Merged Kavanaugh/Ford OpinionComment threads for Oct 1

The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general, and especially much more information about the therapy sessions in which, by her own account, “she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.”

If you are in the process of derailing a Supreme Court nominee based on otherwise unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct thirty-six years ago, and in that process giving the nominee a reputation as a rapist, it seems to me you have the moral obligation to either turn over all relevant evidence, or withdraw your allegation. In the absence of that evidence and any corroboration beyond her say-so, if I were a Senator I would ignore the allegations.

Rachel Mitchell Memo Lists Weaknesses in Ford Claim: READ | Heavy.com
You want her to turn over such private documents yet Republicans refuse to unleash the FBI into a real investigation? God talk about two faced hypocrites. Typical!

Hey Deantard, Trump, a Republican ordered the FBI investigation. Do you ever get tired of putting your foot in your mouth? BTW - why didn’t that wrinkled old Feinstein ever request a FBI investigation when she received this allegation back in July?
 
The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general,
Your subjective opinion carries no legal weight and violates a multitude of citizen rights.
What rights does having to prove your mental state violate? What right does having to prove your baseless claims violate?
 
The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general, and especially much more information about the therapy sessions in which, by her own account, “she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.”

If you are in the process of derailing a Supreme Court nominee based on otherwise unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct thirty-six years ago, and in that process giving the nominee a reputation as a rapist, it seems to me you have the moral obligation to either turn over all relevant evidence, or withdraw your allegation. In the absence of that evidence and any corroboration beyond her say-so, if I were a Senator I would ignore the allegations.

Rachel Mitchell Memo Lists Weaknesses in Ford Claim: READ | Heavy.com
You're suggesting she's mentally ill now? Good one.
of course she is. she was seeing a shrink. Right?

I wonder who wrote her script and she does have that pathetic spaced out look..

It's a shame the Democrats screwed her over... I kinda felt sorry for her.

She does seem pretty old and worn out to have kidlings..
 
The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general, and especially much more information about the therapy sessions in which, by her own account, “she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.”

If you are in the process of derailing a Supreme Court nominee based on otherwise unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct thirty-six years ago, and in that process giving the nominee a reputation as a rapist, it seems to me you have the moral obligation to either turn over all relevant evidence, or withdraw your allegation. In the absence of that evidence and any corroboration beyond her say-so, if I were a Senator I would ignore the allegations.

Rachel Mitchell Memo Lists Weaknesses in Ford Claim: READ | Heavy.com

How about we get her cell phone records, and get Feinsteins too, we might have to ask the Chinese for a complete copy of Feinsteins.
 
The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general,
Your subjective opinion carries no legal weight and violates a multitude of citizen rights.
What rights does having to prove your mental state violate? What right does having to prove your baseless claims violate?
First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.
 
The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general,
Your subjective opinion carries no legal weight and violates a multitude of citizen rights.
you mean like the right to face your accuser?
the right to be innocent until proven guilty?

funny...the left only gives a fuck about rights when it suits their purposes.
Kavanaugh has not been charged with a crime, hence, his legal rights are not being jeopardized or challenged. He is, in fact, being given the opportunity to challenge allegations made by his accuser even though there is no real law to protect a person from another citizens allegations of wrongdoing other than civil actions. Kavanaugh is applying for a job. He is not on criminal trial. If he was applying for a job as a landscaper and someone told you to keep your doors locked because he was a thief, you would not have to prove he was a thief. You could decide not to hire him based on the comment and allegation of one person. Your subjective opinion would suffice legally to deny the applicant a job.

But it's the highest court of the land. The FBI MUST investigate her therapists notes recordings and any electronic correspondence as well
 
Three Words:

Sub

Peen

Ahhh
Which Republicans won’t do. They don’t want people to know the truth. Look at all the classmates of Kavanaugh. Republicans want desperately to keep them quiet.


The FBI doesn't have subpoena power when conducting background checks.
This is no longer a back ground check now is it?

Yes it is. A supplemental background check.
The FBI only does 2 things.
Background checks and investigations of federal crimes.
There have been no charges filed in this case and if they were it wouldn't be federal.
so you're of the opinion that a seventeen year old boy loses all credibility cause you said so?

Where did I say that?

I'm 100% behind Kavanaugh.
 
The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general, and especially much more information about the therapy sessions in which, by her own account, “she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.”

If you are in the process of derailing a Supreme Court nominee based on otherwise unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct thirty-six years ago, and in that process giving the nominee a reputation as a rapist, it seems to me you have the moral obligation to either turn over all relevant evidence, or withdraw your allegation. In the absence of that evidence and any corroboration beyond her say-so, if I were a Senator I would ignore the allegations.

Rachel Mitchell Memo Lists Weaknesses in Ford Claim: READ | Heavy.com


That is, again, easy.......

She is lying.

In the real world, not this upside down world, she would never have been allowed to appear at a hearing with so little to back up her story...she is lucky she isn't in jail for perjury....

Prosecutor That Questioned Ford Shreds Her Case In 5 Page Memo

1. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened:

  • In a July 6 text to the Washington Post, she said it happened in the “mid 1980s.”
  • In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the “early 80s.”
  • Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one “high school summer in early 80’s,” but she crossed out the word “early” for reasons she did not explain.
  • A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the “summer of 1982.”
  • Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her “late teens.” But she told the Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review.
  • While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year
2. Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name:

  • No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes.
  • No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes.
  • Dr. Ford’s husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.
  • In any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure of abuse is common so this is not dispositive.
3. When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific:

  • Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a “sexual assault” before they were married.
  • But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim of “physical abuse” at the beginning of their marriage.
  • She testified that, both times, she was referring to the same incident.
4. Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account:

  • She does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it.
  • She does not remember how she got to the party.
  • She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity.
  • Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.
    • Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.
    • She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.
    • She also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
    • Dr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she did not look like she had been attacked.
    • But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver.
    • Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.
  • She does, however, remember small, distinct details from the party unrelated to the assault. For example, she testified that she had exactly one beer at the party and was taking no medication at the time of the alleged assault.

5. Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend:

  • Dr. Ford has named three people other than Judge Kavanaugh who attended the party— Mark Judge, Patrick “PJ” Smyth, and her lifelong friend Leland Keyser (née Ingham). Dr. Ford testified to the Committee that another boy attended the party, but that she could not remember his name. No others have come forward.
  • All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee, Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “imply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”
    • Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.


6. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault:

  • According to her letter to Senator Feinstein, Dr. Ford heard Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge talking to other partygoers downstairs while she was hiding in the bathroom after the alleged assault. But according to her testimony, she could not hear them talking to anyone.
    • In her letter, she stated, “I locked the door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stairwell, at which point other persons at the house were talking with them.”
    • Kavanaugh or Mark Judge turned up the music in the bedroom so that the people downstairs could not hear her scream. She testified that, after the incident, she ran into the bathroom, locked the door, and heard them going downstairs. But she maintained that she could not hear their conversation with others when they got downstairs. Instead, she testified that she “assum[ed]” a conversation took place.
  • Her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.
    • According to The Washington Post’s account of her therapy notes, there were four boys in the bedroom in which she was assaulted.
    • She told the Washington Post that the notes were erroneous because there were four boys at the party, but only two in the bedroom.
    • In her letter to Senator Feinstein, she said “me and 4 others” were present at the party.
    • In her testimony, she said there were four boys in addition to Leland Keyser and herself. She could not remember the name of the fourth boy, and no one has come forward.
    • Dr. Ford listed Patrick “PJ” Smyth as a “bystander” in her statement to the polygrapher and in her July 6 text to the Washington Post, although she testified that it was inaccurate to call him a bystander. She did not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser’s presence should have been more memorable than PJ Smyth’s.

7. Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory:


  • Dr. Ford struggled to remember her interactions with the Washington Post.
    • Dr. Ford could not remember if she showed a full or partial set of therapy notes to the Washington Post reporter.
      • She does not remember whether she showed the Post reporter the therapist’s notes or her own summary of those notes. The Washington Post article said that “portions” of her “therapist’s notes” were “provided by Ford and reviewed by” the Post. But in her testimony, Dr. Ford could not recall whether she summarized the notes for the reporter or showed her the actual records.
    • She does not remember if she actually had a copy of the notes when she texted the Washington Post WhatsApp account on July 6.
      • Dr. Ford said in her first WhatsApp message to the Post that she “ha[d] therapy notes talking about” the incident when she contacted the Post’s tipline. She testified that she had reviewed her therapy notes before contacting the Post to determine whether the mentioned anything about the alleged incident, but could not remember if she had a copy of those notes, as she said in her WhatsApp message, or merely reviewed them in her therapist’s office.
  • Dr. Ford refused to provide any of her therapy notes to the Committee.
  • Dr. Ford’s explanation of why she disclosed her allegations the way she did raises questions.
    • She claimed originally that she wished for her story to remain confidential, but the person operating the tipline at the Washington Post was the first person other than her therapist or husband to whom she disclosed the identity of her alleged attacker. She testified that she had a “sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the president.” She did not contact the Senate, however, because she claims she “did not know how to do that.” She does not explain why she knew how to contact her Congresswoman but not her Senator.
  • Dr. Ford could not remember if she was being audio- or video-recorded when she took the polygraph. And she could not remember whether the polygraph occurred the same day as her grandmother’s funeral or the day after her grandmother’s funeral.
    • It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who was grieving.

8. Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions:


  • She maintains that she suffers from anxiety, claustrophobia, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
    • The date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was informed that her symptoms prevent her from flying. But she agreed during her testimony that she flies “fairly frequently for [her] hobbies and … work.” She flies to the mid-Atlantic at least once a year to visit her family. She has flown to Hawaii, French Polynesia, and Costa Rica. She also flew to Washington, D.C. for the hearing.
    • Note too that her attorneys refused a private hearing or interview. Dr. Ford testified that she was not “clear” on whether investigators were willing to travel to California to interview her. It therefore is not clear that her attorneys ever communicated Chairman Grassley’s offer to send investigators to meet her in California or wherever she wanted to meet to conduct the interview.
  • She alleges that she struggled academically in college, but she has never made any similar claim about her last two years of high school.
  • It is significant that she used the word “contributed” when she described the psychological impact of the incident to the Washington Post. Use of the word “contributed” rather than “caused” suggests that other life events may have contributed to her symptoms. And when questioned on that point, she said that she could think of “nothing as striking as” the alleged assault.

9. The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account:
 
The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general,
Your subjective opinion carries no legal weight and violates a multitude of citizen rights.
What rights does having to prove your mental state violate? What right does having to prove your baseless claims violate?
First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.
I get it now. We just have to take her word for it.
 
The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general,
Your subjective opinion carries no legal weight and violates a multitude of citizen rights.
you mean like the right to face your accuser?
the right to be innocent until proven guilty?

funny...the left only gives a fuck about rights when it suits their purposes.
Kavanaugh has not been charged with a crime, hence, his legal rights are not being jeopardized or challenged. He is, in fact, being given the opportunity to challenge allegations made by his accuser even though there is no real law to protect a person from another citizens allegations of wrongdoing other than civil actions. Kavanaugh is applying for a job. He is not on criminal trial. If he was applying for a job as a landscaper and someone told you to keep your doors locked because he was a thief, you would not have to prove he was a thief. You could decide not to hire him based on the comment and allegation of one person. Your subjective opinion would suffice legally to deny the applicant a job.

But it's the highest court of the land. The FBI MUST investigate her therapists notes recordings and any electronic correspondence as well
Under what legal doctrine or theory is the FBI allowed to ignore the constitutional laws that protect citizens?
 
Three Words:

Sub

Peen

Ahhh
I don't know that psychological records can be subpoenaed. Aren't they almost as sacrosanct as confessions to a priest?
Medical Evidence in Litigation

doesn't look like it.
Protecting patient privacy when the court calls

then again - the real answer is "it depends". in the end i think they need to disclose them to someone. if in this case a judge and lawyers only in order to understand the mindset of the person making the complaint, fine. but i don't think the entire world needs to know this information. then again when has "the entire world" cared? both sides have already rendered their opinions based off opinions and that isn't likely to change regardless of what comes out.

in the end i more care about who leaked it as "leaking" is a horrible way to continue to conduct our government issues. whoever leaked it needs to be booted from gov service.
 
The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general,
Your subjective opinion carries no legal weight and violates a multitude of citizen rights.
you mean like the right to face your accuser?
the right to be innocent until proven guilty?

funny...the left only gives a fuck about rights when it suits their purposes.
Kavanaugh has not been charged with a crime, hence, his legal rights are not being jeopardized or challenged. He is, in fact, being given the opportunity to challenge allegations made by his accuser even though there is no real law to protect a person from another citizens allegations of wrongdoing other than civil actions. Kavanaugh is applying for a job. He is not on criminal trial. If he was applying for a job as a landscaper and someone told you to keep your doors locked because he was a thief, you would not have to prove he was a thief. You could decide not to hire him based on the comment and allegation of one person. Your subjective opinion would suffice legally to deny the applicant a job.

But it's the highest court of the land. The FBI MUST investigate her therapists notes recordings and any electronic correspondence as well
Under what legal doctrine or theory is the FBI allowed to ignore the constitutional laws that protect citizens?
like innocent til proven guilty?

my god some people will bypass that right up for others then use it as a shield at first opportunity.

anyway - Protecting patient privacy when the court calls

not up to what you think. process and precedence is there and we need to follow it.
 
The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general, and especially much more information about the therapy sessions in which, by her own account, “she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.”

If you are in the process of derailing a Supreme Court nominee based on otherwise unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct thirty-six years ago, and in that process giving the nominee a reputation as a rapist, it seems to me you have the moral obligation to either turn over all relevant evidence, or withdraw your allegation. In the absence of that evidence and any corroboration beyond her say-so, if I were a Senator I would ignore the allegations.

Rachel Mitchell Memo Lists Weaknesses in Ford Claim: READ | Heavy.com

Maybe there is something in there she is embarrassed about like bed wetting?

Let's let this play out. You aren't in a hurry for some reason are you?

Just because this justice to be is losing his cool?

I really don't care if he had a binge drinking problem in college. He should be adult enough to admit it. Heck, if he said he went to parties and tried to get lucky with drunk girls but just ended up drunk himself half of us could relate lol.

But yeah, are you in some kind of hurry to get this vote through? Is there a team you are rooting for?
 
The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general,
Your subjective opinion carries no legal weight and violates a multitude of citizen rights.
you mean like the right to face your accuser?
the right to be innocent until proven guilty?

funny...the left only gives a fuck about rights when it suits their purposes.
Kavanaugh has not been charged with a crime, hence, his legal rights are not being jeopardized or challenged. He is, in fact, being given the opportunity to challenge allegations made by his accuser even though there is no real law to protect a person from another citizens allegations of wrongdoing other than civil actions. Kavanaugh is applying for a job. He is not on criminal trial. If he was applying for a job as a landscaper and someone told you to keep your doors locked because he was a thief, you would not have to prove he was a thief. You could decide not to hire him based on the comment and allegation of one person. Your subjective opinion would suffice legally to deny the applicant a job.

But it's the highest court of the land. The FBI MUST investigate her therapists notes recordings and any electronic correspondence as well
Under what legal doctrine or theory is the FBI allowed to ignore the constitutional laws that protect citizens?
When they are destroying a conservative.
 
The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general,
Your subjective opinion carries no legal weight and violates a multitude of citizen rights.
What rights does having to prove your mental state violate? What right does having to prove your baseless claims violate?
First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.
I get it now. We just have to take her word for it.
No one is forcing you to make a subjective opinion about who or what to believe. You are free to have your opinion and tell the world your opinion.
 
The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general, and especially much more information about the therapy sessions in which, by her own account, “she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.”

If you are in the process of derailing a Supreme Court nominee based on otherwise unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct thirty-six years ago, and in that process giving the nominee a reputation as a rapist, it seems to me you have the moral obligation to either turn over all relevant evidence, or withdraw your allegation. In the absence of that evidence and any corroboration beyond her say-so, if I were a Senator I would ignore the allegations.

Rachel Mitchell Memo Lists Weaknesses in Ford Claim: READ | Heavy.com

Maybe there is something in there she is embarrassed about like bed wetting?

Let's let this play out. You aren't in a hurry for some reason are you?

Just because this justice to be is losing his cool?

I really don't care if he had a binge drinking problem in college. He should be adult enough to admit it. Heck, if he said he went to parties and tried to get lucky with drunk girls but just ended up drunk himself half of us could relate lol.

But yeah, are you in some kind of hurry to get this vote through? Is there a team you are rooting for?
is there a team you're rooting against?
 
The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general,
Your subjective opinion carries no legal weight and violates a multitude of citizen rights.
What rights does having to prove your mental state violate? What right does having to prove your baseless claims violate?
First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.
I get it now. We just have to take her word for it.
No one is forcing you to make a subjective opinion about who or what to believe. You are free to have your opinion and tell the world your opinion.
Do you have the worlds link so I can tell them?
 
The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general, and especially much more information about the therapy sessions in which, by her own account, “she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.”

If you are in the process of derailing a Supreme Court nominee based on otherwise unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct thirty-six years ago, and in that process giving the nominee a reputation as a rapist, it seems to me you have the moral obligation to either turn over all relevant evidence, or withdraw your allegation. In the absence of that evidence and any corroboration beyond her say-so, if I were a Senator I would ignore the allegations.

Rachel Mitchell Memo Lists Weaknesses in Ford Claim: READ | Heavy.com

Maybe there is something in there she is embarrassed about like bed wetting?

Let's let this play out. You aren't in a hurry for some reason are you?

Just because this justice to be is losing his cool?

I really don't care if he had a binge drinking problem in college. He should be adult enough to admit it. Heck, if he said he went to parties and tried to get lucky with drunk girls but just ended up drunk himself half of us could relate lol.

But yeah, are you in some kind of hurry to get this vote through? Is there a team you are rooting for?


You are an idiot....there is nothing Ford said that has any relation to the truth or facts...she is lying. She is a left wing activist who won the Golden Ticket, she knows Kavanaugh from her high school years and now she is a #metoo millionaire...yep, actually a millionaire, her GoFundMe page passed a million dollars....and this is before her book deal, movie deal, speaking fees and academic career boost..........

There is nothing truthful in her allegations...she is lying....she should never have been given time before a committee.......

Prosecutor Who Questioned Ford Shreds Her Case In Five-Page Memo

Here are the nine problems outlined in Mitchell's memo:

1. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened:

  • In a July 6 text to the Washington Post, she said it happened in the “mid 1980s.”
  • In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the “early 80s.”
  • Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one “high school summer in early 80’s,” but she crossed out the word “early” for reasons she did not explain.
  • A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the “summer of 1982.”
  • Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her “late teens.” But she told the Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review.
  • While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year
2. Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name:

  • No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes.
  • No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes.
  • Dr. Ford’s husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.
  • In any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure of abuse is common so this is not dispositive.
3. When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific:

  • Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a “sexual assault” before they were married.
  • But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim of “physical abuse” at the beginning of their marriage.
  • She testified that, both times, she was referring to the same incident.
4. Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account:

  • She does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it.
  • She does not remember how she got to the party.
  • She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity.
  • Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.
    • Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.
    • She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.
    • She also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
    • Dr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she did not look like she had been attacked.
    • But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver.
    • Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.
  • She does, however, remember small, distinct details from the party unrelated to the assault. For example, she testified that she had exactly one beer at the party and was taking no medication at the time of the alleged assault.

5. Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend:

  • Dr. Ford has named three people other than Judge Kavanaugh who attended the party— Mark Judge, Patrick “PJ” Smyth, and her lifelong friend Leland Keyser (née Ingham). Dr. Ford testified to the Committee that another boy attended the party, but that she could not remember his name. No others have come forward.
  • All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee, Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “imply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”
    • Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.
 
Your subjective opinion carries no legal weight and violates a multitude of citizen rights.
What rights does having to prove your mental state violate? What right does having to prove your baseless claims violate?
First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.
I get it now. We just have to take her word for it.
No one is forcing you to make a subjective opinion about who or what to believe. You are free to have your opinion and tell the world your opinion.
Do you have the worlds link so I can tell them?
You are doing it right now. USMB is available to anyone with global internet access. You can further post your opinions on endless internet platforms.
 

Forum List

Back
Top