Kav's FBI "thorough" investigation = Lame Coverup

[_Kevin Graham]

Yes, There Is Plenty of Corroborating Evidence for Christine Blasey Ford’s Allegations

Either conservatives don't understand what “corroborating evidence” means, or they're lying about it in order to mislead their supporters.

Conservatives are lying to you about what corroborating evidence is. They’re hoping that you’ll confuse corroborating evidence with irrefutable proof. And because there’s no way to prove definitively whether Judge Brett Kavanaugh assaulted Christine Blasey Ford—absent the testimony of an impartial witness or a confession from Kavanaugh himself—conservatives are claiming there’s no evidence corroborating that the assault ever happened.

Notably, even if one of Ford’s friends witnessed an assault, conservatives would discount that too. Ford’s friend might be lying to protect her, after all. What conservatives reportedly want is a dispassionate, neutral third party, one with no political or personal motivation, who can step forward and say, “I saw Brett Kavanaugh assault Christine Blasey Ford.” Without that clarity, conservatives maintain this is a smear job—and they’re using that argument as an excuse to deny the mounting reasons that Brett Kavanaugh should not be on the U.S. Supreme Court bench.

Interestingly, they claim it’s a smear job while at the same time saying they believe Ford, which is an untenable and absurd position. If you think it’s a smear job, that means you think Ford is part of a conspiracy that began in 2012, when she first told a therapist she’d been assaulted. And if you think that, you don’t believe her. That’s just basic logic, something one must learn never to expect from conservatives.

The latest to trot out the “woe betide Brett” argument is Bret Stephens, who heard the plaintive cry of another Bret(t) in need and decided he should weigh in on Thursday with his opinion in the New York Times.

After applauding Donald Trump—a man accused of multiple sex crimes himself—for bullying Ford and those who support her, Stephens dismisses the claims of each of Kavanaugh’s alleged victims as uncorroborated.

In a paragraph that is virtually impossible to parse from a semantic standpoint, Stephens seems to be complaining that the press has seized on the “uncorroborated” claims of Julie Swetnick, and added them to the “uncorroborated” claims of Deborah Ramirez, all as corroborating evidence that Kavanaugh assaulted Ford:

Swetnick’s claims border on the preposterous. They are wholly uncorroborated. But that didn’t keep Kavanaugh’s opponents, in politics and the press, from seizing them as evidence of corroboration with Blasey’s allegation, which is not preposterous but is also largely uncorroborated, and with the allegation of Kavanaugh’s Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez—uncorroborated again.

Uncorroborated plus uncorroborated plus largely uncorroborated is not the accumulation of questions, much less of evidence. It is the duplication of hearsay.

Apparently, according to Stephens, if a woman provides evidence that she was assaulted in the form of direct testimony—which, by the way, is evidence according to every evidence rule book, including the Federal Rules of Evidence—then that evidence can be discounted as hearsay if it is not corroborated. This is, of course, nonsense. Either he doesn’t understand what “corroborating evidence” means, or he does and he’s lying about it in order to mislead his readers.

Corroborating evidence doesn’t mean air-tight proof. Corroboration isn’t a smoking gun: in this case, a video of the assault or a dispassionate third-party witness to it. Corroboration is any evidence that supports an allegation or claim. As outlined in Black’s Law Dictionary, “The testimony of a witness is said to be corroborated when it is shown to correspond with the representation of some other witnesses, or to comport with some facts otherwise known or established.”

Simply put, any evidence that supports Ford’s claim that Kavanaugh assaulted her when he was drunk at a party is corroborating evidence. The evidence may be weak. The evidence may be strong. But it is still corroborating evidence if it tends to support the allegation that Kavanaugh assaulted Ford.

The evidence corroborating Ford’s claims is voluminous: It includes everything from Ford’s description of Kavanaugh’s drinking buddies, to Kavanaugh’s July 1 calendar entry that describes his plans to go to “Timmy’s for skis with Judge, Tom, P.J. Bernie and … Squi,” to Mark Judge’s memoir outlining his and “Bart O’Kavanaugh’s” drinking habits, to Kavanaugh’s Beach Week letter discussing “prolific pukers.” There is a slew of other evidence corroborating Ford’s claims. (Seth Abramson wrote a detailed Twitter thread about all the corroborating evidence; it is worth reading.)

In fact, corroborating evidence includes evidence that counters Kavanaugh’s own testimony. For example, Brett’s claims that he was a virgin who never drank to excess are belied by his own statements about how much he likes beer, as well as the statements of his high school and college pals that he was frequently drunk and bragged about his sexual prowess. Evidence that lessens Kavanaugh’s credibility and enhances Ford’s credibility is corroborating evidence.

Is it airtight proof? No. But does any of this evidence support—not prove, but support—the main proposition? Of course it does.

As for hearsay? That term does not apply to any of the alleged victims’ statements about what happened to them. Stephens gets this laughably wrong.

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement that is offered in court to prove the truth of an assertion. Since we’re not in court and not following the rules of evidence—remember, this is a job interview where the question is Kavanaugh’s fitness to be a Supreme Court justice, not a trial to determine whether he should be convicted of assault—let’s just keep it simple and say that hearsay is a rumor. It is something that someone else tells you, which you then offer as proof that the rumor is true.

In other words, let’s say Ford didn’t remember that she was assaulted, but was told by her friend Leyland Keyser that she was. At the hearing, if Ford had said “I was assaulted, and I know that because Leyland told me,” that would be hearsay. Ford would be offering a statement from a friend saying, “this happened to you,” in order to prove the assertion that “this happened to me.”

But Ford’s testimony about what happened to her based on her own recollection is direct evidence. It may not be enough evidence to convict Kavanaugh at trial. It may not even be enough evidence to convince senators that Kavanaugh shouldn’t be confirmed to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court.

But it is evidence. Same with Ramirez’s statement and Swetnick’s. It is not hearsay upon hearsay as Stephens claims. It is three separate pieces of direct evidence that, put together, corroborate claims that Kavanaugh drank excessively and was an aggressive, and sometimes violent, drunk.

So when conservatives say there’s no corroborating evidence, they’re not being honest. When they try to discount Ford’s testimony about what happened to her as hearsay, they are not being honest. In his op-ed, Bret Stephens is not being honest.

Conservatives should just admit that all the corroborating evidence in the world isn’t going to make them change their minds. Certainly the limited scope of the FBI investigation and the recent moves forward by the Senate suggest they’re not interested in finding the truth—only in placating the public.

And besides, whether Kavanaugh assaulted Ford is not even the crux of the issue anymore. The point is that Kavanaugh told a series of provable lies and gave explanations for his behavior in high school and college in a way that was belligerent, partisan, and ultimately, not credible.

So is there irrefutable proof that Kavanaugh assaulted Ford? No. But his behavior during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing is all the irrefutable proof I need that Kavanaugh is unfit to serve as an associate justice to the Supreme Court.

[_Kevin Graham]

https://mobile.Twitter.com/SethAbramson ... 2185529347

The GOP claim that there's no corroboration of Dr. Ford's allegation that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her is a lie. Corroborating evidence—evidence that tends to support a proposition—already exists. I'll detail as much of it as I can. I hope you'll read on and RETWEET.

The GOP falsely claims "corroborating evidence" only exists when you have an innocent bystander at the scene of the crime who can later tell law enforcement, "I saw it all." You almost *never* have that sort of evidence in a sex crime—and that's *not* what corroboration means.

Corroboration is any fact that is "probative" with respect to a given proposition—meaning, it tends to *support* a given proposition. Any fact known to law enforcement that tends to support the proposition that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Dr. Ford is "corroborating evidence."

This thread is intended to underscore that (a) there is a veritable *mountain* of corroborating evidence that "tends to support the proposition" that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Dr. Ford, and (b) the GOP needs to *stop lying* about the definition of "corroborating evidence."

Please remember that, with an allegation of a serious sex crime, the "standard of proof" for Kavanaugh being denied a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court is *not* "beyond a reasonable doubt." At *most*, it is "probable cause"—because this is a job interview, not a trial.

"Probable cause" means, broadly, "reasonable grounds." In other words, at *most* Senators would need to have "reasonable grounds" to believe Dr. Ford was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh in order to vote against his nomination to the Supreme Court. That's a *very* low standard.

So let's start there: if any Senator says "I believe Dr. Ford," even in the absence of any other evidence—and there's *lots* of corroborating evidence—they'd *have* to vote *against* Kavanaugh's nomination, because if you *believe* Dr. Ford you think probable cause is present.

So given that this is a job interview, and given that probable cause is the *minimum* standard (for a sex crime) any good-faith employer would employ—as it means the job candidate *could* be arrested for the offense—no one can say "I believe Dr. Ford" and vote *for* Kavanaugh.

But let's move on from that, and remember that when a sexual assault allegation is made law enforcement can't presume anything about the allegation in looking for corroborating evidence—evidence that tends to support the allegation—including whether the people know each other.

So that's where we begin. Did Dr. Ford know Kavanaugh in 1982? Yes, CORROBORATED. Kavanaugh admits he may have met her, as he admits he went to parties girls from Dr. Ford's school attended. The schools were near one another and the social milieu of the area encompassed both.

But it goes beyond that. Dr. Ford knowing Kavanaugh is also CORROBORATED because in 1982 Ford was *dating Kavanaugh's friend*, a fact Kavanaugh failed to mention in his testimony—and as we'll see, Kavanaugh *omissions* can corroborate Dr. Ford's claims if they are suspicious.

But it goes beyond that. Dr. Ford was even able to say, beyond that Kavanaugh knew Chris Garrett—the guy she was going out with—that she *also* knew *other* people who Kavanaugh confirmed under oath he was friends with, like P.J. Smyth and Mark Judge. So, more CORROBORATION.

But it goes beyond that. Dr. Ford was able to confirm—even more specifically than who Kavanaugh was *friends* with—who his *1982 drinking buddies* were, as her claim that Smyth and Judge were Kavanaugh's drinking buddies was CORROBORATED by Kavanaugh's own personal calendars.

But it goes beyond that. What if Dr. Ford had been in Kavanaugh's social milieu, knew who his friends were, and knew who his 1982 drinking buddies were, but had *no* idea about his drinking *habits*? Well, fortunately she *does*: her knowledge of those habits is CORROBORATED.

Dr. Ford's testimony on Kavanaugh's summer 1982 drinking habits is CORROBORATED due to Mark Judge's memoir, Wasted, which describes the drinking habits of Judge's high school friends, including Kavanaugh (styled in the book as "Bart O'Kavanaugh" instead of "Brett Kavanaugh").

Here too we get additional CORROBORATION by Kavanaugh's testimonial omissions or evasions. Kavanaugh *falsely claimed* that Mark Judge's memoir of his drinking was a "fiction" (i.e. a novel, not a memoir) and that he used variations of his friends' names as a literary device.

How about the general location where Dr. Ford said the event happened? Given that law enforcement can't assume two people even knew one another, they'd want to know if Kavanaugh lived in and/or frequented the area and spaces Dr. Ford claimed in 1982. Did he? Yes—CORROBORATED.

In his calendar, Kavanaugh admitted to frequenting the *same country club* as Dr. Ford in 1982—Columbia—and the location she described was a *very* easy traveling distance from the houses of the people Dr. Ford said were present on the day of the assault, including Kavanaugh.

But how does law enforcement know that the *month* she implies this happened (July 1982) is plausible? What if Kavanaugh *wasn't in the area* that month? Well, CORROBORATED, the month is plausible on *many* grounds and Kavanaugh was *absolutely* in the area during that month.

Dr. Ford says "6 to 8 weeks" after the sexual assault she saw Mark Judge working at Safeway. Judge's memoir says he was working at Safeway in August 1982—6 to 8 weeks after early July, a month in which Kavanaugh's calendar says he was partying with those Dr. Ford said he was.

But it goes way beyond that. Dr. Ford's allegation that the event happened in early July 1982 is CORROBORATED by Kavanaugh's own calendar, which *specifically notes* him partying with the guy Ford was going out with (Garrett, or "Squi") and Smyth and Judge on July 1, 1982.

Here we have more CORROBORATION via a Kavanaugh *deception*. Ed Whelan, working apparently with the White House and Kavanaugh—indirectly, if not directly—tried to convince America that Chris Garrett assaulted Ford *without revealing that Garrett was going out with Ford then*.

Specifically, Whelan claimed—without telling America that Ford was going out with Garrett ("Squi") at the time—that perhaps Dr. Ford didn't know Garrett or Kavanaugh very well in 1982, and therefore might not have been able to tell them apart. A lie. Thus, more CORROBORATION.

But wait, you might say: Dr. Ford didn't say *Garrett* was at the house, though Kavanaugh wrote that on July 1, 1982 he was planning to party with Garrett (along with others who *were* at the house, according to Dr. Ford). How is this possible? Actually, very, *very* easily.

Dr. Ford's testimony was that this was a pre-party gathering that was not itself a party—that is, a "pre-loading" opportunity (a chance for Judge and Ford to start drinking in preparation for the real party). Is that consistent with the social milieu of that area at the time?

Yes—CORROBORATED. The Washington Post reported in early '90 on a letter written by 7 local-area private-school headmasters—including the headmaster at Kavanaugh's school—at the end of the 80s. They described parties with hundreds of students, "fighting," and "sexual license."

So Dr. Ford's description of the intimate, early-evening gathering as a "pre-party"—with the older students, like Kavanaugh, planning on attending a far larger party later on (where perhaps Garrett would've been)—was consistent with the party culture in the area at that time.

Dr. Ford gave a *layout* for the house in question, which means if the FBI interviews several witnesses who partied with Kavanaugh at the time (including Judge and Smyth) they might be able to confirm the house. Plus, Kavanaugh's calendar *says* where he went on July 1, 1982.

But Kavanaugh also describes Kavanaugh and Judge acting in a very *specific* way toward women: sexual assault while drunk. Is there CORROBORATION for that very serious claim? Yes, there is CORROBORATION. Judge's girlfriend confirms he *spoke of being engaged in such conduct*.

Is Trump letting the FBI speak to Judge's girlfriend? Are GOP senators? Is right-wing media *urging* it? Given that all three—Trump and GOP senators/media—are crowing about "no corroboration," surely they *want* the FBI to talk to Judge's girlfriend? No—they're forbidding it.

OK—but maybe that's because it's too attenuated? That is, Dr. Ford *does* allege Judge as a co-assailant, but perhaps Trump, GOP senators and right-wing media only want to know if *Kavanaugh* acted aggressively toward women? Is there CORROBORATION of *that* claim by Dr. Ford?

Yes—there's CORROBORATION. Not only have *at least* five high school and Yale classmates of Kavanaugh's (including *friends* of his) publicly confirmed Dr. Ford correctly stated his drinking habits, *two* women—Ramirez and Swetnick—say he was sexually aggressive toward women.

The GOP is permitting the FBI to speak to *one* of the two women—Deborah Ramirez—who says Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her by hitting her with his penis. Moreover, she has a *list of witnesses* who will *confirm* Kavanaugh acted in this sexually aggressive—and illegal—manner.

Is Trump allowing the FBI to speak to those witnesses who confirm what Ramirez says? *No*—he's forbidding it. And in hearing that, please *remember* that if Ramirez's account is true not *only* is it a new criminal allegation against Kavanaugh, it's CORROBORATION of Dr. Ford.

The second witness who CORROBORATES Dr. Ford's claim Kavanaugh was sexually aggressive to women a) at parties, b) at a very particular time in his life, and c) not in the form of rape or other sex crimes but sexual assault-by-groping, is Julie Swetnick. She CORROBORATES Ford.

Swetnick—who Trump is *forbidding* the FBI from speaking to—does *not* allege that Kavanaugh "raped" anyone, and that *lie* about her *sworn affidavit* has been spread by Republicans, including Republican senators, in an effort to "pre-discredit" what she *actually* alleges.

In fact, Swetnick's allegations are CORROBORATED by Kavanaugh's claims of virginity in high school—as Swetnick *explicitly* says that Kavanaugh's actions did *not* involve sex even when he was surrounded by people who *were* looking to have sex. She *agrees* with him on that.

Were Swetnick lying, she might've said Kavanaugh had sex in high school—not expecting he'd say under oath he was a virgin then. But *no*, her allegations were of (a) heavy drinking, (b) carelessness about women's safety, and (c) groping—*identical to Dr. Ford's allegations*.

Swetnick—who's had *multiple security clearances in her life* and *gave an affidavit under penalty of perjury*—has seen her claims of sexual assault dismissed by the GOP because they don't like her attorney. Read that sentence again. That's *not* how American justice works.

Swetnick—I have to clarify this because the GOP has repeatedly lied about it on TV (including *senators* lying about it)—says Kavanaugh would get really drunk and grope women at parties. He also put alcohol in communal party drinks. That's the sum and substance of her claims.

Swetnick is *perfectly clear* that Kavanaugh *didn't* have sex at any party, *didn't* rape anyone, and *wasn't* present as anyone was raped. What she *said* is at the parties Kavanaugh attended, was drunk at, and *groped women* at—*elsewhere* at those parties—women got raped.

Her sworn affidavit alleges Kavanaugh a) sexually assaulted women by groping (as Dr. Ford said—so, CORROBORATION), b) drank to ridiculous excess (as Dr. Ford said—so, CORROBORATION) and c) spiked drinks though it made things unsafe for women (CORROBORATION of his *attitude*).

So when Kavanaugh falsely said under oath Swetnick's allegation was "from the Twilight Zone"; falsely said under oath Swetnick was alleging he was in a "gang"; and falsely said under oath that Swetnick alleged he raped her, *all those claims* were CORROBORATION by deception.

Moreover, when GOP pols and right-wing media said Swetnick's allegation was that Kavanaugh raped her, they lied; and when they said she was disqualified from reporting a sex crime because her lawyer also represented—wait for it—the *president's ex-girlfriend*, it was obscene.

By the same token, when Kavanaugh falsely claimed *ten-plus times*—*each time under oath and before Congress*—that Leland Ingham Keyser and P.J. Smyth had "refuted" what Dr. Ford said happened inside that bedroom, that was CORROBORATION by perjury—a *major* evidentiary tell.

Dr. Ford's testimony was also CORROBORATED when Cristina Banks—a high school classmate—revealed that she heard rumors after the month of the incident that something had happened between someone from her school and someone from Kavanaugh's school. The GOP lied about her claim.

Because Banks said she "believed" Dr. Ford—and expressed such a belief in Ford's testimony that she gave her *opinion* that the assault "did happen"—GOP operatives painted her later statement (*consistent with her first one*) that she had no *direct* evidence as a retraction.

Because any *one* piece of CORROBORATION need not be *conclusive*—indeed you almost *never* find a *single* piece of corroboration that is all by itself dispositive of guilt, though it happens—a high school rumor testified to under oath *is* a piece of CORROBORATING evidence.

Will the FBI interview Banks? No—Trump forbids it. He can do that because his minions have falsely portrayed Banks' effort to offer the FBI valuable rumor evidence that something happened right around that time—not direct evidence, which she never said she had—as "retracted."

Another major form of CORROBORATION in the law is known as "prior disclosure"—meaning, disclosure of a sex crime before the first time one goes to law enforcement, or (as here) the first time one's critics could plausibly claim that one (as an accuser) had an ulterior motive.

Is there "prior disclosure" CORROBORATION? Yes, there is. Dr. Ford disclosed to her therapist—who Trump is forbidding the FBI from speaking to—as well as her husband (also off-limits), in both cases *years ago*, when no one could claim she had *any* sort of political motive.

Republicans obsession with how Dr. Ford's allegation came to light is a smokescreen designed not only to shift attention from Dr. Ford's credible claims to people GOP voters hate—the Democrats—but also to leave the false (even *obscene*) implication Ford is a political pawn.

Republicans' *massive conspiracy theory*—and *make no mistake*, it's a *massive conspiracy theory*—is that many many years ago, back in 2012, Dr. Ford somehow knew Trump would win in 2016 and nominate Kavanaugh and therefore she falsely disclosed a sex crime to her therapist.

If you think that prior tweet sounds implausible—if you think there's *no way* Republicans are actually embracing such a *massive conspiracy theory* to cover up a sex crime—ask yourself, how *else* could Dr. Ford be a "political pawn" regarding an allegation she made in 2012?

Perhaps you're one of those Republicans who's *only* saying the Democrats *hid* Dr. Ford's *accurate* allegations until the last possible moment. OK, now let's say—for argument's sake—I agree. *We're still agreeing that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a woman and lied about it*.

If you feel Democrats deviously hid an *accurate* allegation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh—but *also* say Kavanaugh should be on the court—not *only* are you saying it's OK for a Justice to be an *unrepentant sexual assailant*, you're *also* saying he can be a perjurer!

FACT: the allegation that Democrats deviously hid an *accurate* allegation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh from Republican senators *literally has nothing whatsoever to do with the concurrent claim that Brett Kavanaugh should be on the Supreme Court*. They're *unrelated*.

The list goes on and on..... read it all

[_honorentheos]

Hi Kevin,

A few points of clarification. First, once you subtract out Ford's statement and the content we know only from her statement, we're left with very little information that pertains to Kavanuagh himself.

Kavanaugh did not say he knew Ford. He said it was possible they met because they ran in overlapping social circles but he doesn't recall meeting her. That is not corroborating evidence.

Ford's friend Leland Keyser doesn't just not remember the event. She doesn't remember knowing Kavanaugh. That's one of the two highest priority potential sources of information independent of Ford or Kavanaugh failing to corroborate a critical fact: That Ford would have known Kavanaugh prior to the assault to know for a fact he was the person who assaulted her. The highest priority other source, Mark Judge, fails to confirm even small details that would at least confirm she knew Kavanaugh prior to the assault which is a tricky point when it comes to confirming she could claim to have 100% certainty it was Kavanaugh who assaulted her. As you noted, Ford went out with (she was particular in avoiding the term dated) one of Kavanaugh's friends that summer. He was one of the persons interviewed by the FBI and whose testimony should be in the report Democrat Senators would have accessed prior to the confirmation. I don't know the details of his testimony as to my knowledge they haven't been made public but I would expect we'd have heard if his statements corroborated the story to any degree. That holds for P.J. and any other named person potentially able to provide even the smallest of corroborating details even if by accident while trying to help out a high school friend.

So here's a fact: We don't actually know much at all. We suspect a lot, and emotions combined with one's subjective reaction unsurprisingly closely aligned with one's political position are doing the heavy lifting. That's a fact.

We're stepping away from the question of Kavanaugh sexually assaulting Ford when we move to Ramirez, and even more so with the Swetnick claims. Ramirez is a complicated story where she found it difficult to confirm who it was that was pulling up their pants and laughing. That isn't direct evidence. It's hearsay. So is Swetnick's claims that there was a culture of rape around the jocks that were Kavanaugh's social circle, and she was assaulted by someone not involved in the question of Kavanaugh's history.

There are reasons for not viewing Kavanaugh as trustworthy, as probably unfit to be a Supreme Court Justice in my opinion, and I'm sympathetic towards Ford. What I'm not is satisfied with the evidence and ready to join a lynch mob over what we know. As far as the FBI investigation goes, it seems they went in the right directions talking to the right people to get to the most important information. I'm disappointed in the results but not about to pretend those results aren't what they are.

[_Chap]

My main interest in this thread and elsewhere has been the question of how the Senate committee, followed by the Senate, should have made a decision on Kavanaugh's nomination.

There are reasons for not viewing Kavanaugh as trustworthy, as probably unfit to be a Supreme Court Justice in my opinion ...

But once we have established that the appropriate mode of judgement here is the precautionary principle ("Is it safe and prudent to make this man a Justice of the Supreme Court for life?") not the criminal trial mode of judgement ("Has this man been proved guilty of <whatever> beyond a reasonable doubt"), then an obvious decision follows for those who agree with that part of your statement just quoted. One does not have to be sure that he is unfit; it is enough to conclude that there is a significant probability that he is unfit - and if so, one should not take the risk of confirming him as Justice for the next forty years, with all that implies for his immense future influence on the lives liberty and property of US citizens

And indeed it seems from this thread that (even leaving Ford's testimony aside), there are some who think that Kavanaugh's reaction to the allegations made against him (rage, partisan political claims that the whole thing was motivated by 'the Cllintons' and so on) casts significant doubts on his fitness for the office proposed.

And it's not as if there are no alternative candidates, or that the vacancy has to be filled immediately: the Republicans were happy to wait a long time with one Justice short just so that they could block Obama's nominee for the bench.

[_subgenius]

Cinepro, I once recorded 4 interceptions in a youth football game. I remember it extremely well. I remember a few of the people there. I could say that you can ask them to verify my story. They might, but they might also not remember it. If they don't, that doesn't mean my claim has been falsified. What's significant to me enough to remember wouldn't necessarily be significant to them.

How you imagine the "significant memory" equivalence between being a spectator at a gang-rape and being a spectator at a youth football game is amazing.

[_Kevin Graham]

Kavanaugh did not say he knew Ford. He said it was possible they met because they ran in overlapping social circles but he doesn't recall meeting her. That is not corroborating evidence.

It most certainly is corroborating evidence because it directly supports Ford's claim that when she "was 14 and 15 years old, my group of friends intersected with Brett and his friends for a short period of time." Kavanaugh corroborates her almost verbatim. You keep ignoring what the evidence actually corroborates and then focus on what it doesn't corroborate as if that changes the fact that plenty corroboration already exists.

Ford's friend Leland Keyser doesn't just not remember the event. She doesn't remember knowing Kavanaugh.

Which is irrelevant since Ford never said Leland and Kavanaugh were friends. It is entirely plausible that she was there briefly and that she arrived with the unnamed "fourth boy" who wasn't upstairs with Judge and Kavanaugh.

As you noted, Ford went out with (she was particular in avoiding the term dated) one of Kavanaugh's friends that summer. He was one of the persons interviewed by the FBI and whose testimony should be in the report Democrat Senators would have accessed prior to the confirmation. I don't know the details of his testimony as to my knowledge they haven't been made public but I would expect we'd have heard if his statements corroborated the story to any degree.

His Lawyers released a statement simply stating he has no recollection of anything relating to these allegations. So what? The only interesting thing about CHris Garrett is that we know Brett Kavanaugh was his friend and he omitted the fact that his friend was dating Christine Ford.

So here's a fact: We don't actually know much at all. We suspect a lot, and emotions combined with one's subjective reaction unsurprisingly closely aligned with one's political position are doing the heavy lifting. That's a fact.

We know Kavanaugh and Judge were belligerent drunks. We know Kavanaugh is a compulsive liar. We know Kavanaugh is emotionally unhinged, even as an adult. And we have corroborating testimonies from dozens of other people who were not heard during the FBI's bogus inquiry.

We're stepping away from the question of Kavanaugh sexually assaulting Ford when we move to Ramirez, and even more so with the Swetnick claims. Ramirez is a complicated story where she found it difficult to confirm who it was that was pulling up their pants and laughing.

Oh? Is that what you get from her statement: “Brett was laughing. I can still see his face, and his hips coming forward, like when you pull up your pants.” She also heard a guy scream "Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis is Debbie's face."

Ramirez provided 20 witnesses who could corroborate her story and they questioned none of them. So when you complain about how little we actually "know" it isn't because there is nothing else to know, it is because Senate Republicans don't want more to be known.

So is Swetnick's claims that there was a culture of rape around the jocks that were Kavanaugh's social circle, and she was assaulted by someone not involved in the question of Kavanaugh's history.

You're not up to speed on what these women have actually said if you keep downplaying everything as hearsay. When Swetnick says, "I witnessed Brett Kavanaugh consistently engage in excessive drinking and inappropriate contact of a sexual nature with women during the early 1980s", that isn't hearsay, that's direct evidence that corroborates Ford's story.

There are more corroborating witnesses who have yet to be named, but have provided sworn testimony for the Senate. Here is one example of a woman who knew both Ford and Swetnick and testified:

"I witnessed firsthand Brett Kavanaugh, together with others, spike the punch at house parties I attended with Quaaludes and/or grain alcohol. I understood this was being done for the purpose of making girls more likely to engage in sexual acts and less likely to say no."

[_subgenius]

My main interest in this thread and elsewhere has been the question of how the Senate committee, followed by the Senate, should have made a decision on Kavanaugh's nomination.
...(snip)...
there are some who think that Kavanaugh's reaction to the allegations made against him (rage, partisan political claims that the whole thing was motivated by 'the Cllintons' and so on) casts significant doubts on his fitness for the office proposed.

The may be a single doubt based upon an emotional testimony - but it is not significant given the circumstance. Otherwise, if we stick to what your alleged main interest is, then you have to look at his judicial record that spans 2+ decades. And it is a record that offers no credence to your "doubt" and offers no cause to believe that his reaction to a rather unique situation influences his interpretations and administration of the law.
The "serious doubts" raised by this episode are whether Senator Feinstein is fit for office, fit for society, and fit for public trust.

But please, explain how an emotional outburst in these circumstances equates to "significant doubts" with regards to the duties of a Supreme Court Justice....but perhaps you should first peruse the anecdotes in “The Brethren” (David Kaplan) so that you have a realistic perspective about the emotions a Justice may or may not find themselves expressing.
Ya know, I often wonder how Taft (and his "southern policy") managed to transition from being our 27th President to our 10th Chief Justice of Supreme Court....with/without an obvious and significant doubt for partisanship.

[_subgenius]

Kavanaugh did not say he knew Ford. He said it was possible they met because they ran in overlapping social circles but he doesn't recall meeting her. That is not corroborating evidence.

It most certainly is corroborating evidence because it directly supports Ford's claim that when she "was 14 and 15 years old, my group of friends intersected with Brett and his friends for a short period of time." Kavanaugh corroborates her almost verbatim. You keep ignoring what the evidence actually corroborates and then focus on what it doesn't corroborate as if that changes the fact that plenty corroboration already exists.

Kavanaugh admitting that he lived in America at the same time she says she lived in America is not corroborating evidence for her sexual assault allegation.

We all understand that corroboration is valuable, but it is not legally required...its value is realized more towards "credibility" than with actual guilt or innocence. The straws you are now grasping at here are "micro-corroborations" which can be useful only in large quantities, and this even simply does not come anywhere close to approaching that critical mass - even with your hearsay-thumb on the scale.

To be blunt - its over.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think the thing people aren't admitting is once the accusation is leveled, even with people supporting the accused's statement, the damage has been done.

In the Army we had a weird situation where an openly Gay female wrote on a sworn statement that a fellow Soldier called her a 'faggot'. This was at a schoolhouse, and if anyone knows anything about the Army's environment at TRADOC (that's the Training and Doctrine Command for Dr. Shades) they're suuuuuper sensitive to stuff like that. Automatic command investigaiton with the accused sent to Trial and Defense services. The whole 9 yards. I had 7 Soldiers who disputed her claims; date, place, setting, all of it. She had no one who backed her up. The Soldier was cleared, TDS blessed off on the command and that was that.

Except it wasn't. Nothing happened to the Soldier who made the accusation even thought it was shown to be patently false. She graduated and moved on. She caused a HUGE disruption, ate up a ton of command time, and she was, in a weird sense, fairly untouchable because instructors, platoon sergeants, and others didn't want a false accusation leveled at them, either.

The result? No one would be alone with females. This had a huge detrimental effect on training, studying, and socializing for the company long after she left. Why? Because that dude went through held, he was HELD OVER while things were investigated, and the culture had shifted to one of 'covering one's ass'.

You'd think that was it, right? Nooooope.

I had a Soldier's ex-wife call the commander and claim he raped her. Same crap. Dude was immediately taken out of his position as an instructor, an investigation that took a YEAR unfolded, and eventually he was given a poor performance eval even though none of the ex's claims were substantiated. Again, dates, places, events didn't linen up.

This dude was a golden boy. And yet his career was effectively over (because you don't get promoted and you certainly aren't given leadership positions if you've been accused of rape, at least not in my world).

It comes out that this was a power play by his ex to gain full custody of the children, and to get various financial demands met. He was always on time with his child support, but she wanted alimony, an increase, and to remove him from the picture. Dude had a cloud hanging over him for over a year and I'm fairly certain it followed him around after he was allowed to move to a different duty station (his poor eval, people talk, he has to explain himself ref his last duty station and eval, etc.).

The fact of the matter is when it comes to a serious allegation like that it has consequences. The idea that we should just believe someone based off a claim is absurd and destructive. The reality that very few people suffer consequences for abusing systems in place to investigate abuse claims is a reality. Lives are destroyed.

- Doc

[_canpakes]

there are some who think that Kavanaugh's reaction to the allegations made against him (rage, partisan political claims that the whole thing was motivated by 'the Cllintons' and so on) casts significant doubts on his fitness for the office proposed.

The may be a single doubt based upon an emotional testimony - but it is not significant given the circumstance.

Any person that announces to the Nation that the Clintons are out to get him shouldn’t be in a position to make decisions that could affect over 300 million people.

You don’t see it that way because you also believe in hair-fire conspiracies like the Clinton Kill List. We get it.