MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

Mostly law professors, blogging on whatever we please since 2002 · Hosted by The Washington Post, 2014-2017 · Hosted by Reason 2017 · Sometimes contrarian · Often libertarian · Always independent

Is Ford's Credibility Undermined by Her Refusal to Produce Her Therapy Records?

An exchange I had with a fellow law professor revealed disagreement over whether Christine Ford's refusal to turn over any of her records of the therapy sessions in which she discussed the alleged incident involving Brett Kavanaugh, even in redacted form, to the Senate Judiciary Committee, undermines her credibility.

First, I addressed the claims that (a) the legal system treats what Ford told her therapist is presumptively true, because it comes within a hearsay exception; and (b) that her attorneys would not misrepresent what the records state, for fear of being sanctioned by the bar association. I wrote, (1) The fact that medical records are a hearsay exception doesn't give them a presumption of truth, and no court would instruct a jury on such a presumption. It instead only means that the legal system finds them reliable enough to be admitted, which is a low bar. (2) The bar association is largely a paper tiger, few unethical attorneys ever get sanctioned.

But these points are tangential. The heart of the matter, as I've noted previously, is this revelation from the original Washington Post story detailing Ford's allegations against Kavanaugh: "Years later, after going through psychotherapy, Ford said, she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life. ... She also said that in the longer term, it contributed to anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms with which she has struggled."

As I wrote,

This raises many questions. What did she originally tell her therapist? Who was her therapist? Is her therapist known as a cautious clinician, or someone who believes in recovered memories, or what? What modalities of treatment did her therapist use? In particular, did she use hypnosis to either help Ford recover the memories, to render them less traumatic, or otherwise? When was Ford diagnosed with anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder? What other trauma(s), if any, led her to suffer from PTSD?

The other professor made two basic points. The first is that there is no reason to believe that Ford's memory of the incident is a "recovered memory." The second is that there are sound privacy rationales that would lead an attorney to advise Ford to decline to turn over her therapy records, even in redacted form.

I responded that the question isn't whether it's advisable for Ford to decline to produce her therapy records, but whether this undermines her credibility, not because someone with "nothing to hide" would "turn over everything" but because by her own account, the therapy sessions are where the allegation against Kavanaugh first came up, and, by her own account the therapy sessions affected her perspective on the incident.

We can't entirely dismiss the notion that this is a "recovered memory." I agree it's unlikely, but we have no way of knowing for sure, given that we know nothing about the therapy, or the therapist.

In any event, "recovered memory" is a distraction, because while not impossible the much greater danger is that the therapist used a treatment modality, such as hypnosis, that affected Ford's perception of the memory, or engaged in suggestive questioning that doesn't arise to the level of "recovered memory," but skewed the memory. Details of memories from 30 plus years ago are already problematic from a reliability standpoint,* but memories that have been subject to hypnosis and related techniques are especially unreliable. Hypnosis can enhance memory, but it can also both lead the subject to add details to a memory, and to be much more confident that all the details of his memory are accurate.

For example, one plausible defense of BK is that the incident in question was not an attempted rape as described by Ford, but innocuous, or at least far less serious, "horseplay" that he and Judge quickly forgot, and that Ford herself dismissed for decades as insigifnicant. However, the incident became magnified, some details changed or exaggerated, and so on, during therapy. (Note that when I say this is "plausible," I'm not saying we have evidence of this, but without the therapy records all sorts of scenarios can't be dismissed out of hand.)

Similarly, it's been reported that Ford didn't initially name Kavanaugh as her attacker. It's possible she may have "remembered" who he was only under hypnosis or a similar modality, which could, for example, have been influenced by his name being in the news.

I've seen it asserted with confidence that no woman would forget exactly who perpetrator was of such an incident, even decades later, so it's impossible to believe that she initially didn't remember it was Kavanaugh. That is false. In fact, because I've been writing about the issue, a woman I know confided in me that she had a very similar experience to Ford's allegations, around the same time frame, when she was around the same age. She remembers some details of the incident, but doesn't remember who the boys were. But again, we could shed light on what Ford remembered and under what circumstances if we had her therapy records.

Let me be clear, again, that these speculations, possibilities. It's also entirely possible that Ford remembered the details without any prompting whatsoever, which would provide support for her account of the incident. But how can we know without knowing something about the therapy?

As for privacy concerns, they are legitimate. Who wants other people to see one's therapy records, redacted or not? And yet... Ford has publicly accused one of the most prominent people in the country, about to assume a position of extreme power, of being an attempted rapist. If one is going to make an allegation like that, with the ramifications of both changing the course of American political history and destroying someone's reputation, I think one can reasonably be expected to be forthcoming with all relevant information in your possession.

*Here is the abstract from the scientific paper linked to:

Although memory can be hazy at times, it is often assumed that memories of violent or otherwise stressful events are so well-encoded that they are largely indelible and that confidently retrieved memories are likely to be accurate. However, findings from basic psychological research and neuroscience studies indicate that memory is a reconstructive process that is susceptible to distortion. In the courtroom, even minor memory distortions can have severe consequences that are in part driven by common misunderstandings about memory, e.g. expecting memory to be more veridical than it may actually be.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Martinned||

    Funny how I could guess the answer to the question raised in the headline just by seeing who the author was...

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I suspect the same about most people one knows, such as .... commenters.

  • David Bernstein||

    A typically perspicacious rebuttal!

  • Martinned||

    I know that they idea will probably confuse you, but there are also thoughtful conservatives. Apart from prof. Volokh (who carefully avoided commenting on something he knows nothing (special) about other than to note a weird wrinkle of Maryland law) and Ilya Somin (who carefully stuck to the meta-question of what standard to apply), here is Benjamin Wittes: I Know Brett Kavanaugh, but I Wouldn't Confirm Him

  • epsilon given||

    So you're saying that conservatives who still believe Kavanaugh, and who don't believe Ford, aren't thoughtful?

    I could see rejecting Kavanaugh for his positions, and if the Democrats did that, they'd be on to something. But they chose to hold onto a questionable claim until the last minute, in an attempt to destroy Kavanaugh instead.

    I have little patience for the argument "Kavaunaugh cannot be partial because of his emotional display before the Senate". He was emotional because of what Democrats did to him -- and he wouldn't have been so emotional, had the Democrats handled the allegations in a much more sane way. It sets yet another dangerous precedent!

  • epsilon given||

    And I should add: the Democrats have shot themselves in the foot here: by trying to bring down Kavanaugh with a non-provable allegation, they have made it impossible to oppose Kavanaugh on policy.

  • bernard11||

    Is Kavanaugh's credibility undermined by the refusal of Grassley and the GOP to release records, memos, and emails from his time in government before he was appointed to the appeals court?

  • David Bernstein||

    I honestly haven't followed that issue sufficiently to give an informed comment. But surely if there was an allegation of misbehavior against Kavanaugh, and Kavanaugh responded, "the following documents support my version of events," and then he refused to turn over those documents, even redacted, a negative inference would be warranted.

  • bernard11||

    Kavanaugh made statements under oath during his previous confirmation hearings which have been challenged by individuals in a position to have credible opinions as to their truthfulness.

    These issues could be settled by the release of material such as emails from the relevant time. Grassley and the Republicans in general have refused to release them, and Kavanaugh himself has not been willing to call for their release.

    Close enough?

  • Joe_dallas||

    Can you give us an example of what statements he made that have been challenged. A citation, anything but an allegation.

  • ||

    I'm sure he's referring to denials that he drank to excess, which of course is a matter of opinion that cannot be refuted.

  • ILK||

    Here's a roundup, the hyperlink to which I had to divide up to get around the Reason posting requirements: https://www.thedailybeast.com/ newly-released-emails-show-brett-kavanaugh- may-have-perjured-himself -at-least-four-times

  • Brett Bellmore||

    It only limits you if you don't put the link inside proper html.

  • epsilon given||

    After looking at those examples given in that link, I think anyone trying to convict Kavanaugh of perjury would be hard-pressed to do so. Those points are seriously weak sauce.

    Just to address one: is it really a stretch to believe that Kavanaugh could have forgotten an interview three years after it occurred?

    There's a reason why memory all by itself isn't considered reliable -- it's far too easy to forget.

  • bernard11||

    The committee, as you know, refused to call witnesses other than Ford and Kavanaugh, and tried, and may still be trying, to limit who the FBI can talk to.

    What does that suggest about Kavanaugh's stories? What are they afraid of?

    More broadly, this is the second post you have made about Ford's credibility. But we have duelling accounts. Are you at all interested in Kavanaugh's credibility?

  • David Bernstein||

    I'm interested in by far the most serious allegation against Kavanaugh, which is that he sexually assaulted Christine Ford and is now lying about it under oath, both because it's the most serious allegation, and because the underlying issues of memory is something that I happen to know a fair amount about.

  • David Bernstein||

    By contrast, I don't have any special insight into, say, the meaning of boof among Kavanaugh and his friends in the early 1980s.

  • bernard11||

    "Boof" is not what I'm referring to.

    See, for example, here and here.

    And I notice you did not answer the questions about concealed documents and the strict limits put on the FBI investigation.

    So I'll repeat:

    Kavanaugh made statements under oath during his previous confirmation hearings which have been challenged by individuals in a position to have credible opinions as to their truthfulness.

    These issues could be settled by the release of material such as emails from the relevant time. Grassley and the Republicans in general have refused to release them, and Kavanaugh himself has not been willing to call for their release.

    The committee, as you know, refused to call witnesses other than Ford and Kavanaugh, and tried, and may still be trying, to limit who the FBI can talk to.

    What does that suggest about Kavanaugh's stories? What are they afraid of?

    Will you answer?

  • damikesc||

    Man, I remember when Libertarians would LAUGH at the old "If you have nothing to hide, you should INVITE the police to search your house/car" nonsense.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Kavanaugh is not nominated to be a cabinet official, he's nominated to a judicial position. And he has a judicial record. Shouldn't that be enough? It usually is.

  • damikesc||

    Well, technically, all of the uproar is over his judicial record. Progs think the Court should ALWAYS lean left.

  • bernard11||

    Man, I remember when Libertarians would LAUGH at the old "If you have nothing to hide, you should INVITE the police to search your house/car" nonsense.

    I'm not a libertarian, but I agree that advice is ludicrous.

    But we are talking about the truthfulness of a SCOTUS nominee here. Given the allegations and their sources I think that, to follow through with your analogy, the police would seek to conduct the equivalent of a search through records, and would probably be able to get a warrant. No invitation necessary.

    Of course, if he doesn't want the records released, he can, unlike a criminal suspect, withdraw.

    he's nominated to a judicial position. And he has a judicial record. Shouldn't that be enough?

    Does the truthfulness of his testimony in confirmation hearings count as part of his judicial record? If not, does it matter at all?

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "Does the truthfulness of his testimony in confirmation hearings count as part of his judicial record? If not, does it matter at all?"

    Does it matter to you if you if it's poor memory of 30 year old events vs deliberate lies?

    How can you possibly prove deliberate lies in response to questions that go back 30+ years to what he did or didn't do in high school.?

    Why should it matter if the questions themselves were irrelevant and/or improper?

  • damikesc||

    Does the truthfulness of his testimony in confirmation hearings count as part of his judicial record? If not, does it matter at all?

    Well, Ford undeniably lied about why they went to therapy, for starters.

    I mean, she said that they needed a second door due to her paranoia after her attack. Except they added the second door 4 years before therapy. And rented the room out. And she didn't need a second door on their SECOND home.

    So, Ford's entire reason for therapy which led to her recovering this memory is something she lied about.

  • damikesc||

    Does her accuracy issues cause any concerns? Cause she has more easily demonstrably false claims under oath.

  • mlwjr||

    What are they afraid of? That's an odd question based on what has come out in the last week. For arguments sake let's day we believe Ford is credible. Can you really say the same of the 3 or 4 following? Also now all the sudden everyone is going to testify that there is no way he couldn't have blacked out? Yeah no reason to out any limits on it

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "The committee, as you know, refused to call witnesses other than Ford and Kavanaugh."

    But they did receive sworn written statements from Judge and the two other people named by Ford as having been at the alleged party where the alleged attack occurred. None of the three statements supported Ford's account.

    Calling them in for oral testimony would not have been particularly useful and there are no other relevant witnesses.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Calling them in for oral testimony would not have been particularly useful and there are no other relevant witnesses.

    That's the kind of legal insight we have come to expect from a movement conservative blog that affects a thinning academic veneer.

  • Beldar||

    And that's the kind of drive-by ad hominem we all expect from you, Rev.

  • bernard11||

    Calling them in lets the Senators actually question them, rather than relying on statements they wrote. It also allows the statements to be probed, the witnesses to be cross-examined, and so on, all under oath.

    Statements drafted carefully, no doubt with assistance from lawyers, that the authors cannot be cross-examined about, are a far cry from in person testimony to the committee.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    "lets the Senators actually question them"

    You have seen senators question?

    Its all speeches from almost uniformly dumb people.

  • KevinP||

    Calling them in lets the Senators actually question them...

    Bahahahaha....

    Have you watched Spartacus ask questions in the Senate?

  • J555||

    "Calling them in lets the Senators actually question them, rather than relying on statements they wrote. It also allows the statements to be probed, the witnesses to be cross-examined, and so on, all under oath."

    Ford repeatedly lied under oath. Don't sit there and pretend to care deeply abut people lying under oath.

  • bernard11||

    Oh really?

  • eyesay||

    J555: citation needed, and from a reliable source.

  • damikesc||

    Eyesay, state of CA and rental agreements show that the second door that was her professed caused of couples therapy in 2012 was installed in 2008 to allow renters. Her SECOND house also belies her claim that she REQUIRES homes to have two exits to a room.

    Satisfactory?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "he committee, as you know, refused to call witnesses other than Ford and Kavanaugh,"

    Are you complaining that they didn't call in the woman claiming that Kavanaugh was arranging multiple gang rapes, which somehow were reported to the police by absolutely nobody? I'd think even the Democratic members of the committee would be afraid to try dignifying THAT accusation.

  • damikesc||

    Are you complaining that they didn't call in the woman claiming that Kavanaugh was arranging multiple gang rapes, which somehow were reported to the police by absolutely nobody?

    ...that she, as a college adult attending parties with high school kids, did nothing to stop to boot.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    I was a college student attending house parties in 1982. No one cared if you were high school or college. We were all kids.

  • damikesc||

    That, to be generous, is BS.

  • bernard11||

    No.

    This is your usual BS, Brett.

    They could have put Judge under oath, for one example.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Try to find some sympathy for Brett.

    Fighting for a return to the 1950s is getting ever more difficult in a United States whose electorate improves -- in manners injurious to the Republican-conservative cause -- each day as old-timey right-wingers take their stale thinking to the grave.

  • HMI||

    The return to the 1950s you speak of would be to the McCarthy hearings, I gather. The lesson the left appears to have learned is not so much how to abolish such witch hunts as how to better organize them.

  • bernard11||

    You don't know much about McCarthyism, do you?

  • Sarcastr0||

    Or the 1950s.

  • HMI||

    Only what I read in history books, which I read in preparation for teaching. And from watching hours of the taped testimonies. So, only that. You?

  • HMI||

    Since I lived through the 1950s, I probably know something about the period. And you?

  • DASGUY||

    Wasting time? Investigations can go on forever if you really want them to last.

  • epsilon given||

    I fail to see why investigating Kavanaugh's drinking habits would shed light on Ford's allegations. I think it's perfectly reasonable to limit the FBI investigation to Ford's accusation.

  • damikesc||

    Is Kavanaugh's credibility undermined by the refusal of Grassley and the GOP to release records, memos, and emails from his time in government before he was appointed to the appeals court?
  • damikesc||

    Fuck this site.

    Those papers are papers he did not write (they were, of course, written by others) and were advice for Pres Bush. He has no power or authority to release them and Bush would say no because, legitimately, they are as under executive privilege as anything in the world could be.

  • bernard11||

    He can ask that they be released. The release was controlled by a personal friend of his, who decided what could and not released.

    Besides, if not releasing things because of privilege claim does not affect credibility, why are we discussing whether Ford's credibility is affected by the failure to release her therapists notes?

    Awfully selective here, aren't we?

  • damikesc||

    He can ask that they be released.

    Pres Bush ALONE makes that decision. Not him.

    Besides, if not releasing things because of privilege claim does not affect credibility, why are we discussing whether Ford's credibility is affected by the failure to release her therapists notes?
  • HMI||

    I gather then that your opinion is that the testimony of both Ford and Kavanaugh is impugned because of failure to release all relevant documents.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    If Ford released the therapist's notes to the Washington Post then there is no more privilege. Conveniently, she can't remember if she did that or not.

  • bernard11||

    Since you ask, yes.

  • Rossami||

    Let's play 'spot the difference'.
    1. Is Ford's credibility undermined by something she chose not to do?
    2. Is Kavanaugh's credibility undermined by something that other people chose not to do?

    Unless you are assuming a conspiracy where Grassley and the entirety of the GOP are acting at the direction of Kavanaugh, there is no just comparison between those two questions.

  • bernard11||

    Pres Bush ALONE makes that decision. Not him.

    No. Bush can't make that decision arbitrarily. There has to be a reason. See here.
    Plus, he's not the one deciding. It's Trump, Grassley, and William Burck, a big shot GOP lawyer and former associate of Kavanaugh. Impartial? Sure.

    1. Is Ford's credibility undermined by something she chose not to do?
    2. Is Kavanaugh's credibility undermined by something that other people chose not to do?

    Unless you are assuming a conspiracy where Grassley and the entirety of the GOP are acting at the direction of Kavanaugh, there is no just comparison between those two questions.

    No giant conspiracy, just a meeting of the minds as to what it would be nice to keep hidden.

    As to the difference:

    1. I said that Kavanaugh could ask that his documents be released, not that he can release them.

    2. Those controlling the release are not neutral. They play on Kavanaugh's team. If the records backed him they would fall all over themselves to release them.

    That's part of Grassley's game. Rushing the process made it necessary for someone other than the Archives to handle a big part of the document issue. Enter, conveniently, Burck.

    So your question is BS, and as for the game, you lose. The questions are quite comparable.

  • jph12||

    The process wasn't rushed. It just wasn't as delayed as the Democrats wanted.

  • bernard11||

    Well OK.

    The Democrats wanted there to be time for an impartial review of Kavanaugh documents. Not Grassley.

  • damikesc||

    They couldve asked for it back in August.

  • Bruce Hayden||

    That's the reality here, Feinstein knew about the Ford allegations back around the first of August. She sat on them all the way through the regular hearings, and only sprung them after the actual hearings were complete, no one could (otherwise) call any more witnesses, and the next step was for the committee to vote on the nomination, before it went to the entire Senate. So, of course, the Democrats want more hearings, to talk to more witnesses, etc. The obvious purpose of the timing was to delay the confirmation vote until after the election, and they can get behind any maneuver or scam that might help that. If they had truly wanted to call other witnesses, they should have brought Ford forward when all the other witnesses, for both sides, were called to testify. In short, committee Ranking Member Feinstein cheated, to delay the committee and full Senate votes, and is unlikely, at this point, to be rewarded with more delay, for that cheating of hers.

  • Joe_dallas||

    A - currently the possible corroborating evidence we have for Ford's claim is the therapists notes. All other corroborating evidence rebuts her claim.

    B - The vast majority of notes memos that are notes/memos etc that were written by others, virtually nothing in those other memos written by others is going to provide additional insight to his judicial philosophy.

    C - Close to 300 existing opinions give ample information as to his judicial philosophy.

    Can you give us a coherent reason not to produce what is the only documents that would support her claim

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I have personal experience with fraudulent memories. In particular, I have a memory of a real event which was filmed, and my memory, while clear as day, differs from film of the event. I have had this "memory" ever since the event, and it wasn't until ten years after the event that I first saw the contradicting film. Yet my memory persists. I also have "watched" my own memories of incidents in my own life drift over time, compared with written notes I made originally.

    Combined with news stories of false memories fabricated by police, therapists, and self-delusion, I simply do not put much credence in plain old memories. Just as Prof Bernstein says, my guess has been that if anything happened at all, it was drunk teenagers bumping into each other and falling down, and while attempting to separate themselves, hands went where they should/would not have while sober. It's exactly the kind of incident ripe for blowing up 30 years later by a shrink looking to find ways to keep a patient coming back, even an ethical shrink who truly thinks it is helping the patient.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    My experience has to do with having a photographic memory into my early 20's. I noticed that such memories were only truly reliable the first couple of times they were accessed, so I'd avoid recalling key textbook pages until I needed them during a test.

    People don't realize this, but you're only truly remembering an event the first time you remember it. Subsequently, you're remembering remembering it, and little changes can start creeping in.

    Look at a memory many times, and it's like playing a game of "telephone" with yourself; Eventually the original memory gets overwritten by a story you've generated about what happened.

    One way you can see this is by closely examining a memory of a cherished or traumatic childhood event. Most times, your memory will be of the event from an external perspective, not through your eyes. That's because you're remembering a story you've told yourself many times, not recalling stored sensory data.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I've read a few times that human memory is like core memory, in that each read is destructive and has to rewrite the memory. Like what you said. I have been convinced of that for a long time.

    I was witness to a crime once, and the very first thing I did was grab a notepad and start scribbling like crazy, all disjointed and rambling. I figured if I ever got to court, my verbal evidence would be entirely with reference to that. I think one of the stupidest things about current trials is how long it takes to get to court, and by then witnesses have been interviewed and coached to a fare thee well. I have no faith in eyewitnesses.

  • BadLib||

    I had a very crisp memory of a particular English teacher having played a particular song on a "boombox" back when I was in a school I went to for only one year.

    It was only decades later that I realized it was impossible... The song was a well known song by a well known artist about a well known, but unpredictable, event. I happened to be looking up the event in Wikipedia a few years ago and realized the event the song was about occurred several years after I attended the school I recall the teacher playing the song at.

    Interestingly, this was the only teacher I ever had who would play music in this way and did so fairly often and wove it into her lesson plan somehow.

    This memory, I suspect, was the result of some dream sequence which was sufficiently believable that for some reason I didn't prune shortly after awaking -- but I have no proof of that.

    This experience has made me even more skeptical of eyewitness memories -- esp. from the distant past.

  • KevinP||

    I think every single one of us has these deceptive memories, if we are honest.

    Many years ago, I was on the verge of angrily confronting my then employer about some financial detail that I was sure he was reneging on. Fortunately, I keep good records, and dug up the contract in question from only two years previous. And to my shock, the employer was 100% correct.

    Since then, I have been extra sure to keep good records and notes, especially for things that may become relevant again years or decades in the future.

  • Sarcastr0||

    I do like your new war on memory ever being useful evidence of anything.

    In your eagerness to discredit, you've proved way too much.

  • Armchair Lawyer||

    The short answer is yes, it does undermine her credibility.

    Ford is using the therapy sessions as a key backing point for her allegations. Her refusal to actually provide the notes of those sessions is troubling.

    Let's use an analogy. Trump says "I paid all my taxes, I have the IRS records to prove it". People say "Well let us see the records". Trump goes, "Nope, not gonna do it".

    Does that undermine Trump's point that the records support him?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    In that specific case, no, because the IRS has the records, and, what does the IRS do if they have records demonstrating that somebody hasn't paid their taxes?

    They act on them.

    Thus the fact that he hasn't been subject to delinquent tax actions confirms that the records don't demonstrate a failure to pay all his taxes.

    Democrats don't want his taxes released because they think he's violated tax laws. They just think they can find something perfectly legal but embarrassing.

  • bernard11||

    Right.

    OTOH, Trump repeatedly promised to release the returns, as other candidates have routinely done. Is it just OK with you that he hasn't done it? Is it OK that he offered a bullshit excuse about an audit?

    Besides, don't the returns cast light on his qualifications for office? I mean, the big deal was that he is a great businessman - never mind those bankruptcies, lawsuits, stiffed creditors, etc. - wonderful negotiator, etc.

    What if that's not actually true, and his success has been greatly exaggerated?

  • Joe_dallas||

    Regarding releasing Trumps tax returns - As a CPA specializing in taxation, releasing trumps tax returns would be foolish simply because the complexity of his returns are going to create mutlitudes of false impressions. While Bush's Clinton's, Obama's returns were moderately complex, they still are/were understandable by the average individual and few items were beyond the comprehension of the average individual. Trumps returns on the other hand are quite complex and even the most sophisticated CPA isnt going to be able to opine on the returns without a reasonable review of the underlying data. For that reason, the release of his returns is going to create a lot of false impressions, false reporting and flat out misrepresentation of the applicable law.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Conceal the truth because some people might get the wrong idea from it?

  • bernard11||

    Joe,

    Likely true, but utterly irrelevant.

    First, we don't know how complex they are, because we haven't seen them.

    Second, none of what you say bears at all on the fact that he did repeatedly promise to release them.

    Third, since you are a CPA, I'm sure you are well aware that there was nothing to prevent his releasing them while still being audited.

    Fourth, while you are right that they may be difficult to understand, I'm not convinced they would be incomprehensible, and if he wanted full disclosure he could certainly have his accountants prepare some sort of summary or explanatory notes.

  • damikesc||

    Well, theyd be inconprehensible to opponents who want them to be that way.

  • Naaman Brown||

    So the IRS with access to the Trump's tax returns is covering something up that a Democrat could ferret out?

  • Krayt||

    ===They just think they can find something perfectly legal but embarrassing.===

    Which is perfectly fine, and why most presidential candidates release theirs, and a handful do not, judging the downside from obviously hiding something is not as bad as revealing it.

  • gphx||

    Fun watching NeverTrumpers use the theft that is taxation in support of their hate.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    As much fun as watching authoritarian, bigoted Trump supporters pretend to care about liberty, let alone claim to be libertarians?

  • HMI||

    No: as much fun as watching authoritarian, bigoted leftists pretending they care about liberal democracy, let alone their claim to be realists.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Obviously it does undercut her credibility, rather like the alleged "witnesses" who denied witnessing any such event.

    That doesn't imply any legal obligation to turn them over, but the refusal still rationally undercuts her claims.

  • Ben_||

    Her credibility isn't relevant. There's no way for us to know what happened to her in high school because she hasn't given us any information to back up her account. All the people she mentions don't know of the incident or deny it happened.

    It could be 100% true or 100% false. You don't know. You can't.

    You also won't know after the silly FBI investigation concludes on Friday.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Her credibility isn't relevant. There's no way for us to know what happened to her in high school because she hasn't given us any information to back up her account.

    This proves way too much. Does this apply to accusations against Catholic Priests?

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "This proves way too much."

    It doesn't purport to prove anything. In fact the statement is that proof either way is impossible.

    "Does this apply to accusations against Catholic Priests?"

    It does to those accusations that have been first raised decades after the fact.

    However, this is not the case with all (maybe not even most) of the accusations against Catholic Priests. A big part of of the problem posed for the Catholic church is that documentary evidence has turned up that officials in the church's hierarchy were aware of much of the abuse more contemporaneously to when it happened and took steps to cover it up, including shuffling problem priests around to different posts.

  • Sarcastr0||

    So what you're saying is that while testimony along is not enough to convict, it is enough to investigate.

    Huh.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    No.

    Testimony alone contemporaneous to the alleged crime is enough to investigate, possibly even enough to convict.

    Testimony alone, when that testimony comes for the first time decades later is not worth much of anything, certainly not enough to waste limited government resources investigating.

  • Joe_dallas||

    "Testimony alone, when that testimony comes for the first time decades later is not worth much of anything, certainly not enough to waste limited government resources investigating."

    Ask most any police investigator - even assuming the allegation is recent few are going to spend any time on this allegation beyond the initial intake report.

  • BadLib||

    If she had reported the event within a day (or even a week) of the event, she would have been able to identify the house, the date, the approximate time, and other details. As well, the other alleged witnesses would have had fresh memory of the gathering (assuming they were not too inebriated) and been able to collaborate with whatever they saw (in most cases they would have seen little but may have noted her "invisible" exit from the gathering or her going upstairs when Judge and Kavanaugh were already up there or Judge and Kavanaugh following her up the stairs).

    With those details, at least in today's world, the police would likely go way beyond an initial intake report.

  • Sarcastr0||

    The thing is, MS, you take your evaluation from an ipse dixit evaluation of when an investigation will be useful. You don't seem to be pointing to any ideas.

    And, as I noted above, your arbitrary-but-convenient line would exclude quite a few fruitful accusations against Catholic churches.

  • Sarcastr0||

    FBI today interviewed Tim Gaudette, a Georgetown Prep classmate of Kavanaugh made famous through Kavanaugh's calendar indicating he may have hosted July 1 "brewskis" party. Dr. Ford claims Kavanagh attacked her at a party matching this.

  • damikesc||

    ...except the number of attendees doesnt match her claim.

    She hasnt provided much verifiable info, you realize.

  • JeffreyL||

    She gave three names. All three indicated that the event did not happen. At that point, the police investigating the matter would end the investigation.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Do you remember your first breath, JeffreyL?

    By your ostensible standards, it didn't happen.

    Yet here you are -- a living, breathing, stale-thinking, right-wing authoritarian.

    No wonder you are confused.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Do you remember your first breath, JeffreyL?

    By your ostensible standards, it didn't happen.

    Yet here you are -- a living, breathing, stale-thinking, right-wing authoritarian.

    No wonder you are confused.

  • epsilon given||

    Obviously JeffreyL took his first breath: he's here breathing today. There's physical *evidence* that this first breath happened.

    Now, if we wanted to claim that he smelled something weird with his first breath, and the people he lists being there -- his doctor, his mother, the midwife -- all say they cannot recall, one way or another, that there was some weird smell -- I think we could safely dismiss that testimony.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Do you remember your first breath, JeffreyL?

    Do you remember when your parents accidentally cut off your oxygen supply and gave you permanent brain damage?

  • OtisAH||

    No, they did not say the event did not happen. They said they could not recall one way or the other.

  • damikesc||

    ...which means it did not happen.

    If you say "These people were THERE" and they ALL say "No, we were not", then she is --- to use the anti-Kavanaugh's crowd --- lying about it and her claims should be dismissed because she lied about eyewitnesses.

  • Joe_dallas||

    in other words - After three denials by all named witnesses - the police are going to continue following up on dead ends -

  • Bob from Ohio||

    "They said they could not recall one way or the other."

    Her friend said she had never met Kav.

    If she was there, she would have met him.

    Wherever there was.

  • BadLib||

    Virtually no one (including myself) remember every person they met over the past 35 years.

    When we say we never met someone from over 30 years ago, it's pretty much implied that we don't _recall_ meeting that person, not that we really are sure we didn't meet that person -- unless there are special circumstances that would have excluded the _possibility_ of meeting them (such as they died before you were born or they had never left their country of birth and you had never been in their country of birth - although, in the latter case, you could have "met" them via social media).

    I went to a high school with about 2000 students and met many of them - esp. in my class of about 500. Yet, if you gave me everyone's name and a picture of them from that time, I doubt I could recall meeting even 200 of them.

    This is why the correct answer to "did you ever ..." about some event in the past is almost always "At this point in time I don't have an independent recollection of that.". Sometimes, of course, we do recall later -- just as we forget the name of B&B we stayed at 20 years ago until, while driving home from the party where we were discussing, we recall the name and the recollection is clear.

  • epsilon given||

    It hardly bolsters Ford's claim, though, by pointing out that a key witness doesn't remember meeting Kavanaugh, but *could* have met him.

  • KenveeB||

    The fact that we can't know for certain what happened to her is the very thing that makes her credibility so relevant. We weren't there and there's no video of what happened. So we have to rely purely on the credibility of the people making and denying the accusation to decide if it's true. That's what credibility means. If we KNEW what happened, it wouldn't matter if she was credible.

  • Ben_||

    You "can't know for certain". You can't know for half certain. You can't know for 10% certain.

    You have literally zero information on which to base a conclusion against Kavanaugh in the Ford vs. Kavanaugh matter. That only leaves your own belief and emotion -- what you call "credibility". It's unfair and unjust to make a meaningful judgement against someone on that basis.

    The fair conclusion is "we don't know".

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Ah, but her CREDIBILITY is all she apparently has to support her story. And, from where I stand, she simply hasn't got any. She could acquire some if she released the transcripts of her therapy...if said transcripts support what she has said.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Every time an old-timey, intolerant, Republican man makes a crack about Dr. Ford's lack of credibility or Brett Kavanaugh's awesomeness, a young, modern woman gets her voting wings -- for life.

    Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit, anyway.

  • KevinP||

    Speaking of young modern women...

    Senator Hirono Didn't Always Tell Men to 'Shut Up' and Believe Accusers: When it mattered in her own backyard, with a male Democratic senator, she turned a blind eye to sexual abuse.


    Quotes:
    In Senator Hirono's case, she had the opportunity to choose sides in the 1990s when credible allegations were made that Daniel Inouye, then a Democratic senator representing Hawaii, had engaged in a pattern of sexual assault.

    Lenore Kwock, the senator's hairdresser for 20 years, said she had been forced into nonconsensual sex back in 1975 and had suffered persistent gropings since then.

    Kwock was surprised at the silence of Hawaii's female political leaders about her account, given that the Anita Hill hearings had riveted the nation just one year earlier. Mazie Hirono, then considered a protégé of Inouye's as a member of the State House, maintained a studied and consistent silence. There is no evidence she believed Kwock.

    Senator Mazie Hirono today poses as a brave feminist cultural warrior, but when it really counted in her own backyard in Hawaii, she was AWOL. The same holds true when Bill Clinton's predations were in the news in the late 1990s.

  • epsilon given||

    Ah, but that's "whataboutism"! In particular, what about the claim by Republicans that Democrats don't actually care about women, but are merely using Ford for cynical political purposes?

  • epsilon given||

    But don't forget the women who imagine their husbands and sons facing barely-credible allegations, with absolutely no physical evidence to back things up, and witnesses unable to remember anything to support the allegations -- facing the destruction of their education, their employment, and their good reputation.

    Some of these are Democrats, and they are concluding that Democrats must *never* be given the reigns of power...

  • lhfry||

    The most damage to her credibility was her use in her testimony of the "little girl voice" - a tactic used by women when they don't want to take responsibility for what they are saying. It is highly unlikely that she uses this mannerism when giving a lecture, but since her internet presence has been scrubbed, we can't know.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The "little girl voice" I remember was Brett Kavanaugh's, while he was weeping. Did you like that one, lhfry?

  • bernard11||

    I remember the "belligerent, entitled asshole voice."

    "Hey, I got good grades and played sports. What else matters?"

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Both voices -- weepy and belligerent -- could come in handy for a Justice Kavanaugh if he finds himself on the dissenting end of a lengthy string of 6-5 votes at the Supreme Court.

  • Grifhunter||

    6-5 votes?

  • BadLib||

    I presume this is after the Democrats, at some point in the future, control the House, Senate, and Administration and they pack the court.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    Trump will expand the court to 15. It'll be 12-3 conservative.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    "Hey, I got good grades and played sports. What else matters?"

    Just because you were a loser in high school doesn't mean you have to project that resentment on to others, shitlib.

  • epsilon given||

    So you're mocking a man driven to tears? Of course, if he had been perfectly 100% stoic, it would have absolutely been proof of his guilt. Because, hey, if the allegations were false, he'd be angry, as any proper innocent person would be!

  • donojack||

    It undermines her credibility because the notes apparently differ from her statement and testimony in material ways. It is hard for me to understand how Ford could reveal an attack during therapy and the therapist would get wrong something so important as how many people attacked her. Is it plausible that the therapist didn't follow up on this? How many times does the therapist note that there were four attackers?

    And what about the reference to it being the the mid-eighties when she was in her late teens? Does she mention driving herself to the scene of the attack? Does she describe difficulties that she had in college after the attack but not problems in her last two years in high school?

  • gphx||

    Ford's credibility isn't undermined, it's destroyed by not knowing where or when supposed events took place, who drove her there or back, and her own four supposed witnesses signed statements indicating they were never there and knew nothing about it. Given those facts any further speculation is ludicrous. In a sane world it'd been over before it started.

  • PoxOnBothYourHouses||

    Just for clarity, gphx, it's two witnesses. The other two are the accused. The most difficult hurdle for Ford -- I think -- is her best friend's denying even knowing Kavanaugh, though she's supposed to have been at an intimate party with him,

  • Bob from Ohio||

    Yes.

    Easiest question ever.

  • Sarcastr0||

    the much greater danger is that the therapist used a treatment modality, such as hypnosis, that affected Ford's perception of the memory

    Ummm...is this coming from some area of expertise, or out of your hat?

  • KenveeB||

    The dangers of influencing memories under hypnosis are well-known, and there have been many court cases setting out rules for determining whether a person can even still testify after having a hypnotically refreshed memory. It's a common therapy techniques, so there's really no way of knowing if it was done or not without getting details of the therapy. Like from the notes.

  • Sarcastr0||

    I mean, OK. But there is zero evidence hypnosis occurred, so the danger is actually pretty low.

    This is just more partisan speculation.

  • PoxOnBothYourHouses||

    Sarcastr0: "This is just more partisan speculation"

    There is surely some of that, but this is also the sort of thing that would come up in a competent cross-examination. That didn't happen here.

    This was more than a job interview but less than a trial. Since Ford made very serious claims about Kavanaugh -- which could potentially lead to a criminal indictment -- more questioning of her testimony was warranted. The Republicans were snake bitten with the fear they'd be accused of jumping on a victim, and the Democrats were too busy saying how much they believed her and how brave she was, and all that. So her statements, even where she was just vouching for herself, were allowed to pass. Indeed, some of those things (about how memory works -- leading her to be absolutely certain of her identification of K and J) were praised by news commenters, though they would be destroyed by a competent defense attorney.

  • Sarcastr0||

    It would turn up in investigation, not cross. You don't ask questions like that on cross unless you know where it is going.

  • PoxOnBothYourHouses||

    I was thinking of something that doesn't require investigation. I'm of two minds on the issue of her memory of the event, but Dr. Ford told the panel about the role of portions on the brain that led to her having such a clear memory of being assaulted by BK, and she was praised for being such an expert.

    But she was just vouching for herself, which would be shown if a defense attorney were able to ask this (in a judicially appropriate way).

    -----
    Atty: Dr. Ford. you testified about how trauma is encoded indelibly in the hippocampus, and that this is why you can be certain that BK assaulted you. Is that correct?

    Ford: Basically, yes, but let me clarify. XXXXXXXXX.

    Atty: Thank you. Now you are probable aware that there have been cases in which a rape victim testified against her assailant and was absolutely certain in her identification, but it later turned out she was wrong. Could you tell us what brain functions are responsible for that type of occurrence?
    ----------------------------

    The problem is that she was allowed to present herself as an expert in eyewitness identification, and her statements about brain function, though self-serving and conveniently ignoring the vast literature on eye-witness fallibility, were never challenged.

  • Krayt||

    I don't know why they are bringing up hypnosis or recovered memories, both of which have serious issues. In the bigger picture one wants to know if there were any leading therapist questions, which can plant memories even if the therapist isn't trying to plant them.

  • damikesc||

    Sarcastro, tell me more about Kavanaugh's drinking to excess or attempted rape. You do so hate speculation.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Dunno about the attempted rape - lets investigate!

    His explicit discussions of his drinking have brought out a number of classmates who all say he was lying. Not that they don't remember, but that he was lying.

    Do you not think that's worth looking into either?

  • PoxOnBothYourHouses||

    I think if anything deep-sixes his nomination, it will be the drinking. The sex charges aren't going anywhere.[but I think he should withdraw for the good of the court]

  • Sarcastr0||

    I legit don't know what the FBI will find re: the sex stuff, but if I had to guess, I'd say you're right. Cold cases are hard.

    IMO it'll be demeanor. Not for any rational reason, just because it's easy to see.

    For me personally it's the truth issues. Starting with his 2006 testimony, extending to his testimony about drinking.

  • damikesc||

    Do you have more than rampant speculation? The hypnosis claims have as much evidence behind them as the rape claim.

    Drinking is now disqualifying? Fuck. RBG was drunk at SOTU...per RBG.

    Tell me more.

  • Sarcastr0||

    RBG was drunk at SOTU...per RBG.

    Very normal.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Someone made the rape claim. No one has made the hypnosis claim other than people who cannot know speculating. What world do you live in?

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    The notes from the marriage counselor she released, supposedly to corroborate her story, indicate a different number of assailants than the accusation against Kavanaugh now, and none of the assailants were named in the counselor's notes.

    When people pushed back at her over that discrepancy, Ford and her husband mentioned a different therapist she saw individually and said she did name Kavanaugh to that therapist. They have not released any information at all from that therapist, they haven't even named the therapist, so we can't even verify if the therapist exists.

    So, what she remembered when, if and why her memory of the incident may or may not have changed matters.

  • Joe_dallas||

    As noted in the 4th paragraph above - "The other professor made two basic points. The first is that there is no reason to believe that Ford's memory of the incident is a "recovered memory." "

    I agree, this memory doesnt come across as a "false recovered memory"

    What does come across is a memory of an actual event that has morphed into an attempted rape.

    Most likely, a couple of teenage guys, when drunk acted like jerks, tackled her, copped a feel/some groping, but nothing close to attempted rape.

    A couple of clues
    1) Attempted rape with someone else in the room - vey rare. Attempted rape with house full of people - extremely rare.
    2) Letter has 3 or so paragraph describing attempted rape, another sentence describing two guys playing king of the mountain and another sentence saying the "attempted rape" was at best a very half-ass attempt (when there was no attempt to stop her from leaving the room.
    3) the level of trauma was very disproportionate to the actual trauma (ie she seems to have lot of other issues that exaborate the single groping incident.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Most likely

    The key is to speculate yourself into what you want to believe!

    Your list of reasons seem to be based on your own ideas based on nothing in particular.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    That's the basic problem here, that isn't going away: There's no way to know what actually happened. There will never be a way.

    I happen to believe, as a matter of ordinary justice, and given the predictable consequences of allowing this sort of unprovable, unfalsifiable allegation to be taken seriously, that we need to dismiss the allegation.

    Our legal system already takes unprovable, but at least contemporaneous, allegations too seriously. We should not compound that by allowing allegations of decades old wrongdoing, vague to the point of absurdity, to be taken seriously. They're too easy to make, and the consequences for making them are not particularly negative.

    Ford is already about a million dollars wealthier for making this accusation, and faces a dismal future of remunerative speaking fees, book deals, and maybe a movie. That's a heck of an incentive to make false accusations that are politically useful!

    Unless we remove the political utility, or the remuneration, the long term consequences are obvious.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Yeah, lean on the epidemic of false rape allegations. Any port in a storm, eh?

    I also like the intimation that Ford came forwards in some long game to play for gofundme money.
    That's just more speculative BS that tells of desperation beyond just getting Kavanaugh on the Court, but keeping a clean narrative for yourself as well.

    Yeah, not even eyewitnesses truly know what's happened. That's never stopped us from investigating crimes before, and this isn't even criminal.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    It doesn't matter if she came forward to profit off a gofundme, or she came forward to help her party hold onto the Supreme court for a while. The financial incentives from her profiting off the accusation are still going to have the same consequences.

    You pay people enormous sums to make accusations, and arrange for making false accusations risk free, and you're going to get false accusations.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Yeah, her motive doesn't matter so long as you assume she's lying.

    That's circular reasoning.

  • damikesc||

    We have no reason to assume she's being truthful.

    Perhaps if she provided evidence.

    Didn't white women say black men tried to rape them in the 1920's? I guess those lynchings WEREN'T wrong since we have to, of course, BELIEVE THE WOMEN, right?

    That's how it works, right?

    It takes a special movement to make the hero in To Kill a Mockingbird a villain now ... but feminism has done so.

  • epsilon given||

    How difficult, though, would it be to take a therapy session where some vague details are made, but no names are recorded, and then go on to claim that it's someone who you knew in high school?

    She might not have planned this, but she may have seen an opportunity and decided to run with it....

  • Joe_dallas||

    Leaving aside the politics - & leave aside the two individual involved

    How would you as a prosecutor overcome those two sentences in her letter which provides ample doubt that the event was an actual attempted rape.

  • Sarcastr0||

    We aren't in the prosecution stage; that's just convenient framing.

    I'm not up on non-TV show policework, but I'd get some investigators out to examine people's stories and see what adds up and what doesn't and then follow those trails based on what narratives make sense.

  • Joe_dallas||

    "We aren't in the prosecution stage; "

    no we are not in the prosecution stage - But we are in the credibiltiy stage.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Prosecutors deal with a burden way beyond credibility. A credible witness ain't enough to win a case.

  • subpatre||

    . . . . and the "job interview" analogy you endorse prohibits any and all questions about personal life.

    So yes, this is about you in a job interview and someone with a personal grudge bursting in to say " 'e groped me!"

    If the candidate groped someone 20 years ago it's none of the employers' business. If the candidate [did something] and there is a current police investigation, pending legal action, or warrants issued; that can be the employers' business. But if the candidate committed a crime, even a grave crime, as a juvenile, it is again none of the employers' business.

    Most of this is HR-101 and employers are legally prohibited from asking about personal history and habits.

  • Joe_dallas||

    Secondly - why would you assign high credibility to her account of the alleged attempted rape in the face of her two conflicting statements?

  • Sarcastr0||

    Do to the 2012 confirmation, and her demeanor before Congress, I find her allegations credible enough to warrant a legitimate investigation, although not alone enough to kill the nomination.

    Her statements do not conflict in any material way. Were I relying on her testimony to convict someone, I'd be concerned. But she still passes the threshold of wanting to know more, even if I don't really have a great idea what the truth of that night is.

    Highly credible? Eh, that's meaningless. It's a threshold question.

  • damikesc||

    So, acting ability = credibility for you?

  • Sarcastr0||

    Me and every jury, and the American People.

    Calmness can't make you more credible, but its lack can make you less.

  • damikesc||

    She claimed she got a second door because of her paranoia from her assault.

    She lied about that. Blatantly so.

    So, where is her credibility?

  • damikesc||

    but I'd get some investigators out to examine people's stories

    1) It's been 36 years at least.
    2) The names she provided said it did not happen.

    What OTHER stories are they supposed to vet?

  • damikesc||

    but I'd get some investigators out to examine people's stories

    1) It's been 36 years at least.
    2) The names she provided said it did not happen.

    What OTHER stories are they supposed to vet?

  • Sarcastr0||

    They said the don't remember. That doesn't mean questioning them would be worthless. Plus there are friends of both parties.

    I'd vet Kav's stories myself, since credibility on the stand is material to me.

  • damikesc||

    Ford lied about why she went to therapy in the first place.

  • Sarcastr0||

    sorry, damikesc, you're not gong to make your door theory happen.

  • damikesc||

    You realize in CA you have to get approval for renovations, right?

    This is not a theory. This is submitted documentation.

    Also, her OTHER house doesnt have two exits.

    But, yes, youre just looking for truth.

  • ragebot||

    Not only friends of both parties; there are also friends of friends of both parties; and still more friends of friends.

    At what point do you reach the Nyquist limit?

  • Sarcastr0||

    Haha, cute ref.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    Anyone who's saying anything about this is speculating. People can be extremely skeptical about this story that has only her word to back it up and only her memories for confirmation. These responses aren't calling her a liar (well, okay, she fed us a ton of BS when she launched into an overly technical explanation of how memories are stored in order make them seem much more ironclad than they are, and she's a psychologist and should know it's a pile of BS, but I'm willing to forgive that), at least, we're willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to her without completely believing every element of the story based solely on her word.

  • Sarcastr0||

    That's where I am as well.

    I don't know what happened. But I'm not going to raise my standard of proof to metaphysical certitude as some are suddenly requiring, but I am going to say an investigation is certainly called for, difficult though it may be.

    I'd also like to check out Kav's extraordinary testimony as well as Ford's.

  • bernard11||

    Attempted rape with someone else in the room - vey rare. Attempted rape with house full of people - extremely rare.

    If you were fabricating a story about being sexually assaulted would you include a third person in your scenario? I mean, suppose that third person could prove he spent the summer in Europe or something.

    Would you put other people in the house? Suppose someone said, "Yes, I was at a party with Ford and Kavanaugh and two or three other people. We just drank a few beers and then left. I gave Ford a ride home."

  • Krayt||

    ===I mean, suppose that third person could prove he spent the summer in Europe or something.===

    This was the same argument I used during the OJ trial -- the police would have had to plant the evidence before forensic analysis of blood at the scene came back. Recall in a vicious struggle like that, often the attacker is injured and has left blood there, too.

    So plant evidence that OJ did it, with high risk "the real killer's" blood would also be there, leading to the conclusion two did it.

  • Lee Moore||

    If you were fabricating a story about being sexually assaulted would you include a third person in your scenario?

    Surely that depends on who the third person is. Guilt by association is hardly a new idea.

    If you fabricate a story and name Jimmy Stewart as the co-perp, you're weakening your case. But if you name someone who was later convicted of a sexual assault at college in another case, you're strengthening your case. So if you've got a Target and you find out that at school he was friends with a blackout boozehound who wrote a book about his struggle with alcohol, then putting in the friend helps your fabrication.

    And if you don't trouble to specify which summer you're talking about, then you're not leaving much room for alibis.

  • ragebot||

    If you were fabricating a story (about anything) would you fail to specify date, time place, how you got there, how you left and just about any other detail that could be confirmed or denied.

    Ford's story was so non specific that even if you said you spent the summer in Europe in a particular year Ford could claim that was the wrong year.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "If you were fabricating a story (about anything) would you fail to specify ...."

    Yes. The more vague the details, the harder it is to deny/refute.

  • bernard11||

    Most likely, a couple of teenage guys, when drunk acted like jerks, tackled her, copped a feel/some groping, but nothing close to attempted rape.

    1. What would turn that into attempted rape, in your opinion?

    2. If what you say is what happened, how do you think Kavanaugh should have responded to the allegation?

  • JoeGoins||

    >Your colleague maintains that "the legal system treats what Ford told her therapist is presumptively true, because it comes within a hearsay exception . . . ."
    >You say: "The fact that medical records are a hearsay exception doesn't give them a presumption of truth, and no court would instruct a jury on such a presumption. It instead only means that the legal system finds them reliable enough to be admitted, which is a low bar."

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the notes only prove that she claimed in 2012/2013 to have been sexually assaulted in the 1980s. They don't independently help prove Ford's allegation because they come from the same source making the allegation.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    It might, potentially, give her the appearance of credibility that she's mentioned this previously when the timing wasn't really politically convenient. As far as I know, she never told her therapist the name of her attacker, though, so it's not really going to help either way.

  • Sarcastr0||

    I think she said he was a high-powered judge.

  • Lee Moore||

    Oh. You seen the notes then ?

    Who's the therapist ?

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Too late, Bernstein.

    Maybe you could show by Ford's records that she went to counseling without a clue that anything happened, and then Dr. Mesmer himself inveigled her into a belief that Kavanaugh attacked her. But you would still somehow have to deal with the self-evident fact that in front of the entire nation Kavanaugh showed himself to be the self-deceptive, arrogant, aggressive, hate-filled, drunken lout she described. That's more proof for her credibility than anything from her counseling records could knock down.

    And then, corroboration poured in from others well positioned to know Kavanaugh. It may seem unfair to you that the facts of Kavanaugh's alleged attack on Ford were thereby effectively removed from the defensive critique, but for that, you have to blame Kavanaugh, not Ford.

    If you are still in the slightest doubt, try this thought experiment. In all the annals of history and literature, stretching over millennia, is there even one example of a person of high status, unjustly accused, vindicating his honor by behavior like Kavanaugh displayed? I can't think of one. Can you?

    Kavanaugh is what he showed himself to be on live television. That he will take with him to the Supreme Court, if he gets there. And if he does, he will shame the court with what he showed.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    "is there even one example of a person of high status, unjustly accused, vindicating his honor by behavior like Kavanaugh displayed? I"

    People used to fight duels to vindicate honor.

    You are also crazy to think that displays of anger have not elicited apologies over millennia.

  • James Pollock||

    "You are also crazy to think that displays of anger have not elicited apologies over millennia."

    Yeah. Saying "apologize, or me and my armed friends here will kill you" has produced some apologies. Sincerity, on the other hand...

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Yeah. Saying "apologize, or me and my armed friends here will kill you" has produced some apologies

    If Kavanaugh had actually said that, the hearing might have been more interesting.

    If you're going to go down the shitthatdidnthappen.txt road, at least make it sound like it possible *could* have happened.

  • damikesc||

    If you are still in the slightest doubt, try this thought experiment. In all the annals of history and literature, stretching over millennia, is there even one example of a person of high status, unjustly accused, vindicating his honor by behavior like Kavanaugh displayed? I can't think of one. Can you?

    Historically, false claims of rape would've led to violence by the falsely accused.

  • epsilon given||

    A police officer named Massad Ayoob, well known for teaching people about self defense law, gave an example of a prosecuting attorney asking "Is it true that you have sex with chickens?"

    He points out that if you matter-of-factly say "No, it is not", the jury would conclude "Wow, look at how cool and reserved he answered that! He must consider sex with chickens to be normal every-day activity!"

    He also points out that having a sick smile, and saying nothing, would result in "Wow! He's embarrassed! He must be guilty of that accusation!"

    The prosecutor generally expects those kinds of reactions to such a weird question -- it's a stupid lawyer trick.

    No, the proper response is to be outraged that you would be accused of such a weird thing.

    So, yes, if Kavanaugh is outraged that he's been accused of attempted rape (and worse), I consider it a bolstering of his testimony, not a detraction to it. What is he supposed to do, after all? Calmly deny it? Confess to it, even if he really didn't do it? What would a normal person do, when accused of something so awful?

    For the record, here's the video where Mas Ayoob talks about these things: "Cute" Lawyer Tricks

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "And then, corroboration poured in from others well positioned to know Kavanaugh."

    What corroboration from whom?

    Ford has only named three people besides herself and Kavanaugh that were at the alleged party. All three have denied any recollection of any party at which they were present with both Kavanaugh and Ford.

    Statements by third parties that Ford told them about the incident, which supposedly happened in the early 1980s, sometime in the early 2010s do not corroborate her story in any significant way.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    "What corroboration from whom?"

    He is talking about the "reports" that Kav drank in college.

    Who knew the left were Puritans.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    The attempted rape of Ford by Kavanaugh, if it happened at all, happened when he was in high school.

    His college drinking habits do exactly nothing to corroborate Ford's accusation.

  • Joe_dallas||

    The question is what level of credibility to assign to her side of the story, not whether the refusal to release the therapist records undermine her credibility.

    Rightlyfully or wrongly, a large swath of the population has accorded great weight to her allegation absent any corroborating evidence. Likewise, a large swath of the population has accorded little weight to her allegation due to the absence of corrobrating evidence. (including the vagueness of the allegation.

    A good test of someones objectivity is to flip sides of the political spectrum and determine if you get the same answer.

    The defense is not supposed to ask about prior sexual activity in a rape case.
    Yet delving into how the memory of the event was recreated/recovered/retained is important to determine the accuracy of the memory.

    Does she have other issues that when cause her to embellish the memory?
    What else is she being treated for?
    Are there similar allegations of other sexual assaults?

    The short answer is that without the rest of the therapists notes, I cant assign much weight to her allegation.
    Even worse, providing selected notes, but refusing to release the remainder of the notes leads to the question of what is being hidden.

  • bernard11||

    A good test of someones objectivity is to flip sides of the political spectrum and determine if you get the same answer.

    I agree.

    The short answer is that without the rest of the therapists notes, I cant assign much weight to her allegation.
    Even worse, providing selected notes, but refusing to release the remainder of the notes leads to the question of what is being hidden.

    Does all the material about Kavanaugh that was hidden influence your thinking?

  • Lee Moore||

    When we've got the first 500,000 pages of Ford's therapy notes, I'll let you know.

  • epsilon given||

    I agree. If someone came out and accused, say, Bill Clinton, of sexual assault, and all she had was a 20 or 30 year-old allegation, no police reports, and three witnesses who cannot corroborate her story, to prove it, I think I'd have a hard time accepting that the allegations are true.

    Similarly, how am I supposed to believe the allegations of domestic abuse against Democrat National Committee Co-Chair Keith Ellison, who is currently running for Attorney General in Minnesota? It's not as if there are police reports backing up the claims, right? Oh, wait....

  • John Rohan||

    There's a reason Ford doesn't want to release the therapist notes. It conflicts with her case against Kavanaugh. In those notes, she claims that she was sexually assaulted by four boys. During her Congressional testimony, she claimed the therapist must have written that down wrong (I find that unlikely):

    MITCHELL: Have you shown them [the therapist notes] to anyone else besides your counsel?

    FORD: Just the counsel.

    MITCHELL: OK. Would it be fair to say that Brett Kavanaugh's name is not listed in those notes?

    FORD: His name is not listed in those notes.

    MITCHELL: Would it also be fair to say that the therapist notes that we've been talking about say that there were four boys in the room?

    FORD: It describes the sexual assault and it says erroneously by four boys. So the therapist got the content of it wrong.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    "FORD: Just the counsel."

    The WaPo article said differently, said WaPo had seen "portions"

    Ford lied on this.

    I now await all the people here who preform metaphysics on ambiguous statements to determine "perjured himself" to comment on this un-ambiguous lie.

  • John Rohan||

    It's possible the WaPo saw it afterwards. However, I find it difficult to believe a therapist would write down four attackers if the patient was describing only one.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    The article was published before the testimony.

  • CrispyBacon||

    Privacy is important. I mean, Feinstein was going to hide an allegation of sexual assault against a nominee from the Judiciary Committee and the Senate. She was apparently going to be silent as Kavanaugh was confirmed, even though the allegation is so obviously disqualifying. If the letter had been sent to Grassley, do you think he would have shown the same concern for privacy as Feinstein did? Imagine the horror of Democrats if Grassley had divulged the content of the letter to his colleagues, contrary to the letter writer's wishes! Privacy is of the utmost concern in these proceedings when it relates to someone making serious accusations without evidence. Surely you understand this, Prof. Bernstein!

    ;)

  • theobromophile||

    I am not a psychologist or neuroscientist. I'm a lawyer. But I am a lawyer with an exceptionally good memory. My college nickname was Rainman. Friends have asked me questions like, "Did I ever tell you my mom's birthday? I forgot when it is, but you would remember."

    I have spent a lot of time with family and friends, reconstructing a more complete or accurate version of events. It's a lot of, "You said that so-and-so was there. So it couldn't have been sophomore year; we met him senior year," or "This is where we were going and what time of year it was, etc."

    Blasey Ford can't account for how she made it home, 8 miles away, with no driver's license, no car, no Uber, and no cell phone. That is *exactly* the kind of thing that should cause someone to think through the confusion and sort out the memory, rather than doubling down on the nonsensical.

    Blasey Ford has given radically different accounts of what year this happened, and she resolved those by assuming it was Kavanaugh and, from there, deducing the year. But she's the only one who thinks they ever met.

    You don't start with a perpetrator and then make the facts fit; you start with as many facts as possible, then determine if the perpetrator is the one you think. If the high school party was in the mid-80s, as first alleged - a lot more likely, since Ford could have driven at that point - then it wasn't Kavanaugh who did it.

    That's why the notes matter.

    Just my two cents.

  • Joe_dallas||

    "that is *exactly* the kind of thing that should cause someone to think through the confusion and sort out the memory, rather than doubling down on the nonsensical."

    Good point-

  • Peter Gerdes||

    I'd note that there are credible cases of victims of violent rapes misidentifying the attacker as someone they saw on TV after the event. Memory just isn't that reliable.

  • Anon19||

    Very true. I know this for a fact.

  • Lee Moore||

    The easy question is - do Ford's therapy records add any corroboration to her story of what happened to her in the early 1980s, if she doesn't produce them, such that her story is stronger than it would be if there were no therapy records ?

    And the answer is obviously "Yes." The existence of such records, and some sort of comments about what they refer to has been mentioned by people other than Ford - ie the WP and her husband. For me, the weight of that additional evidence is barely an ounce, since neither of them, as I understand it, have given evidence under oath, and neither of them are, er, independent unbiased witnesses.

    So if Ford were to make the actual therapy notes available, it would show that there were indeed some notes (at present we have to take her, her husband's and the WP's word for it that they even exist.) And if she were to allow the FB to interview the therapist to confirm, at least, that the notes were genuine, then that would provide substantial corroboration for her story (to the extent that the therapy notes supported it) over and above the existing ounce that her husband and the WP's report provides.

  • Lee Moore||

    The harder question is whether her credibility is diminished by failing to make her records available - ie is the value of her testimony about the 1980s actually diminished by her claiming to have useful evidence that she mentioned the story a few years ago, but refusing to produce it.

    The case for "yes" is that making things available to the FBI still keeps it from the public, and if she has provided it to the WP, then it strains credibility that she thinks the WP are more likely to keep it secret than the FBI. But maybe she hasn't given it all to the WP, only redacted snippets, so the strain on credibility is not that strong. And she has so far demonstrated strong motivation to defeat Kavanaugh's appointment, so refraining from producing the records suggests that the notes may not help her case, or may even harm it. If the notes exist and support her case, she has a good reason to produce them.

    The case for "no" is that it's very private stuff, and that she wants to keep it that way, even if that means she doesn't get to defeat Kavanaugh.

    I lean towards "yes' but I'm confident that that's because I'm already leaning towards disbelieving her, ie if (as is likely) either she or Kavanaugh is lying and I had to bet which one, I'd say her by at least 80-20. If I was 80-20 the other way, or 50-50, then I'd be more likely to be a "no" on the thereapy credibiity thing.

  • swood1000||

    The case for "no" is that it's very private stuff, and that she wants to keep it that way, even if that means she doesn't get to defeat Kavanaugh

    This is only a case for redacting the private stuff. I don't see the case for refusing to disclose those portions of the records dealing with matters that have already been made public.

  • Lee Moore||

    The difficulty with this is that people - understandably - would suspect that the stuff that was redacted would be the stuff that undermined her story, either by contradicting it, or by providing context that undermined it. For some reason, maybe the weather, or maybe the experience of FBI/DoJ redactions, people have got a tiny bit suspicious of redacted material.

    And when you get to something like therapy notes, she could have all sorts of notes going back decades, which might provide context. Just as Ds will never be content with the scope and ferocity of any FBI investigation with less than Mueller like powers and duration (and personnel) the Rs would never accept that the redacted bits were genuinely irrelevant.

    To be fair to B-F, Hillary blazed the "I'll decide what to redact, thank you" trail, and in a criminal investigation no less. This isn't a criminal investigation so B-F is fully within her rights to redact as she pleases. The problem is persuading the public that you've been totally honest and straight with your redactions.

  • Krayt||

    Whether lack of revelation impacts credibility is separate from whether there are legitimate reasons not to. This applies both here and for the papers of BK during the Bush admin years.

    Obviously the more evidence for your claim, the better.

  • swood1000||

    Whether lack of revelation impacts credibility is separate from whether there are legitimate reasons not to.

    I don't see what legitimate reasons there could be for refusing to disclose that portion of the records that either has already been made public or does not impact privacy.

    This applies both here and for the papers of BK during the Bush admin years.

    Disclosure of Dr. Ford's therapy records is a matter for her and her husband. Disclosure of the BK papers concerns a privilege of former President Bush. The reason such requests are uniformly denied has to do with the effect it would have on future presidents if their advisors and assistants have to couch their communications with an eye toward its future forced disclosure in court. Therefore, the refusal of presidents to allow such disclosure cannot be assumed to be for the purpose of hiding wrongdoing.

  • James Pollock||

    I predict that the answer is "yes", her credibility is affected, and fatally so, for people who tend to be Republican in general, and that "no", her credibility is not afffected, even trivially so, for people who tend to be Democratic.

    In short, if you want the Kavanagh nomination to be confirmed, you don't want to believe Dr. Ford, and will accept (gladly) any reason to reject her accusation(s) of unfitness. Conversely, if you oppose the nomination, you have accepted Dr. Ford's accusation, and will reject (also gladly) any attempt to undermine her credibility.

    And if you haven't yet reached a conclusion, partisans of both stripes will dismiss you as one of "them", because all of "us" already have all the facts they need to reach a conclusion.

  • epsilon given||

    I'm not 100% certain I want Kavanaugh on the Court. I haven't personally delved into the issue, but it's my understanding that he has troubling views on the 4th Amendment.

    The Democrats don't hammer that home -- and it may even be that, for all their disagreements with him, they actually agree with his 4th Amendment leanings -- but they chose to try to stop him through this accusation instead.

    I have a hard time believing this accusation. If there was more evidence, then I'd be even more open to ending his nomination -- assuming he didn't come clean right off the bat by explaining that he was a foolish teenager at the time -- and even more so, if several more *credible* people came out to accuse him.

    As it stands, I *really* don't want the reason for Kavanaugh being denied the Supreme Court because of a baseless accusation, even if I have concerns about him being there.

  • QuantumBoxCat||

    "Let me be clear, again, that these speculations, possibilities. It's also entirely possible that Ford remembered the details without any prompting whatsoever, which would provide support for her account of the incident. But how can we know without knowing something about the therapy?"

    Ahh yes, the Alex Jones method of inquiry; 'I'm just raising questions and considering all possibilities.' it's clearly not an intentional sowing of doubt for the purpose of adding confusion, just a sincere attempt at raising new questions.

    It's like asking, "Does David Bernstein's ideological bias make him unfit to teach law?" I'm not saying he is biased, or that even if he were it would raise doubts about his teaching. I'm just asking questions, that's all.

    I believe there is an adage about headlines framed in the form of a question...

  • bernard11||

    I guess Bernstein thinks it would be irresponsible not to speculate.

  • epsilon given||

    On the other hand, if you use something to substantiate your claims, and you refuse to let people examine that something, people are *inevitably* going to wonder just what it is you're hiding.

  • QuantumBoxCat||

    "Let me be clear, again, that these speculations, possibilities. It's also entirely possible that Ford remembered the details without any prompting whatsoever, which would provide support for her account of the incident. But how can we know without knowing something about the therapy?"

    Ahh yes, the Alex Jones method of inquiry; 'I'm just raising questions and considering all possibilities.' it's clearly not an intentional sowing of doubt for the purpose of adding confusion, just a sincere attempt at raising new questions.

    It's like asking, "Does David Bernstein's ideological bias make him unfit to teach law?" I'm not saying he is biased, or that even if he were it would raise doubts about his teaching. I'm just asking questions, that's all.

    I believe there is an adage about headlines framed in the form of a question...

  • Larvell Blanks||

    This can't be right -- I've been reliably informed by James Comey that time doesn't affect memory.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    You mis-describe a brilliant remark by Comey. Go back and look it up, and see if you can portray it accurately enough to improve your own credibility. To put it in context, be sure to include Comey's wedding day illustration.

  • epsilon given||

    So you're saying that Larvell Blanks's memories about what James Comey said...is flawed?

  • Intelligent Mr Toad||

    When I was in therapy, long ago, my therapist (RIP, Paul) told me that he did not keep any records, because there were possible circumstances under which they might be subpoenaed, possible exceptions to the confidentiality privilege.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    How could he recall what his patients said?

  • QuantumBoxCat||

    How do you know that's what your therapist said to you? Maybe you haven't heard how faulty memory is. If this interaction took place "long ago" then we should all be doubtful of your recollection.

    In fact, we should all be doubtful of all recollections that involve memory, including our own. I can envision Bernstein at a high school reunion lecturing everyone on the faults of memory as they share stories about memories from high school.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    An especially wise strategy for a therapist who might then rely on a hidden stash of records.

  • Gasman||

    Ford, along with her legal coaches, has certainly excelled at ensuring that nothing spoken to the media or in testimony has any possibility of falsification.
    Only one single fact was dropped that could possibly have verification, that she saw Judge at a Safeway store at which he was an employee. Even that is offered with the most minimal of detail, not stating which store, or what year. And I'll bet that she did not drop this lightly, but only after Safeway's employee records had been checked by her legal team. Her team was smart enough to not offer any detail that could possibly be proved wrong.

    Kavanaugh, however, was a terrible witness. Wouldn't you expect a judge to have some idea of what qualities make a credible witness?
    Who gave the nod to release his summer of '82 calendar. Did no one on his team actually read the words and ask what the optics of what is presented there.
    Even on facts of law, Kavanaugh was wrong. Something as simple to access as the drinking age in Maryland as it applied to his high school self is provably wrong to anyone with 15 seconds and google.
    Whether you think the senate process was a job interview or sex crimes trial, he utterly blew it trying to pass himself off as a great legal mind.

  • CrispyBacon||

    Kavanaugh made a choice to come to the Senate as an innocent man accused of a horrible crime, not as a judge taking part in a routine confirmation hearing.

    His approach had the effect of portraying the process as a charade totally unconnected to any kind of fair consideration of a nominee. The message was: this is not a confirmation hearing by any stretch of the imagination and I'm not going to act like it is. His answers are best understood in that light.

    The alternative was to give cursory denials with a lack of emotion not compatible with an innocent man accused of what he is accused of. He would have been called smug and unconvincing ("but what great temperament!" nobody would say).

    Certainly his detractors have said such things anyway, but Kavanaugh's demeanor created a more helpful narrative than the alternative.

    All that said, it was ugly. Those who decry his temperament or legal acumen don't care about how he has actually handled cases. Certainly he will be remembered for this, unfortunately, and he will be faulted even if proven innocent of the allegations.

  • Joe_dallas||

    "that she saw Judge at a Safeway store at which he was an employee. "

    Over at legalinsurrection dot com. There is a posting from the maryland secretary of state that Safeway first registered to do business in Maryland in 1986. I havent checked the validity of the posting, just worth noting. The legal name of Safeway could have been different in 1982 or operated under different name.

  • subpatre||

    Debunked, totally debunked. The Safeway store was there since the 1960s --my memory fails but I recall something like 1968. The later filing was due to ownership/corporate changes.

    Washington Post, October 12, 1985

    "We objected to the statement in the master plan that said no additional commercial zoning was needed on our side of the road, and decided to get involved in the process," said Tom Castleberry, Safeway regional real estate developer.

    Castleberry said the Potomac Village Safeway has "wanted to expand almost from the time we came in there in 1968. But we were always told by residents that they liked things 'just the way they are'. . . . It has always been a low-key village concept."
  • Stephen Lathrop||

    She did way which store, specifically. She did say which year, because she cited a time interval after the attack, and she knew her age at the time.

    She also said she could sketch a floor plan of the house where the attack took place, which could possibly be verified. The house will likely be found to have a link to one of the people identified as being there. I suggest that if the FBI turns up the house, and verifies it using a Ford-drawn sketch of its floor plan, there won't be much room left for skepticism that the attack took place as described.

    And of course you are right about Kavanaugh.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "She also said she could sketch a floor plan of the house where the attack took place"

    Unless it's a straight up custom home, there could be dozens or even hundreds of houses built on the same floor plan in that general area.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Unless it's a straight up custom home, there could be dozens or even hundreds of houses built on the same floor plan in that general area.

    There is the voice of a true-believing tribalist. If it were 1,000 homes with that floor plan, that would make it the floor plan of a tiny fraction of all the homes in Montgomery County—where there are ~ 373,000 households. To have the predicted floor plan turn up at random in a house associated with one of the people named as present at the party would be a staggering coincidence. By far the most reasonable interpretation—beyond a reasonable doubt, one might say—would be corroboration established.

    It may happen just that way, too. Media reports have zeroed in on a house said to have been the Rockville residence of Kavanaugh friend "Timmy" Gaudette. Reporters gained access to an adjacent house said to be built to the same plan, and it did seem to confirm in every detail (regarding layout) Ford's testimony of how the attack occurred. Same living room, staircase, bedroom, and bathroom, all in the general geometric relationship she described.

    If that proves out under FBI scrutiny, I suggest the case is over. Named participants have been brought together at a known time in a location Ford described—and the facts of that assembly have all been denied under oath. Proving details of the attack won't matter. Lying under oath will be established, and Ford's credibility will be rock solid.

  • epsilon given||

    How will this prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Ford's claim that Kavanaugh did this is true?

    I, for one, have generally been convinced that *something* happened; my personal doubts have *always* been about whether Kavanaugh was the one who was involved in what happened.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Because, just in general, predicting what yet-to-be-discovered evidence will show, is a major credibility booster after the evidence shows up as predicted. That kind of thing tends to corroborate all the other allegations made in connection. It's also bad for the credibility of people, like Kavanaugh, who made claims to the contrary.

  • epsilon given||

    I have learned since making my first comment that Ford used to date "Timmy" Gaudette. That, and the fact that the floor plan is similar to the one next door would indicate that it's a potentially common floor plan.

    Indeed, one of the last times my family was moving, I encountered a house that had a *very* similar floor plan to the house I grew up in -- in a city 50 miles away from where I grew up. It was pleasantly weird!

    Finally, finding a floor plan does nothing to establish that a party existed. Nor does it address the *many* holes and the *many* contradictions in her testimony. Nor does it help us understand the little lies that Ford has been telling us, either personally or through her lawyers -- things like why she had a second door (it was for an external room that was used both professionally as an office, and rented out as to students -- and not because she was claustrophobic), and that she was afraid of flying. It merely establishes that Ford remembers a floor plan -- the floor plan of someone she dated.

  • KevinP||

    The friend Judge wrote a book, in which he described working at Safeway. So Ford could have obtained this detail from there.

  • Harvey Mosley||

    In a private home it was not illegal for a minor to drink in Maryland.

  • Longtobefree||

    Ford's credibility is undermined by a total absence of actual facts.

  • damikesc||

    It's harmed by her providing literally no evidence of her claims.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Consider the breaking news (my own summary:

    Media reports have zeroed in on a house said to have been the Rockville residence of Kavanaugh friend "Timmy" Gaudette. Reporters gained access to an adjacent house said to be built to the same plan, and it did seem to confirm in every detail (regarding layout) Ford's testimony of how the attack occurred. Same living room, staircase, bedroom, and bathroom, all in the general geometric relationship she described.

    If that proves out under FBI scrutiny, I suggest the case is over. Named participants have been brought together at a known time in a location Ford described—and the facts of that assembly have all been denied under oath. Proving details of the attack won't matter. Lying under oath will be established, and Ford's credibility will be rock solid.

  • epsilon given||

    Ford's credibility will *still* not be rock solid. She has too many holes in her testimony; her witnesses *still* cannot confirm that something actually happened the way she said it did.

  • epsilon given||

    She remembers the floor plan of a house of someone she dated. I'm not convinced that this is the rock-solid proof you make it to be.

  • damikesc||

    A floorplan existing isnt evidence of an attempted rape. Im not sure how the hell you think that does.

    If i got a blueprint of your house and then described how you raped children in your bedroom...it wouldnt mean you actually raped children in your bedroom.

    Please try and be serious.

  • Michael Cook||

    What I would really care to see is her Facebook history, which vanished shortly before she opened this can of worms.

  • Anon19||

    "That is false. In fact, because I've been writing about the issue, a woman I know confided in me that she had a very similar experience to Ford's allegations, around the same time frame, when she was around the same age. She remembers some details of the incident, but doesn't remember who the boys were."
    #MeToo

  • Dilan Esper||

    "For example, one plausible defense of BK is that the incident in question was not an attempted rape as described by Ford, but innocuous, or at least far less serious, "horseplay" that he and Judge quickly forgot, and that Ford herself dismissed for decades as insigifnicant."

    I might be inclined to accept a "horseplay" defense if BK admitted he engaged in this sort of thing while he was young and drunk. But you can't be both outraged about the accusation and at the same time say that it was no big deal.

    Having said that, it's worth remembering that even if there is some room for a "young and irresponsible" defense in these situations (assuming sufficient honesty from the nominee), what we call "horseplay" is assault and battery. You have no right to touch another person without their consent. Period. Drunk teenagers commit tons of illegal misdemeanor and sometimes felonious assaults. It's common, but every single last one of them is a serious crime, even though they don't perceive it as one.

    I can certainly see that one possible scenario here is that BK remembers whatever he did as a teenager as "horseplay" while victims of it saw it as something worse. But part of becoming a responsible adult is realizing that such "horseplay" is terrible. If such "horseplay" were inflicted on BK's own children, he would certainly see it as horrible and not some no big deal teenage behavior.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    Or maybe she consented but just forgets. She was seeing someone [but not dating!!] at the time. Maybe she was ashamed at some flirting and her shame now makes it into an attack.

    She forgets a lot of things.

  • Dilan Esper||

    No way.

    There's one thing that even the Republicans on the Senate Committee are not saying, and that is that she would deliberately falsify a story and put herself through all of this scrutiny and painful examination while not believing it.

    Nobody thinks that because nobody in their right mind would do it.

    Whatever happened to her, she perceived it as an attack. If she hadn't have perceived it that way, at the time, she would not have carried it with her all that time. People don't carry what they see as "horseplay" with them through three decades. They forget it.

    And what exactly does "seeing someone [but not dating!!]" mean in your comment? Are you seriously slut-shaming a victim of an assault? How dare you.

    Something clearly happened. We know how Dr. Blasey perceived it. What we don't know is whether BK perceived it at all, whether he dismissed it as horseplay, whether he was too drunk to remember it, or whether he remembers it all clearly and just lied about it. That's really the only question here, and BK is not answering it because any exculpatory answer would require that he admit that he was a degenerate drunk rich kid as a teenager and he doesn't want to admit that.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    "There's one thing that even the Republicans on the Senate Committee are not saying.."

    Of course not. The media frenzy would be 100X worse.

    "she perceived it as an attack"

    Yes, she felt shame and converted it into an attack.

    "perceive" is doing a lot of work here imho.

    "Are you seriously slut-shaming a victim of an assault? How dare you."

    She made this metaphysical distinction in her testimony.

    "He was somebody that, I will use the phrase 'I went out with,'" Ford said, using air quotes. "I wouldn't say 'date.' I would say 'went out with' for a few months. That was how we termed it at the time."

    Though I see it was "went out with", not "seeing". My apologies.

  • Beldar||

    Nobody thinks that because nobody in their right mind would do it.

    You've rather assumed a premise there, haven't you?

    Regardless, there are certainly people in their right minds who would decide that becoming Jean d'Arc in the minds of roughly half the country — even at the expense of being disbelieved by the other half, and ridiculed by some of those — is a trade up from their lives of quiet, desperate near-anonymity.

    And then there's the phenomenon of "secondary gain," which is recognized by all medical/mental health professionals. I'll let you do the googling to see why I mentioned it, but I assure you, lawyers cross-examining treating physicians about their patients' subjective complaints and memories explain it to juries across the country every day.

  • theobromophile||

    You are assuming that she was attacked in the manner she describes, in 1982.

    You need some evidence for that claim, buddy. Start by rustling up some actual evidence that she knew Judge Kavanaugh.

    No one is slut-shaming anyone else. Get off your moral high horse. We are suggesting that a woman whose memory is so poor that she can't remember the summer, who spins a tale that makes no sense, and whose best friend said the party never happened... might not be in a position to give accurate testimony as to what happened 36 years ago.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    It may be the evidence she met Kavanaugh is at hand (my summary):

    Media reports have zeroed in on a house said to have been the Rockville residence of Kavanaugh friend "Timmy" Gaudette. Reporters gained access to an adjacent house said to be built to the same plan, and it did seem to confirm in every detail (regarding layout) Ford's testimony of how the attack occurred. Same living room, staircase, bedroom, and bathroom, all in the general geometric relationship she described.

    If that proves out under FBI scrutiny, I suggest the case is over. Named participants have been brought together at a known time in a location Ford described—and the facts of that assembly have all been denied under oath. Proving details of the attack won't matter. Lying under oath will be established, and Ford's credibility will be rock solid.

    The connection to that house is a citation in Kavanaugh's calendar. Ford's testimony puts them all there.

  • ragebot||

    Ford's testimony putting them all there is contradicted by those she claimed were there, including Ford's girlfriend who also said Ford did not know Kavanaugh.

    While the question of how Ford got to the party could be guessed to be by getting a ride with one of the peeps there the problem of how she got home is not addressed. Walking would have entailed a distance of 8 miles or so. While not impossible it would take some time; and arriving at home after a long walk and a upsetting incident would have raised eyebrows by most parents.

    This is not the first time a house and a Doppelgänger to boot has been mentioned.

    We still keep getting back to no one backing up Ford's claims; even her long time BFF. That is the headline you keep wanting to ignore.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "If that proves out under FBI scrutiny, I suggest the case is over. Named participants have been brought together at a known time in a location Ford described"

    No. You have a known location, but you're still millions of miles away from putting all the named players there at one known time.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Hey guys, wake up, Kavanaugh's calendar puts them there, by name.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "Hey guys, wake up, Kavanaugh's calendar puts them there, by name."

    That would be a neat trick given we have zero information on when the attack on Ford happened.

  • Sarcastr0||

    An approximate year may not be much, but it is a lot more than zero.

  • theobromophile||

    Incidentally:

    Now that it's been all but proven that Ford never met Kavanaugh, we've started to rip Kavanaugh apart. In a hearing about attempted rape, a grown adult was forced to cite virginiy (throughout high school and long thereafter) and is now being shamed about alcohol consumption.

    It wasn't okay when chauvinists demanded that women be virgins before their rapes in order to be believed about rape, and it's not okay that we require a man to discuss his virginity in order to disprove wild and baseless accusations about rape.

  • Lee Moore||

    There's one thing that even the Republicans on the Senate Committee are not saying, and that is that she would deliberately falsify a story and put herself through all of this scrutiny and painful examination while not believing it. Nobody thinks that because nobody in their right mind would do it.

    Thinking, and not saying because it would not be politically expedient, are not the same thing. And the examination is only painful if you assume she's telling the truth. If she's lying it's an exciting experience on the road to fame, fortune and celebration as a feminist heroine.

    And what exactly does "seeing someone [but not dating!!]" mean in your comment? Are you seriously slut-shaming a victim of an assault? How dare you.Something clearly happened.

    Assumes the conclusion.

    We know how Dr. Blasey perceived it.

    No we don't.

    Try it again, this time assuming that she's lying to defeat Kavanaugh for political purposes, and Kavanaugh is telling the truth.

  • Harvey Mosley||

    It's telling that none of your possibilities allow for the possibility that Kavanaugh wasn't involved in any way.

  • KevinP||

    Nobody thinks that because nobody in their right mind would do it.

    I watched Ford's testimony and found her credible. I believe that she did, or sincerely believes that she did suffer a traumatic attack. But there is absolutely nothing that corroborates her claim that Kavanaugh was her attacker.

    And re: nobody in their right mind would do it - are you seriously saying that there have never been false accusations of sexual assault? Are you saying that these cases never happened:

    Emmett Till?
    The Duke Lacrosse players?
    Jackie at UVA?

  • swood1000||

    Interesting article about the second door at Dr. Ford's house. The remodeling that added the second door added, in effect, a self-contained unit to the house with its own door, perfect for renting out in violation of the Palo Alto zoning code.

    FORD: "It — it now is a place to host Google interns. Because we live near Google, so we get to have — other students can live there."

    This of course does not prove that Dr. Ford's story was a ruse for sneaking a rental unit through tough local zoning ordinances. There could be more than one motivation for such a door.

    Another interesting fact is that the person who sold the house to Dr. Ford was Dr. Sylvia Randall, who specialized in couples psychotherapy but who declined to say whether she was the therapist involved in this story.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    "who declined to say whether she was the therapist involved in this story"

    Ah, so she was.

  • epsilon given||

    It's also interesting that the building permit for this second door dates back to 2008, not 2012.

  • AmosArch||

    yes

  • JonFrum||

    Bernstein's focus on hypnosis is not justified. We know - from the child sex day care witch hunt, to the recovered memory scandal, to today's 'gender therapist' disaster, that people who work in the therapy field are happy to act as activists, telling their clients what is wrong with them, and finding what they - the therapist - is looking for. Just as a sexual assault survey categorized a yes answer to 'have you ever had sex, and then regretted it?' as a check mark for sexual assault, so the questioning of a therapist with an agenda can create certainty in a client's mind that Something Happened. Here, we have a woman who locates her assault claim in her therapist's office. As with the day care disaster and the recovered memory panic, 'victims' DO get it wrong. They may be sincere, but they can also be re-writing history.

    I don't love this guy's jurisprudence, but right now I'd vote for him.

  • Sarcastr0||

    So you're making an assumption that the therapist is the real villain?

    That is likewise unjustified, even if you anecdotal conviction that therapists create mental issues were true, the general would not imply the specific.

  • Kazinski||

    No, I'm pretty sure her attorney was the villian, at the very least she was prioritizing representing Democratic party interests over Ford's. Not to mention lying about Ford's fear of flying in correspondence to the committee.

  • epsilon given||

    I take it that JonFrum is merely raising it as a possibility. And, to be fair, there *is* precedence for therapists doing just as he explained.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Just raising it as a possibility. Like below about Ford being delusional.

  • epsilon given||

    Are you saying that all those convictions during the 1980s for Satanic ritual child abuse were justified? That therapy *never* creates false memories in people?

    Is there, or is there not, precedence for psychological therapy planting false memories, or even embellishing vague memories of something that really did happen with details that were literally impossible to have happened?

    Heck, there's precedence for people remembering a past event in their life, seeing someone on TV, and (subconsciously or otherwise) deciding that the person on TV was the one who participated in the event -- even though careful examination of the details *proves* that the event couldn't have happened as remembered.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Moving from questioning the quantum of her testimonial evidence to questioning her character not quite going as planned I see.

    Facebook, hypnosis, a villainous therapist, door issues, maybe it was someone she saw on TV, or a dream!

    Looking real normal, guys!

  • Bob from Ohio||

    Just because you take her account at face value, no need for everyone to be stupid.

  • Sarcastr0||

    I don't take it at face value - I just want an investigation.

    You guys are the ones straining to turn her into a crazed liberal demon, which says a lot about what you think about her story, and it ain't that it's not believable!

  • Beldar||

    I don't think she's a liberal demon. I don't think she constructed a lie, because a liar would surely construct a better one, without naming witnesses who'd refute or refuse to corroborate the particulars of the lie.

    I believe she's convinced herself of something untrue, and now genuinely believes it. She could doubtless tell us the neurochemistry of how memories get changed slightly every time we access them — and hers have, to the point of unreliability now.

    So I believe her testimony to be entitled to no weight at all — none — because she hasn't yet laid a factual foundation to support her identification of Kavanaugh as her alleged assailant.

    I further believe she can't pass that threshold, because her Dem lawyer-handlers would have included every corroborating detail that could even indirectly support her story, to bolster her credibility, just as they attempted to do with their "pre-buttal" of the recent fabrication vulnerability by voluntarily disclosing her 2012 therapy.

    But she, and they, haven't come up with one person, from all her life history, whose memory puts her and Kavanaugh in the same room at the same time — ever, much less on the occasion of this alleged assault.

    Without a foundation for her identification, and with no corroboration of her ability to make the ID, none of the rest of her testimony attributing anything to Brett Kavanaugh is entitled to any weight at all.

  • Beldar||

    When a witness' advocate offers the witness' testimony, it's that advocate's job to lay the evidentiary foundation. When there's a failure to do so, the remedy isn't "Stop the trial! We need an investigation!"

    The remedy is: "Objection sustained; the witness' attempted identification of the accused is stricken from the record, and the jury is instructed to disregard it. Ask your next question or call your next witness, counselor."

  • Sarcastr0||

    You have no reason to think any of these things; it's just a speculative web you've spun out of want.

  • epsilon given||

    We have no reason to believe that the witnesses cannot corroborate the accuser's testimony? What about the testimony of her *best friend*, who said that she *believes* Ford, but has *never* met Kavanaugh? When Ford was asked about this, Ford said her friend is suffering from medical problems -- she *impeached* her own witness!

    You seem to be an expert in police procedural activity. If the four witnesses Ford named can only say "I don't remember a party", what is the FBI supposed to investigate? If Ford can't even name a time or a place, how are they supposed to establish that a party happened there?

  • Sarcastr0||

    I have said on this very thread that I am not such an expert. But one does not need expertise to think investigations sometimes turn up results. It's the right who are claiming their expertise shows an investigation would be useless.

    We've been over the best friend elsewhere. My issue here is Beldar's completely constructed 'I believe she's convinced herself of something untrue, and now genuinely believes it.'

  • epsilon given||

    Yes, but it would be nice to have a good idea of how that investigation would start, and what kinds of information we might expect to uncover that hasn't been uncovered already. And if the investigation already starts at a dead end, what's the point of having it?

    Otherwise, what's to keep this investigation from becoming a fishing expedition?

    And I have just encountered an observation raised elsewhere: all the people who are calling for an investigation have already pledged they are going to vote against Kavanaugh anyway. What can we expect from such an investigation that's going to change their minds? Or anyone else's, for that matter?

    Which makes me wonder: If an investigation exonerates Kavanaugh, would you, Sarcastr0, support his appointment to the Supreme Court?

  • Bob from Ohio||

    "I believe she's convinced herself of something untrue, and now genuinely believes it."

    Agreed.

    Either she mis-interprets a harmless encounter or it is another man who did it.

    Though she also has some emotional problems.

  • Onslow||

    In such a highly polarized political environment, allegations of decades-old misconduct shouldn't be entertained unless they were made prior to the nomination. To cross that threshold, the Senate should have required Dr. Ford to produce the therapist's notes--which are the only documented mention of her allegations prior to the nomination--before entertaining a delay or hearing of any kind on the matter. But even those notes, which reportedly do not mention Judge Kavanaugh by name, would fail to meet that low bar.

    The democrats on the Judiciary Committee out-flanked the GOP with the Ford allegations, causing the GOP to act rashly and schedule a hearing. It also provided Jeff Flake with a reason to vote "no" other than his political animus towards the current President. But the left out-flanked itself by echoing the sensational and troubling stories marshaled by opportunist Michael "all-that-is-wrong-with-the-legal-profession" Avennati and his client. Should the Senate fail to confirm Kavanaugh, Trump should immediately appoint Cruz or Lee. Under Senate custom, when sitting Senators are nominated for the Court, they move to a straight up or down vote. The left would cake their pants.

  • Onslow||

    edit: "Trump should immediately *nominate* Cruz or Lee."

  • Gasman||

    For the democrats it's all about Roe v Wade. They will attempt to protect it at any cost.
    Is Amy Barrett still wishing she was in contention, because if you think the dems have gone nuts over Kavanaugh, just wait to see them go apoplectic over Barrett, who most definitely has Roe in her sights.

  • Onslow||

    You're right. That's why, should Kavanaugh not reach 51 ayes, I'd take the hearings out of play with a Lee or Cruz nomination to be voted on by the lame duck Senate. I would choose Lee unless Cruz is not reelected. Go straight to the Senate floor.

  • bernard11||

    just wait to see them go apoplectic over Barrett, who most definitely has Roe in her sights

    I'm sure she does, just as I'm sure she will deny that in her confirmation hearing.

  • damikesc||

    No concerns that Ford's claim about WHY she wanted a second door falling apart?
    She testified that it was due to claustrophobia.

    Documents submitted to CA for renovations indicate it was for renting out to others. Which has been done.

  • damikesc||

    They also own a SECOND home. No second door needed there. I guess its geographic paranoia.

  • damikesc||

    And this happened back in 2008. You know YEARS before she claimed she went to therapy over it.

  • epsilon given||

    I've seen it suggested that she may have needed "therapy" at about the time that Palo Alto started cracking down on illegal second apartments, and that the therapy was to formally establish a "claustrophobia" excuse for that second door. As much as I don't like zoning laws (and don't hold it against Ford for trying to get around them), I find the suggested timing nonetheless...interesting...

  • Beldar||

    "Presumptively true"?

    There's no such thing. That's nonsense, and that's not what the rule provides at all. It's a hearsay exception, which relieves the proponent of the otherwise applicable requirement of proving a case without relying on an out-of-court statement by making this particular type of out-of-court statement one which can nevertheless be admitted as tending to show -- not presumptively establishing! -- the truth of the matter asserted therein.

    Aye-yay-yay! To hear such nonsense from Amy Klobuchar is predictable, but to read such nonsense here at the Volokh Conspiracy is surprising and disappointing.

  • Beldar||

    ^^^ Note well: I was mistaken in attributing this nonsense to Prof. Bernstein. My full apology is below.

  • Beldar||

    It's so badly wrong that it should be corrected in text.

  • Beldar||

    And ach du lieber! I apologize now to Prof. Bernstein, and here is MY prominent correction: I read this too quickly, and mistakenly thought he was endorsing (rather than refuting) the "presumptively true" canard.

    Oh, I wish I could edit and delete that comment, but my mistake will live as long as the internet or, at a minimum, as long as reason.com pays its server hosting fees.

    Mea culpa maxima.

  • Tall Paul||

    As a general rule, when someone puts their medical condition in issue, as Dr. Ford has, they've waived any privilege regarding the medical condition. And when they've actually disclosed the medical records to someone, as Dr. Ford did when she spoke to a Washington Post reporter, they've further waived the privilege. Privileges are a shield not a sword. I think the most damaging evidence against her is her continued refusal to allow the Judiciary Committee access to the notes. For that reason alone, I seriously doubt everything that she's had to say.

  • Beldar||

    Ford has not been asked in public when she first began therapy or what other therapists she may have had, over what period of time, other than the couples therapist she saw with her husband in 2012.

    She's over fifty years old, though, with an admitted history of depression and other mental health problems dating back decades. I am confident that she was asked by her Democrat lawyer-volunteer handlers about all prior therapy, and I would bet a large sum that as a Ph.D. in psychology herself, from a family of means with access to healthcare, she's had years of personal therapy.

    If indeed she's had years of individual, private therapy, then either: (1) She either deliberately suppressed this information, to her own detriment, over the entire course of her prior therapy, and her therapists all really sucked at getting her to open up. Or: (2) This event, this alleged assault — whatever its parameters, and by whomever it was committed — wasn't the life-changing, soul-draining catastrophe that she and her handlers now claim, too minor for her to mention.

  • Lee Moore||

    I put this sort of thing in a similar box to the "Kavanaugh used to drink a lot, people who drink a lot usually have backouts, hence Kavanaigh is lying when he says he never had blackouts."

    I don't know, and I don't think we've been told how much Kavanaugh used to drink, and whether he was as boozy as his fried Mark Judge who is is self confessed blacker outer. I used to drink a fair amount when I was 17-21, and I used to get drunk a fair amount, and I would certainly fall asleep after drinking (not least because I'd mostly be drinking at night !) But I never had a blackout. So I've no idea how likely it is that Kavanaugh had blackouts and is refusing to admit it. From my own experience, I'd say you can be a drinker who gets drunk without having blackouts quite easily. But maybe I drank a lot less than Kavanaugh.

    As for whether someone in Blasey-Ford's position would have been very likely, likely, 50-50, unlikely, very unlikely to have mentioned the Kavanaugh assault in a therapy session prior to 2012, if it had happened and was traumatic, I have no idea. It's an interesting speculation, no more.

  • Beldar||

    As for whether someone in Blasey-Ford's position would have been very likely, likely, 50-50, unlikely, very unlikely to have mentioned the Kavanaugh assault in a therapy session prior to 2012, if it had happened and was traumatic, I have no idea. It's an interesting speculation, no more.

    Yes, it's speculation for us in the public. If we infer that her Dem lawyer-handlers are minimally competent, though, we can further infer that they have asked her about prior therapy, and whether this event, and Kavanaugh's name, were mentioned.

    And we likewise can infer that if that inquiry produced any further evidence to rebut the recent fabrication attack — after full access to both her and her past therapists (if any), including their records — we'd have heard it by now.

    Indeed, if she had no past therapists, her handlers should have elicited that fact, which would have had the effect of making their pre-buttal in disclosing the 2012 therapy more effective. Instead, we have her admission that the first time she told anyone the details was in 2012, and a pregnant silence about any prior therapy in which, according to her admission, this alleged attack was never disclosed or discussed.

  • Beldar||

    We can likewise infer that she doesn't have a blue dress in her closet with Brett Kavanaugh's DNA on it, can't we?

  • Harvey Mosley||

    The Minnesota Democratic party seems to think so.

    From the Chicago Tribune:

    According to a story by The Associated Press, which obtained a copy of the DFL report, Ellingstad said that Karen Monahan was not willing to release a video she says she has of the incident. She also wrote in her report that Monahan gave shifting explanations for why she would not release the alleged video.

    Monahan did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Andrew Parker, an attorney for Monahan, indicated that there may be circumstances under which Monahan would be willing to share the video as part of an investigation but did not elaborate. He also pointed to "separate corroboration" of the abuse allegations in the form of Monahan's report to a doctor last year and her son's statement that he watched the alleged video of the abuse.

  • swood1000||

    Apparently, Dr. Ford co-authored an academic article that cited the use of hypnosis as a tool to retrieve memories in traumatized patients.

    The 2004 text by Spiegel and Spiegel referenced by Ford and her fellow researchers discusses in detail the use of hypnotism, and even self-hypnotism, to recover memories from traumatic episodes.

    "Remember that all hypnosis is really self-hypnosis," the authors of the referenced 2004 text on hypnotism wrote. "[T]herefore, therapists are only tapping into their patients' natural ability to enter trance state."

    The authors noted that hypnosis as a means of recovering traumatic memories could also lead to the "contamination" of those memories.

    "Patients are highly suggestible and easily subject to memory contamination," they noted.

    If the therapist's notes reference this fact it would not enhance the credibility of Dr. Ford's memory.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Yeah, that's some good prooving.

  • AmosArch||

    Funny isn't it? If this was virtually any other type of allegation and the accuser walked it with zero evidence, they would have been ignored or laughed out and they'd have to fabricate some corroboration. But because its about sex and its a woman the whole nation is thrown in chaos and we have to bow down to it and worship it as gospel. Man really is ruled by the vagina. It is his god (dess). I mean I guess thats always been the case but now in a much more literal sense especially in the West.

  • Grifhunter||

    Ruled? Maybe in the past. But if my sons are any indication, the age of young males pursuing the female genitalia may be passing. Between the risk of disease, social entanglements and now imminent or delayed litigation, its no longer worth it. Young Lothario's will satisfy themselves with virtual reality, stay at home with video screens and forgo wooing for fantasy sports.

    Feminists me-too'ers will have their wish: middle and later years spent with their cats and re-runs of Friends.

  • J555||

    What undermines Ford's credibility is the fact that she has told multiple lies. She lied about the whole "two front doors" business. She lied about not flying. She lied about not knowing that the Judiciary committee offered to come meet her in California. And many more. The only reason she's not facing perjury charges for lying under oath to Congress is politics, not law.

  • Beldar||

    In fairness, I think she can be rightly accused of permitting her Dem lawyer-handlers and their Dem senator-allies to lie about the extent of her inhibitions against flying. It was them peddling this excuse, rather than her directly; it's incredible to me that she didn't see or hear that in the press, and it hurts her credibility to claim that, and it hurts her credibility that she allowed them to do so.

    But she's certainly not personally on record, either under oath or in a statement by her that, for instance, she never flies anywhere anymore. And when cross-examined by Mitchell about this, she readily admitted that she flies, a lot and by choice, including voluntarily flying to places like French Polonesia — a 13-hour flight from San Francisco.

    I don't think either she or Judge Kavanaugh is at any appreciable risk of criminal jeopardy for either false statement or perjury. If you do, I respectfully suggest that you underestimate the difficulty of proving such claims.

  • ragebot||

    While the fear of flying farce is bad what is worse IMHO is Ford's claim that she was not aware of Grassley's offer to interview her in private any where and any time Ford wanted. Unless she was flying to Bells Beach to surf waves from the 50 year storm with no contact with any MSM report it would be impossible for her to not be aware of Grassley's offer.

  • Beldar||

    Actually, ragebot, I would expect that her lawyer-handlers have had her in semi-isolation in which she would indeed be shielded from media reports — explaining that they were helping shield her from haters and protect her security.

  • Beldar||

    Actually, ragebot, I would expect that her lawyer-handlers have had her in semi-isolation in which she would indeed be shielded from media reports — explaining that they were helping shield her from haters and protect her security.

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    A law professor made the ridiculous argument that a hearsay exception equals a presumption of truth? A frickin law professor!?!? That is so extraordinarily stupid that, if one of my junior associates made it, it would literally be career ending.

  • Vulcanio||

    The fact that she shared her therapy records with the Washington Post causes me to be skeptical of her concern for privacy.

    If embarking to destroy another person reputation, very publicly, before a Senate committee and in the newspaper, one should be prepared to afford the same evidence to the defendant.

  • jdgalt1||

    The latest rumor is that CBF is being treated for Delusional Disorder and can't tell her delusions from reality. If this is true it certainly should have been divulged to the committee, don't you think? https://gab.ai/IronPatriot76/posts/36980348

  • Sarcastr0||

    Haha!

  • swood1000||

    Yet she is able to hold down a faculty position at a university currently?

  • tanarg||

    One thing mystifies me: How did she think he was going to manage to rape her when he couldn't (a) get her clothes off, and (b) couldn't get the one-piece bathing suit off that was under her clothes?

  • Michael Cook||

    I would rather that her Facebook history (which vanished before she opened the can of worms) be re-opened and thoroughly dragged into the light of day. It would no doubt reveal lots about the true CBF.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Which you already know, just kinda instinctively, it seems.

  • eyesay||

    In case there is anyone out there who still thinks that Kavanaugh was probably truthful and Dr. Blasey was probably either lying or just has bad memories, please read How We Know Kavanaugh Is Lying, by Nathan J. Robinson, September 29, 1998, in Current Affairs. It is long, but it makes a very compelling case you should consider.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online