The Washington Post reports Writer of Confidential Brett Kavanaugh Letter, Speaks Out About Her Allegation of Sexual Assault.
>Earlier this summer, Christine Blasey Ford wrote a confidential letter to a senior Democratic lawmaker alleging that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her more than three decades ago, when they were high school students in suburban Maryland. Since Wednesday, she has watched as that bare-bones version of her story became public without her name or her consent, drawing a blanket denial from Kavanaugh and roiling a nomination that just days ago seemed all but certain to succeed.
>Now, Ford has decided that if her story is going to be told, she wants to be the one to tell it.
>Speaking publicly for the first time, Ford said that one summer in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh and a friend — both “stumbling drunk,” Ford alleges — corralled her into a bedroom during a gathering of teenagers at a house in Montgomery County.
>Ford said she was able to escape when Kavanaugh’s friend and classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling. She said she ran from the room, briefly locked herself in a bathroom and then fled the house.
According to the Post, Ford had contacted Senator Dianne Feinstein, the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, in but Ford wanted to keep her identity a secret.
Feinstein leaked some details and Ford then decided to come into the open.
Both Kavanaugh and Judge deny the incident. “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time,” said Kavanaugh.
Pelosi Proud of Ford
Courage? What Courage?
To praise someone's courage, one has to assume the underlying story is true.
Is it? How the hell would Pelosi know?
There are a few holes in Ford's story. Returning to the Washington Post:
>Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.
Now Ford says “I thought he might inadvertently kill me.”
Well one never knows what may be going on in someone's mind, so it's possible. But even assuming the event took place, that charge is likely more than a bit exaggerated. The therapist's notes do not mention it.
Today we discover Ford has not only a political motive but a non-political motive.
PowerLIne reports Kavanaugh's Mother Ruled Against Accuser's Parents.
>It looks like Brett Kavanaugh’s mother, Judge Martha Kavanaugh, ruled against the parents of Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accuses Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. Court documents show the losing party in a foreclosure case Martha Kavanaugh heard to be Ralph and Paula Blasey of Potomac, Maryland. They appear to be Christine Blasey Ford’s parents.
>The fact that Kavanaugh’s mother ruled against Ford’s parents doesn’t prove Ford is lying about the conduct of the son. Her allegation, coming so many years after the fact and without a description of when or where the event supposedly occurred, is probably not susceptible to being ruled out conclusively. But there now seems to be a motive, beyond partisan politics, for Ford to make up or significantly embellish her story so long after the “fact.”
>In any event, the fact that Ford’s story, having been presented so late and with little detail as to time and place, is probably not susceptible to being ruled out means that, if not “ruled in” conclusively, the story should not preclude Kavanaugh’s confirmation. We have statutes of limitations for a reason.
>Finally, unless we accept the view that Kavanaugh truly attempted to rape this girl, I don’t believe his conduct provides a basis for rejecting his nomination. Kavanaugh was still a teenager. More than five dozen women who knew him at the time vouch for his behavior. His female law clerks consider him a gentleman and a mentor.
>So even assuming that, on one occasion, the teenage Kavanaugh, having had too much to drink, engaged in serious misconduct towards this girl, I fail to see why this should bar him from the Supreme Court.
>I don’t assume this occurred, however. It seems more likely that Ms. Ford has invented or substantially embellished this story — out of political bias, animus towards the family because of the court case, or both.
Court of Public Opinion
I agree with PowerLine on all accounts.
There are many holes in Ford's story. The males involved both deny it and the woman did not want to pursue it until Feinstein forced the issue into the open. Ford has both political and non-political reasons to press the case now.
I am neither dismissing the allegation outright, nor defending Kavanaugh if it's true.
But the bottom line is this case is being decided on the basis of an allegation of what a clumsy guy did in high school while drunk. The allegations are not of a rape, but of loutish, drunken behavior by a 17-year-old.
This does not in any way reflect on his suitability as a Supreme Court justice.
Naturally, this puts the two Republican women Senators in a tough spot. Senator Susan Collins (R Maine) has already been threatened with donations to any Democratic opponent if she votes for Kavanaugh.
The irony in this absurd setup is that Kavanaugh may be willing to let Roe v Wade stand. It's highly likely Trump's next nominee would not do so.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock