Regarding the Mark Judge statement, you can give a written statement that is sworn to under oath - it’s an affidavit where you are sworn in by a notary. They are very common in legal proceedings. I assume that is what he gave the Senate. If it is proven that the statement is false, it would be a crime, although I don’t know if it would rise to the level of a felony.
I originally included the source link, but it was stripped out by the cc computer in the sky. (The link was a tweet from the Senate Committee, so I assume its legit and is easily searchable.)
Why? As of today, there are no witnessses willing to speak. And the principals have already said that they agree to be interviewed by the Senate Committee. Thus, the FBI would only be delaying the Committee interview.
And I believe that is a non-sequitur. If Judge K really believes that nothing happened, there is nothing to investigate. Why would he ask for an investigation to prove the null set?
I honestly can’t imagine not remembering details about a party I went to where something significant happened to me. I would never have gone to a party alone, I would have gone with my best friend. Who probably would have remembered some details, and would have been looking for me if I disappeared. I would have remembered who I went with, and where approximately it was located. I would think her friends at the time would have some answers. So this does sound unusually vague, especially if you are one who rarely goes to parties.
But I wonder if her lawyers (paid for by whom?) are going to detail what questions they will allow her to be asked.
Maybe I’ve watched too many seasons of House of Cards, but this whole thing stinks.
Stinks for Ford.
It is ridiculous that she wants him to testify first. Whatever happened to hearing the allegations first and then trying to refute them? Her lawyers want it completely bassackwards.
Any amount of questioning of Ms. Ford asking tough questions to probe her memory or her veracity will be labeled ‘victim shaming’. It’s becoming Kafkaesque.
Kavanaugh’s alma mater has now weighed in. Apologies if it has already been posted.
https://law.yale.edu/yls-today/news/open-letter-senate-judiciary-committee-yale-law-faculty
LOL, a google search of just first name on that list turns up the following anti-BK piece from August:
Three of the “Yale” open letter writers wrote that. Pure politics.
You could survey the law school faculties of the T14 and I’m sure the votes would come down to ~80% to non-confirm. And that would have been true two month ago. 
And that is the entire problem. Leaving aside this latest controversy, it is no longer a matter of “Is this nominee highly qualified?” It is completely about “Is this person a part of my tribe?”
The last non-partisan vote for the Supreme Court was with RBG who was confirmed 96-3. Then Breyer had 87 Senators approve, Roberts had 78, and everyone since has been confirmed with 50 or 60 votes. And of course Garland was never heard.
For those not part of the tribe, weaponizing anything that can be used against them is apparently now fair game.
I guess I would have assumed that his alma mater would have considered themselves part of his “tribe.” That it would be seen as a big coup to have one of their own on the SCOTUS. Clearly I was mistaken.
Nope. Most law school faculties are very, very liberal. Yale doesn’t care about the prestige. It has enough and it would bring down the wrath of every female on campus if they endoresed BK now.
The whole thing is political. I don’t know how many lawyers Yale has graduated in 20-30 years but odds are some of them are left leaning and would like nothing more than to see a left leaning judge on the Supreme Court. The saddest part is there is a woman who may very well have had something traumatic for her happen as a teenager who is being totally used and abused in the name of politics either of her own doing or totally by choice of very bad timing and we have by all known facts a man who has been an exemplary jurist whose wife and family is being tormented because of political optics and lunatic fringe.
The lunatics are tormenting Dr. Ford and her family too. That isnt one sided.
Yes, no argument there…probably should have said "is being totally used and abused in the name of politics either o fher own doing or totally by choice of very bad timing and who is being threatened by the lunatics " and so on.
On my way home from the office shortly - did she agree to a day and time today?
As far as Kavanaugh speaking first - that is just waaaay to Kafkaesque for me to even entertain. I’m sure there are plenty of lawyers laughing at the gutsiness of Ms. Ford’s attorney. Memo to her attorney: “She is accusing him or wrong-doing. You go first LOL.”
The FBI knows how to question people, perhaps in interviewing her (and him, and Judge) they can learn more. IDK, but it seems like a day here or there makes no difference. This is what the FBI does, after all.
I was raped at age 17. I do not know the building location or the street or anything other than it was vaguely near the train station I arrived at with a friend and I know that because we were taken there on foot (by the rapist). I remember most all of the details of what happened inside that hostel, but not what the outside of the building or the street looked like. @busdriver11 I hope that helps you understand, a little how memories of traumatic events can work.
FWIW I didn’t file charges either, didn’t even report it. I left the city the next day and didn’t look back, though I did years later tell my husband about it, and my therapist too.
Now that I think on it, I’d be hard pressed to remember the location of many parties I attended in high school, and that’s not about alcohol at all - I rarely drank in HS. It was just a long time ago and I haven’t been to that neighborhood more than a handful of times since i graduated in the 80s.
“I believe them both.”
This is so important. They might both be telling the truth about their memories. It’s possible – in fact, common – for our recollections to be honest and wrong.
Sure, but members of the Committee also knows how to interview folks, and if there are only two to interview, why waste the FBI’s time, unless delay is the real goal?
I am so sorry that happened to you. Blasey Ford went to a party. She heard about it at the pool or somewhere, she got herself there, she claims to have drank one beer…very, very different situation than what happened to you. She’s not telling everything she knows in my opinion. Did she, at age 15 go to the party alone with no friends? Was no one from her school at this party? No one she knew but the guys? She has not said so. There are many, many, many missing pieces of information from BEFORE her assault occurred. Maybe it’s the mom in me having raised 3 teenagers, but something happened to her and she isn’t being truthful or she isn’t telling everything she knows. I can almost understand not knowing what weekend and what year some random party took place (although if partying was not frequent for her, hard to believe she can’t pinpoint the year and maybe the month). She needs to put everything she knows on the table only than can the person she accused address anything. Otherwise his testimony is going to be very short…very, very short and really I can’t imagine any lawyer allowing an accused to “talk first”…really silly.