t buy it for one minute. This ploy stinks of Kellyanne. See, they can fake compassion for Dr. Ford, but still protect Kavanagh. Hey Chucky: women see you for the phony hack you are.
Obvious that ‘Schmuck Schumer is ‘behind the curtains pulling ALL the strings he can, to show this “Supposed Victim as a sympathetic person….her body language shows otherwise
and that ‘little girly voice, doesn’t match up with HER at protests wearing “her pussy hat” as SHE IS A DEMOCRAT OPERATIVE.
She had NO problems contacting the “Anti-Trump Paper- The Washington Post” It appears she is NOT credible by what she is being asked, as she suddenly goes “Blank”…..She can’t recall things of the last two months when “ALL THIS BS was PUT INTO ACTION” but she CAN recall 36+ years ago.”
As usual, during this ‘committee-Democrats ARE DOING WHAT THEY ALWAYS DO…
“MAKING SPEECHES TO HELP THIS WOMAN” BUT NOTICE, THAT THE ‘MS. MITCHELL IS GIVEN VERY LITTLE TIME.” I’D SAY THAT’S BIASED, BUT IT’S WHAT THE DEMS ALWAYS DO, AS THEY MAKE SPEECHES ABOUT SEXUAL ASSAULTS..
THESE ARE THE MEN OFFERING “THEIR SEXUAL ASSAULT STORIES TO ACT LIKE THEY ARE THE EXPERTS….HARDLY…’THESE ARE THE SAME MALES THAT HAVE HAD TO USE “THE SEX FUND ACCOUNTS TO ‘PAY OFF THOSE THEY ASSAULTED?”
PRICELESS…..
She said there were two boys who assaulted her. There are two men who claim they were those two boys.
We will have to see how this unfolds.
So far, Republicans seem ineffective at utilizing their time to discuss the glaring holes and contradictions in her story that have been discussed in detail here.
Jennifer Flowers.
She is pathetic! Listening to her “testimony” is sickening. She acts and talks , not like a Valley Girl, but like a Valley Baby.
Honestly, what a waste of time for the Senate. I know the correspondence school that sent her that PhD must be proud.
my daughter bless her soul, could fib convincingly by 4 and could make herself cry at will by 5. this is common for little girls, actually. if you haven’t parented a girl you may not know this folks. these are a couple of life-skills that are not usually lost as women age. now in practice she has good integrity and she is very honest. but she has the capability, as many if not most women do, of being very convincingly dishonest!
this is a teachable moment for the boys and young men.
lets have a sort of fireside chat. call it:
“things you need to know about women”
Mr. Kurtz……You speak the truth, sir! Our daughter always had her daddy wrapped around her little finger, and still does bless her heart……..even though she doesn’t realize it half the time!.I was the same with my daddy.
Her voice was breaking to the same degree when she talked about writing her letter, delivering it, and who she talked with. That indicates that she was nervous. Anyone would be “terrified” or nervous on international TV, with millions of people watching and judging what she said.
So is it nerves or trauma?
First thing I noticed as well. She sounds like a little girl, not a mature adult woman. It’s like she’s stuck in ‘Future Shock’ at age 10 or something.
Watching these Democrats ‘act’ as if they give a rat’s ass about this woman or any other alleged victim, but for her political utility to them is excruciatingly painful to watch.
The Georgia Engel voice is odd. And it’s incongruent with the rest of her.
Tabarrok………It’s spooky.watching and listening to her.
She’s Tony Perkins in drag talking baby talk.
“Incongruent with the rest of her.”
Like first thing she says to Grassley is she needs to ‘get some caffeine’ into her. He he.
Like the nervous giggling as she says she could overcome her fear of flying when it was for a fun vacation, and all the other regular flying she does, but not to accomodate a timely followup interview with the Judiciary Committee?
Like when she says this ‘assault’ has impacted her life in ways such that she is now claustrophobic and fearful enough to want a second front door added to the plans for her home renovation? But then admits the reason for the second front door is that she and her husband open up their home to have Google interns stay with them b/c the Google campus is close by? So she’s not too afraid to have unknown “interns” stay in her family home?
This is excruciating to watch.
She said if only she understood they offered to fly out to her, she would have hosted them.
Strange…They offered to come to her, have her testify on camera, off camera, in a private room, or be questioned only by a woman… And yet she refused, delayed, and dragged her feet until the last moment.
I guess she’s only afraid to fly to help a timely investigation into her accusations. It’s all fine if she’s flying all around the world for fun.
It also seems strange that she claims that she has claustrophobia so terrible that she requires two front doors, is scared to fly (unless it’s all around the world to go on vacation), and has life long anxiety because of what she said happened.
TBob………I am no psychologist but I would say that she was probably sexually abused by a family member growing up, probably her father. Either that or she is one hell of an actress. It’s probably a combination of the two. She is not normal, you can tell. I wouldn’t want to be left alone in a room with her.
I agree, there’s something not quite right…and it feels like it’s more than just nerves going on here. It’s hard to see her as a mature, sexual, adult woman telling a powerful story when she comes across as a fragile, scared little girl with that little baby girl voice.
The Republicans and their gentle “we’re only here to accomodate you in the most comfortable, accomodating, nonconfrontational way we can provide to you”…while we leave it to Kavanaugh to hit back and fend for himself?!!!
They need to step it up and be much more aggressive in punching holes in her story. This is beyong excruciating.
I have heard that when grown women speak like little girls, it is often a sign of childhood sex abuse.
And then enter the field of Psychology to work through your own issues. Makes sense.
TBob – there are some people who hold that those who enter psychology do so to get free therapy.
Gary,
The training we went through to be foster parents covered the emotional and developmental impact that abuse has on children. One of the things that struck me the hardest was that a child can stop emotional development at the age they were traumatized. Once in a healthy environment they can start that clock moving again but they will likely remain behind their peer group. The longer they remain in that abusive situation, the slower the emotional development clock ticks when they get out.
Her family of orgin has been studiously quiet, and I think we should extend a courtesy to them by beginning with the assumption that they never harmed her and not speaking otherwise absent clear and convincing evidence.
TBob – Dr. Ford has had a LOT of acting lessons over the last few days.
oh you can bet she’s had a lifetime, you don’t get to have this kind of polished vulnerability act overnight
But it’s Kavanaugh’s fault that she struggled in college.
Come again? She attended a Public Ivy for her undergraduate work (UNC Chapel Hill) and then landed a berth in a satisfactory graduate program (that at USC, ranked 26th out of 240-odd psychology graduate programs) and completed her dissertation at age 29 (the median age at which a dissertation is signed is 33).
Excuse me, she was 30 when her dissertation was signed.
She testified that she struggled academically her first two years in college because of the trauma from the attack.
Her claim that this happened at age 15 could have been supported if she provided her high school transcripts. If there was a sudden drop in academics at that age, then it could support that at least something happened to her at that time. If her grades remained stable until a later age, then it could affect her timeline.
If this happened at age 15, then her high school grades at age 16 and 17 would be bad, as well as the first two years of college.
In the same vein, if her grades were good and stable her first two years at college, then that would contradict her testimony.
She didn’t struggle so badly that her application to graduate school was rejected. There are psychology programs with better reputations that USCs, but all but three of them are at swank private universities or Public Ivies. You’re not top-o’-the-heather at USC, but you’re the next ratchet down.
Now, in a family like her’s, she may have been disappointed she didn’t make the team at ‘the best’, that she was at UNC Chapel Hill and USC because she didn’t get into Duke and Stanford. She ought to have some perspective about that at age 52.
If a lying, philandering, womanizing, sexual deviant can be elected to the Presidency; then Kavanugh has a straight shot into the Supreme Court by the end of next week. In Trump’s own words, “I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and still be supported.” Kavanaugh was known to be a wild party boy. Sexual exhibitions by both male and females at that age are more than common. What’s missing here in the integrity department is “I sometimes drank to excess. If I did any of the alleged acts I am truly sorry and ashamed. This is not who I am now.” What is telling is not the sexual stuff but the outright denial in the light of his history as a carouser.
as a Canadian you may have a more forgiving attitude towards this sort of thing than most Americans do. America is full of hypocrisy and shame about sex in general, that’s why dramas like this catch so many eyeballs. It’s like every generation has its own Scarlet Letter drama, one way or another. Americans are absolutely obsessed with sex
“If a lying, philandering, womanizing, sexual deviant can be elected to the Presidency” Are you talking about JFK, infamous for his strippers and lovers. He even had one of his mistresses, Marilyn Monroe, sing “Happy Birthday” to him wearing a dress that made her look naked, in her most sexualized innuendo bedroom voice possible. She even bragged on television that she made his back feel better. I’l bet Jackie just loved that.
Or there was Ted Kennedy, who drove drunk away from a woman’s hotel to a secluded area, somehow drove into the water, escaped himself, and left her to die in there. It took hours for her to submerge and drown, according to the medical examiner. But he went home, went to bed, got up in the morning, got the paper, called his lawyers, and then finally called the police. He had plenty of time to save her, but didn’t. Showing that predators have a pattern of abuse, he also engaged in the infamous “waitress sandwich” in which he grabbed waitress serving him and his friend in a private room in a restaurant, dragged her onto his lap, and ground his penis against her genitals, with the other man grinding at her back. There are many more allegations of womanizing, again, spanning decades.
Sexual predators will have a history of complaints over the course of years. They don’t suddenly pop up after 36 years, without a word spoken in the intervening time.
“Kavanaugh was known to be a wild party boy”. No, he wasn’t. No one has said he was sexually active in high school (except for that 3rd person who claimed he ran a gang rape ring). He said that he drank in high school, but never blacked out. That’s not exactly “wild.” “Wild” was one of the guys in my high school whom we would always find passed out in the bushes at high school parties.
“If I did any of the alleged acts I am truly sorry and ashamed. This is not who I am now.”” But he is sure that he never sexually assaulted anyone, or had any sexual contact with Dr Ford at all. Absolutely sure. The statement you want him to say admits a guilt that he does not believe.
Did you murder anyone in high school? Did you ever drink? If you did, then how do you know you never murdered anyone? You should say that you sometimes drank to excess, and if you ever murdered anyone, you are truly sorry and ashamed. A murderer is not who I am now. Would you get your dream job having said such a ridiculous thing?
Why is the outright denial telling? Why wouldn’t someone be sure he never raped anyone, tried to rape anyone, or otherwise sexually assault anyone? Are you the kind of guy who’s not actually sure if you ever did that in high school?
Actually, there have been numerous claims made to multiple congress members of abuse by Kavanaugh (in addition to the now 4 claimants). Most of these claims are being dismissed under the grounds that taking the claims seriously would make the congress member look bad. Putting aside how absurd making any member of congress look bad is, these claims should be reported to authorities. There are people whose job it is to investigate claims like this. They are called law enforcement.
These two men’s off shore banking account should be investigated. There are many women whose claims are being dismissed and other women’s claims, women who have provided corroboration of those claims, are being vilified. The only course of action which makes sense is to gather the claims and investigate them while putting the confirmation hearing on hold. The pro-Kavanaugh crew sound like Cardinals in the Catholic church and they are attacking potential victims in that same vicious manner of the Church.
None of the claims contra Kavanaugh pass the smell test, Jill. You haven’t any excuse to not know that.
That’s your opinion. So you should have no fear of investigating the claims.
What does such an investigation consist of? She does not remember the date, so you cannot ask Kavanaugh for an alibi. She does not remember where it was, so you cannot ask questions of the homeowner. She does not remember who else was there, except one person who says he does not remember the event. So where do you send FBI agents, what do they look for and what questions do they ask?
Bill, let things play out. There are multiple accusers and they each have either contemporaneous evidence or evidence which was given long before this nomination arose. If we had rule of law which applied to powerful people, these allegations would be examined by law enforcement just as any other allegations of crimes are examined. If enough evidence is produced a grand jury is convened. If an indictment follows, Brett is entitled to presumption of innocence and to lawyer up. That’s the usual course of events when a crime is alleged.
“If we had rule of law which applied to powerful people, these allegations would be examined by law enforcement” Yes. We do. That is why the FBI said this was under the jurisdiction of local law enforcement, who still has not received a report to investigate. Why is that? Why have law enforcement not been involved yet? Why has Dr Ford still not filed charges?
what about the offshore bank accounts you just fabricated in your other comment? you’re obviously here making things up. nice try fake jill
MK,
Of course I don’t know if there’s an offshore account. I suspect there may be one and I’d like to see a reporter get on it, but that is only a surmise on my part. (It was also meant to be part of the standard jokes about off shore accounts!)
you’re making something up in a serious matter.
you want me to start telling rape jokes? not funny “Jill”
you also show your ignorance because they are required to make detailed financial disclosures. Kav is very clean compared and has been super investigated already
elsewise the FBI is totally incompetent. a tempting hypothesis at times, considering the likes of Peter Sztroke, but i think most agents are pretty solid
Jill – if they had brought this out in July, there would be more time to investigate. If they had immediately reported this in July to law enforcement, they would have investigated.
All we have now is her testimony.
Here are the facts – no one she named supports her story, including her own friend. The only possible way that Kavanaugh was in town was if she was 15 or younger, but she guessed at her age because she does not remember how she got to the party or how she got home. After she got her license she liked to drive. Since she does not remember how she got home, how does she know if she drove? There are no records of her telling a soul about this before 2012. The therapist notes do not match her current testimony, which evolved several times. She originally told her therapist that she was in her late teens, which would have exonerated Kavanaugh. She has provided zero evidence other than her word. Kavanaugh succeeded in passing 6 FBI background checks.
Dr Ford STILL has not filed charges with the police on her accusation. It would be the police who would investigate such an alleged crime.
Democrats keep criticizing Republicans for not investing this crime, so why have Dems not made a complaint with the local police to investigate this?
No one has any fear of an FBI investigation. The truth is not something to be feared. The FBI said this was under the jurisdiction of the police. Perhaps they have not filed charges with the police because she cannot remember where, when, and the people she said where there contradict her story.
Also, George Bush reopened the FBI investigation because Clarence Thomas was accused of a federal crime – harassment of an employee as a federal employee.
Karen, I share your dismay in waiting so long to bring these allegations forward. That said the allegations are what they are. I’m not certain why you believe there is no corroborating testimony. There is and it has been reported on. Further three ofhter women have come forward with similar allegations which also have corroboration. There is also a larger group of women who have tried to report their experiences to the congress member and have been blown off. All of these allegations should be investigated by law enforcement.
Ms. Ford repeated has requested that the FBI investigate her claims. It is the FBI who refused to do so and perhaps it is the FBI who fears the truth.
Not reporting sexual assault until much later in life (if ever) is extremely common. In the cases of priest abuse several states actually eliminated or at least extended their satutes of limitations for sex crimes because so many victims needed a very long time before they were able to report. This included adult as well as child victims.
I agree, the truth is not something to be feared, so let’s seek it out.
Jill:
“I’m not certain why you believe there is no corroborating testimony.” Because every single person she named as having been present at the party directly contradicted her story. Everyone, included her friend, said it never happened. Her friend, whom she said was present at the party where the attack occurred, said she never met Kavanaugh and had never attended a party where he was.
That is pretty clearly “no corroborating testimony.”
Karen,
I think you have not read about her husband, for example, or other people’s testimony.
As to terrible things remaining hidden for years being impossible, think again. Things up to and including murder have been hidden for years. Just one example is what happened at several Catholic orphanages. Beatings, rapes, torture and murder. That info only more recently came out. When victims did try to speak out, they were pilloried by the Church.
Ms. Ford is receiving death threats and her family has had to vacate their home in fear. Brett is also receiving death threats. This is outrageous behavior and completely wrong. Look at all the misinformation out there and notice that you are psychologically pillorying Ms. Ford on this thread. I say, let things come out, then make your decision. You are making judgments without allowing facts to first come out. We all have preliminary judgments but justice requires that we allow all facts to surface before any real judgment can be made.
I think you have not read about her husband, for example, or other people’s testimony.
Her husband cannot corroborate her account of anything that happened in 1982 and there are no ‘other people’. Her account of the event has been protean, but every name she’s offered so far as a person present has denied her account. She’s also contended a chap named Christopher Garrett introduced her to BK. We’ll see what he has to say if anything.
Did I hear correctly that Ford attended parties after the alleged incident that were also attended by BK and/or Judge? If that is correct, wouldn’t a follow up question be appropriate; like what did you do when you him/them?
Corroborating testimony isn’t needed in a sexual assault case. If a woman goes to a police station and says a specific man raped her, he can be convicted on that alone.
But this is not a criminal trial, so trial procedures do not apply.
If a woman goes to a police station and says a specific man raped her, he can be convicted on that alone.
If the jury wishes to roll that way. Few cases are determined by petty jury trials.
Your analogy stinks of course. This particular woman didn’t go to the police, she went to her congressman. She went 36 years after the fact. She accused a man there’s no evidence she’d ever met. Her accusation could be shaded a half-dozen different ways and calling it a ‘sexual assault’ is stealing a base.
Proceed with your next Correct the Record talking point.
well this lady never went to a police station so that doesnt apply to her for sure
MarryA – however, in this case, she said she had people who would back up her story of being there with Kavanaugh and none of them have. None. No one. Zip. Nada. She could not find one person who was supposedly there who would support her story. Which is why I am going with the original ‘repressed memory’ story of 4 guy and she is late teens. And even that is iffy.
BTW, I had problems with college my freshman and sophomore years and I was NOT groped by Brett Kavanaugh or anyone else with my consent. 😉 My bridge schedule and theatre design schedule got in the way of my class schedule.
I know of 2 other women.
Ramirez made an accusation, and then called classmates and admitted she was not sure at all if it was Kavanaugh. She hoped they could job her memory, but they had no idea what she was talking about.
So Ramirez’s accusation was disproven.
Swetnick claimed a completely different, not similar story. She said that he ran a gang rape ring in which girls at parties were drugged and raped. She said she attended at least 10 parties during one year in which he led this ring. Strange, that she would keep going to gang rape parties. No one substantiated her accusation. It would require hundreds of people to keep silent. His calendar does not even allow for him to have attended that many parties anyway. She was also 2 years older than him, so why was she at high school parties?
Her accusation is so outrageous that it is not credible. The drugging and raping apparently happened in the open. If she saw girls drugged and raped, then she would have to see them drug the drinks, know what was in the drinks, and then stand there and watch a train of guys rape a girl. She did not help the girls. Did not take them to a hospital. Did not warn other girls. And then she went to 10 of these parties. If girls were drugged and raped right out in the open, then why would girls keep going to these parties? The only explanations have already been voiced online – either she made the entire thing up, or these were consensual orgies, or she ran a sex trafficking ring. Those are the only explanations for why she would observe gang rapes over and over and over again, as well as know what was being put into their drinks.
She has to prove her accusation, because one cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that you never murdered someone ever in your life, because you do not have alibis for every single day of your life from birth on. No one does. That is why our legal system requires the accuser to prove the accusation.
How is anyone to believe that Kavanaugh ran a gang rape ring for months and no one knew about it, no one talked about it, and 6 FBI investigations never uncovered it, and no one ever voiced an accusation as he rose through federal court.
Jill – it is not, I repeat, Not, a federal case. It actually falls under local or state law. Dr. Ford should be filing a report with the correct city. However, she connect remember where it happened, or when it happened, or who was there when it happened.
Here is Dr. Ford’s challenge for turning it over to any police department. Those therapist notes become evidence. Her polygraph(s) become evidence. All the coaching that took place become evidence. The reason she was in family therapy becomes evidence. Her school records become evidence. Those hinky yearbooks become evidence.
Maryland authorities might record some information, but they’d do nothing with it because any prosecution of the offender is time-barred.
Paul, Actually, the FBI would need to investigate these allegations as part of Brett’s background check. I hope she will go to local police as well.
Jill – as a normal process the FBI does not investigate anything before age 18. I have answered questions for 3 investigations.
They have nothing to investigate. It is one woman’s claim he assaulted her 36 years ago.
The reason she was in family therapy becomes evidence.
yes, we wonder about that one. maybe she has a troubling history of extramarital liasons? i only ask and speculate, no proof or knowledge
priest and other types of minor abuse involve really different issues.
these are peer to peer allegations. no power differential at the time.
trying again under my husband’s e-mail, this is Jill to Karen
Karen, I share your dismay in waiting so long to bring these allegations forward. That said the allegations are what they are. I’m not certain why you believe there is no corroborating testimony. There is and it has been reported on. Further three ofhter women have come forward with similar allegations which also have corroboration. There is also a larger group of women who have tried to report their experiences to the congress member and have been blown off. All of these allegations should be investigated by law enforcement.
Ms. Ford repeated has requested that the FBI investigate her claims. It is the FBI who refused to do so and perhaps it is the FBI who fears the truth.
Not reporting sexual assault until much later in life (if ever) is extremely common. In the cases of priest abuse several states actually eliminated or at least extended their satutes of limitations for sex crimes because so many victims needed a very long time before they were able to report. This included adult as well as child victims.
I agree, the truth is not something to be feared, so let’s seek it out.
Ms. Ford repeated has requested that the FBI investigate her claims. It is the FBI who refused to do so and perhaps it is the FBI who fears the truth.
Don’t be stupid. The FBI does not investigate exceedingly stale (36 year old) allegations of violations of state law. They have nothing to investigate other than taking down her account and the account of anyone she names.
DSS – she showed up, I lost a dollar.
DSS – she is flanked by McCabe.
P.S. It must be considered that an actual perpetrator has all the details to give to these men.
P.S. It must be considered that the accuser is Just Making Stuff Up.
Where’s Benson?
Olly,
There are multiple women who claims they have been raped or assaulted. There are contemporaneous accounts. Of course we cannot tell what happened unless these claims are investigated honestly. You don’t know these claims are just made up, you simply hope they are. Only an investigation can resolve what are now multiple claims of abuse.
Jill, there aren’t. There is no reason to believe given her residence and state in life that Julia Swetnick ever set eyes on Brett Kavanaugh or Mark Judge. That aside, her tale is so lurid as to be beyond belief. As for Ramirez, the accusation was coaxed out of her after ‘working with’ a lawyer for days on end. Another accusation is a poison pen letter and another has been retracted.
And, again, no one has provided evidence that Judge and Kavanaugh would have known Christine Blasey from a cord of wood.
These allegations are patent slanders. You subscribe to them because you’re a stupid fanatic.
The NYT did not publish Ramirez’s story because they discovered that after she made the accusation, she phoned classmates and admitted she really wasn’t sure at all that it was Kavanaugh. She was hoping they could jog her memory, but they could not.
There was NOT any contemporary evidence of Swetnick’s accusation. No police report made at the time (which would be contemporary evidence), no accusation made at the time…not a word of it.
Somehow, we are to believe that Kavanaugh was running a gang rape ring for quite some time, and no one, anywhere, said a word of it. Girls continued to go to the parties, where they were drugged and raped. But they kept attending. Swetnick said she watched girls get drugged and raped, did nothing, and continued to go to rape parties. What was she, some kind of sex trafficking madame? What kind of person watches girls get drugged and rapped, at least time different occasions by her testimony, does nothing about it, and continues to attend? And then, amazingly, she got drugged and raped herself. Weird. One wouldn’t’ expect that to happen, after her watching brutal gang rapes over and over and over again. Again, no one knows of this or corroborates her story. No history of such allegations over the years.
Still no charges filed with the police, who could be investigating this all this time. Of course, she would be at risk of filing a false police report.
Karen S – only Tommy Wiseau or an Italian prosecutor would write the script that Swetnick put together.
let the FBI investigate the tardy false claims i welcome it
and let those people all get prosecuted for false information if they lie and make stuff up. let’s see how many of their lawyers will let them make sworn statements to the fBI., call this bluff anytime, it’s a joke
Of course the appropriate agency to investigate these allegations is the law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction. The appropriate agency investigating the background of Judge Kavanaugh completed their investigation and the Advise and Consent process of the Senate has been completed. We have a process to impeach a sitting justice on the Supreme Court. They should proceed with the vote per the rules of the committee and the Senate. Should the appropriate law enforcement agencies conclude from their investigations that the allegations are to be referred to the district attorney for actual charges, then a court of law will work their due process. If found guilty, then the Senate will have their grounds for impeachment.
Good point, Olly.
offshore bank accounts? what?
you’re just making up garbage now., why, the slander machine method of putting things up for the internet google spiders to see now. nice try Jill
Jill:
As repeated multiple times before:
Compare and contrast Catholic priest pedophile scandal:
1. Decades long history and evidence of pedophile predation among Catholic priests. Administration records, police reports, decades-long similar complaints, eye witnesses, etc.
2. Catholic priests were adults in position of moral authority with power over the boys
3. Catholic church admitted wrongdoing and paid out millions of dollars to victims
Kavanaugh
1. Zero evidence
2. Zero discussion of alleged crime for 30 years until 2012, when she told therapist that it happened when she was in her late teens (not 15) with 4 boys in the room (not 2), did not name Kavanaugh, and claimed it was a repressed memory
3. Zero eye witnesses of the alleged event that she named corroborated her story. In fact, all said it did not happen. Even her close friend said she did not know Kavanaugh and had never attended a party with him
4. No pattern of behavior with similar accusations going back for years. There were zero sexual assault allegations made against Kavanaugh until just before the judicial committee was going to vote.
5. She claims she was 15 at the time because after she got her license she liked to drive herself. So, she never went with friends in their car anywhere to a single party in high school? Never? Not even once? If she was 16 or older, Kavanaugh would not have been in the area. She was basing her age on deductive reasoning, but no one remembers their transportation to every single party they ever attended. “I liked to drive myself” after she got her license does not mean that she never was a passenger even a single time.
6. Kavanaugh has denied the accusations under penalty of perjury. There was no admission of guilt, and no payouts to victims spanning years.
No, does everyone have this straight? Any questions? Are you clear on the false equivalency at this point?
I would just like to see one just one Dem stand up and say “I disagree with what my party has done to the process” and “I believe in innocent until proven guilty”. I know it won’t happen because there are no more Dems with integrity.
Didn’t hear any Republicans objecting to Merrick Garland being denied a hearing.
And, where do you Trumpsters get off assuming that Dr. Ford, Deborah Ramirez and the other accusers were recruited by Democrats? Where’s your proof? For those of you who question what value there would be for an FBI investigation, they could look into whether the accusers have ulterior motives as well as other things affecting their credibility. Dr. Ford and Ms Ramirez have requested an investigation. Why have their requests been denied?
Why should anyone but Merrick Garland (or a partisan Democrat) care about whether or not he had a hearing?
This is in response to Zambini’s comment about Democrats needing to step up and say they disagree with what “their party” is doing. Several flaws with this reasoning: 1. Democrats did not cause the accusers to come forward, but since you like to think so because that’s what Hannity says, let’s let the FBI investigate whether there are ulterior motives at play here. 2. Barak Obama was elected by a majority of Americans to do the job of President. One thing Presidents do is nominate justices for the SCOTUS. He nominated Merrick Garland. McConnell and the Republicans took this nomination away from the American people solely for political reasons. Did any Republicans object to this political ploy to stack the SCOTUS, contrary to the wishes of the majority of Americans?
Most Americans object to Republicans pushing ahead to force Kavanaugh onto the SCOTUS before the midterm elections. If any party is guilty of playing politics and shameful tactics, it’s the Republicans.
You’re a bore, Natacha. One thing that’s mildly interesting is your capacity to be wrong – all the time and about everything.
oh please most americans. not. most new yorkers maybe i will give you that. if that. or most la scriptwriters who dig this whole drama, the rest of us are sick of it
I agree in part, but mostly I disagree.
(1) I agree that the Republicans engaged in bare knuckled politics when they denied Garland a hearing. It’s to be expected that the Dems, when they have their chance, to return the favor. I disagree with the “at all costs” approach the Dems have taken.
(2) “And, where do you Trumpsters get off assuming that Dr. Ford, Ramirez, and the other accusers were recruited by Democrats? Where’s your proof?”
The Dems leaked her name to the press against her will! Another accuser said she spoke up because the Dems were investigating everyone around her. Avenatti and others who have publicly expressed extreme animus towards Trump are leading the charge.
(3) The proper jurisdiction for these charges is in the criminal/civil courts. For that to happen, a complaint must be filed. So far, NONE of the accusers have filed a criminal complaint or civil lawsuit. An “FBI investigation” is not the route for determining the veracity of the accusations made.
(1) I agree that the Republicans engaged in bare knuckled politics when they denied Garland a hearing.
There was nothing bareknuckled about it. They simply ignored the nomination and left Garland alone.
While we’re at it, it’s atypical for Supreme Court nominations to be made or approved that late in a President’s term, and it hasn’t been done any time recently for a President scheduled to leave office in short order. Earl Warren’s scheme in 1968 to issue a contingent resignation so he could depart the court (if LBJ could appoint his successor) or remain on it (if needs be) triggered resistance which prevented his slated successor from being confirmed. The Senate did approve an SC nomination in early 1932; the thing is, at that time Congress was not in session about 40% of the time and the earliest they could have held hearings on any appointment would have been in December 1931. Pres. Roosevelt did see an appointment approved at the beginning of 1940; he also had a majority in the Senate to do it; that’s the only case in the last century.
Don’t know whether Democrats “leaked” her name, but did they RECRUIT her? Where is the proof that Democrats paid, coerced or illegally or otherwise procured the statements of any of these accusers, or had anything to do with them coming forward?
Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans do not want Brett Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS. Most Americans didn’t vote for Trump either. He got Gorsuch, but now that control of Congress will, according to polls, shift in November, there should be no new SCOTUS Justice named at this time. That would be true even without all of the issues involving Kavanaugh.
BTW, as to Gorsuch, he also went to Georgetown Prep in the same general era as Kavanaugh. Nobody ever said he was a party-hearty drunk who disrespected women. Kavanaugh’s behavior, and I mean the undisputed part, like the heavy drinking he admits to, is apparently not normative behavior for that institution.
the majority can drag its heels like they did on Garland. that’s part of their prerogative. i know you guys dont like it but trust me Dems will use every procedural tool they have and Repubs better do so too.
There is no statute of limitations on felony sexual assault in Maryland, so it is astonishing that these men would admit to being the assailants. Have they received immunity from possible state charges? Have they consulted with a criminal defense attorney? If not, I find these admissions highly suspect. I suppose they could be the legitimate confessions of two conscientious individuals who don’t want K blamed for their actions. Or, they could be a couple of opportunists who are receiving a million bucks from some political operatives to take the fall, take the money, and find themselves on a nice island somewhere beyond the reach of extradition. I do believe they should be identified and questioned so that their credibility can be assessed.
The notion that this was a ‘felony sexual assault’ is stealing a base, TIN.
Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 5-107
“Except as provided in § 5-106 of this subtitle, § 1-303 of the Environment Article , and § 8-1815 of the Natural Resources Article , a prosecution or suit for a fine, penalty, or forfeiture shall be instituted within one year after the offense was committed.”
oh no prosecutor is going to try this Ford story as a real crime, nobody has to worry about that. it’s worthless for a real prosecutor with lots of work to do.
and all these guys are probably saying is that it was consensual. so no crime. which is why she never reported it. for sure, nobody would try it.
If their admission is politically motivated, then they might admit to being the perpetrators to the judicial committee, and then recant if they were criminally charged.
Or, perhaps they required immunity from prosecution to come forward.
What I want to know is did they really do it or not? Can THEY prove it? Because no one seems able to prove a darn thing so far.
Can I also add that I am disappointed that the attorney is only able to ask a few mild questions 5 minutes at a time. So far, all she’s done is verify some of her statements, like did you write this letter? Did you live here? She has not questioned her story at all yet. If she only wears her sex crimes prosecutor hat, then she will not question her story at all, but rather only his.
Karen: you’ve written, what, about 10 pages of text about this just today. Dr. Ford must really be getting under your skin because your arguments are so obviously biased against her, her appearance, her demeanor, everything about her. Deep down, you know she’s telling the truth, don’t you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUVw-IbGawo&app=desktop
people see though this
Anonymous – there is something that just doesn’t ring right with Dr. Ford’s created stories. I will give her the repressed memory (although I am really against that in general) but that puts Kavanaugh out of the frame and puts her in her late teens. After that she is just creatively filling in blanks and making the story fit what she needs. You need it to be 1982, okay its 1982. You need to be Kavanaugh, okay it will be Kavanaugh pawing me (I read Judge’s book).
They went VERY easy on Ford’s questioning. No questions about her drinking, her promiscuity, her inability to recall key details or explain why her friend she said was in attendance at the party denies even knowing Kavanaugh
They’ve questioned Kavanaugh about his yearbook. Did you read about Chrissy’s yearbook? Of course not.
It’s all there….binge drinking party girl, ‘boys and beer’..promiscuity..and somehow it was all ‘scrubbed’ from social media and the internet…
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/09/27/blasey_ford_yearbooks.html
“A committee staffer told RealClearInvestigations, “We have her yearbooks,” which had been mysteriously scrubbed from the Web prior to Ford coming out with her allegations. “She will not make a good witness.”
The source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, noted that the annual class books feature a photo of an underage Ford attending at least one party, alongside a caption boasting of girls passing out from binge drinking. Her yearbooks also openly reference sexually promiscuous behavior by the girls, including targeting boys at Kavanaugh’s alma mater, Georgetown Prep, an all-boys school in the affluent Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C. Ford attended neighboring Holton-Arms School, an all-girls academy.”
Is it any wonder why most capable individuals will not run for office? The pay isn’t great if you choose to accept the position’s salary as sole compensation. Why would any reasonable person put up with these constant attacks and on the other hand be associated with dishonorable individuals that make up most of Congress or other political positions?
the truth is a lot of politicians are sociopaths who have no problem lying all the time and could care less what people think. we normies can’t even imagine what it’s like
https://www.amazon.com/Snakes-Suits-When-Psychopaths-Work/dp/0061147893
Moreover, the lack of details here is unfair to Ford.
Wow! This entire saga began with a Ford account lacking details, and somehow this latest wrinkle is unfair to Ford?
The desperation on the part of the Democrats is palpable and disgusting.
Well, why should the Republicans play any fairer than the Democrats? What is good for the goose is good for the gander!!!
Schedule the vote.
The one constant thing about anything that goes on DC, including SCOTUS confirmations, is that everyone associated with the process is lying.
The day the infallible universal lie detector is invented is the day that DC gets put out of our misery.
This entire episode is beyond absurd! It makes me realize that what is killing our democracy is the bathroom wall antics of the left and the media. Enough! Just get on with it!