I don’t think she is a liar as I do think something probably happened to her at a teen drinking party many decades ago…I think she got bad advice now as a middle aged woman and unfortunately got used and taken advantage of (again in life perhaps). But there is a small hope in my mind that she gets some good advice and shows up Monday.
Reasonable people can disagree without being liars, mom2twogirls. Personally, I happen to believe that activity in high school is not relevant to an assessment of a middle aged person’s character, as I have seen several examples of both boys and girls who were utter disasters as teens turn into fine upstanding citizens. You may disagree, but that doesn’t mean I am in any way insensitive to sexual assault. There are inconsistencies between Ford’s therapist’s notes and Ford’s account. Pointing those out doesn’t mean I tolerate rape. Actually, I happen to believe both parties are telling the truth-that is the way she recalled it, 30 odd years later, and he honestly has no recollection of the event.
I don’t think that an allegation of attempted rape is trivial or that such conduct is acceptable. I also don’t believe that boys will be boys is a viable excuse. I also don’t support Kavanaugh’s nomination or many of his positions. Lastly, I had something very similar happen to me when I was 17 and I wasn’t drunk. It’s been over 40 years and I have never discussed it with anyone in my life, except my husband. I, therefore, completely understand the accuser’s reluctance to come forward until her assailant was in a place of being elevated to the Supreme Court. People have referenced the lifetime tenure of SCOTUS, but Kavanaugh is already a federal judge and has lifetime tenure in that position. It may be that the accuser was not aware of his being considered for the federal bench as those appointments are not as well publicized as SCOTUS slots and that is why she didn’t come forward at that time. I did read, however, that Ford spoke of this episode a number of years ago in a marriage retreat or some such, which lends an air of credibility to her statements.
I do want to say, despite all that, that people can grow and mature and change. There has apparently been no hint of sexual scandal, bullying or similar activity in Kavanaugh’s life since HS and I think that it might be that he was in fact just a drunken teenager full of misdirected hormones when this incident happened. I don’t know that this episode, standing alone and in and of itself, is sufficient to deny him a seat if the Senate finds him otherwise suitable. This is being said with all prayers and hopes that he isn’t confirmed because I personally detest almost every position he espouses. I just have qualms about judging a person’s entire life solely on one incident from HS which was seemingly never repeated. Unlike the situations of Harvey Weinstein or even Les Moonves, multiple other women have not come forward to share similar stories. Should more women come forward with credible evidence, I would reassess my view.
And also to the House, thru her local Congressperson. Calling the WaPo tip line is like throwing a bone to a hungry pack of dogs. Someone with a doctorate could not be that naive to not realize that a dozen future Woodward & Bernsteins would be all over that call to enhance their own careers. To me, claiming that she wanted to remain anonymous – after notifying the House, the Senate and the WaPo – is what really lacks credibility. (Really disappointed in DiFi, and I’ve been a long-time supporter of hers.)
Plenty of Congressional staffers would have seen that ‘confidential’ letter, and any of them would be more than happy to use it to win the next election. That’s just politics.
The alleged conduct is far beyond any statute of limitation that could plausibly be applied under Maryland law, and is not even of the type that the FBI would, or could, investigate: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/can-allegation-against-kavanaugh-lead-to-criminal-charges/2018/09/18/1b5298ea-bb73-11e8-adb8-01125416c102_story.html
Amusing video interview here of Joe DiGenova, former US Attorney for the District of Columbia (1983-88):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGWaY2OJ-b4
(Quote happens at 1:00ff.)
Maybe the best outcome of this whole mess is the warning to kids that what they say/do at any time can have consequences decades later. I’m not entirely sure that is a good thing, but that is the way it is, so act accordingly.
Like I said earlier I can’t believe she really wants the FBI in her business but heh she isn’t me and I would not want the FBI sticking their noses in my life especially that far back in my past. I thought it truly bizarre that demand was made and perhaps a tad naieve if she thought they wouldn’t be looking at her…they have been all over Kavanaugh previously so an investigation is going to be about her even if that doesn’t get said publically. The whole thing has been so bizarre from the get go…
My understanding is that Dr. Fords lawyer stated last week that she would be willing to testify in front of the senate committee. The committee responded by canceling the scheduled vote in order to schedule a date for her to testify. Sen. Grassle said they “offered her a public or a private hearing as well as staff-led interviews, whichever makes her more comfortable”. He also said they offered her multiple dates and she was not asked to sit at the same table as Kavanaugh. (That claim was made by her lawyer in a publicly-released letter, along with the lawyer’s claim that the only option offered was public testimony. Both not factual yet the media are reporting both of the lawyers statements today as if they were gospel).
When the chance to tell her story was offered, initially there was no response, then the ball was moved to – we won’t be there Monday, we think the FBI should investigate first. Why? As Sen Grassle said “nothing the FBI or any other investigator does would have any bearing on what Dr. Ford tells the committee”. I agree 100%. Her story is her story and should remain unchanged by any results of any investigation. Plus the Justice Dept stated yesterday the FBI will not investigate Ford’s allegation because “The allegation does not involve any potential federal crime”
If an investigation is agreed to, will the ball get moved again? I wish I could say I believe this is a legitimate claim and that the process has a shot at a reasonable resolution. I don’t. I think no amount of i’s dotted or t’s crossed would be good enough based on what I believe the true goal is.
I think the point of the investigation is that they would talk to more than the 2 of them. Specifically, there is a purported witness who should be required to give testemony. Either under oath to Congress or to the FBI - it is a crime to lie to either.
If it gets to that point, none of that ^^ would preclude her from showing up on Monday to tell her story, as her lawyer initially stated she would.
Did I not read somewhere that she said that she sought medical care after the alleged incident? If so, wouldn’t it be possible to provide those records in order to corroborate her allegation?
No, I don’t believe she sought care or told anyone. She has stated she was afraid that her parents would find out she attended a teen drinking party at 15.
Her letter says, “I have received medical treatment regarding the assault.” It doesn’t specify when, or the type of treatment.
Why should the supposed witness be required to testify? There is no actionable crime that can be investigate today. Moreover, the supposed witness has already said that he knows/remembers nothing about what Dr. Ford is claiming. What legal interest does the government have to compel him to testify?
Except that then the all male white committee majority would just announce after her testimony, “Move along, nothing to see here, let’s vote.” They surely aren’t going to ask the potential witness to testify unless they are pressured to do so before she testifies.
And the witness? He could easily be lying to the press. Get him under oath or on record with the FBI.
“Why should the supposed witness be required to testify? There is no actionable crime that can be investigate today. Moreover, the supposed witness has already said that he knows/remembers nothing about what Dr. Ford is claiming. What legal interest does the government have to compel him to testify?”
Agree
“And the witness? He could easily be lying to the press. Get him under oath or on record with the FBI.”
So could the accuser. Let’s get her on record with congress before deciding whether further action is warranted
Mark Judge’s statements weren’t just to the press, they were in writing to the Senate Judiciary Committee stating he had no recollection of the event and never saw the accused engage in such behavior. I would think a written statement is sufficient, as oral testimony would just be him repeating his statement.
Kavanaugh’s name was all over the place on the news in those days. (The delay in his confirmation lasted for three years.) If you really had been assaulted, wouldn’t you notice his name?
This is likely a reference to her discussion in therapy in 2012 about some supposed attack 30 years pior. The therapist’s notes do not refer to Kavanaugh specifically and are reported to not match the story now being told in important details.
There is no need to drag any potential witness into this and disrupt more lives. This is a hoax.
Again, under what federal law should he be compelled to testify? Don’t forget, that the alleged assault is a state (Maryland) crime, not federal. The FBI has no jurisdiction or reason to investigate even if the statue of limitations had not expired.
Shouldn’t we all have a right to be left alone by the federal government?
I could be incorrect, but I believe she was referring to a marriage counseling session 30 years later, when she said there were four boys involved.