- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Rachel Mitchell: Ford Has No Case

Rachel Mitchell, the veteran sex crimes investigator hired by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to question Christine Blasey Ford, has written an assessment of Ford’s claims. It is devastating. Here’s most of it:

Read the whole thing [1]to see the timeline to which Mitchell refers.

And yet, on the basis of Dr. Ford’s seriously flawed testimony, the Senate is supposed to keep Brett Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court.

Read that memo and imagine that it’s you, or your husband, your son, or your father, up for a big job — and the accusation analyzed in that memo is what those who don’t want him to get the job are relying on to stop him.

How would you feel about that?

Advertisement
239 Comments (Open | Close)

239 Comments To "Rachel Mitchell: Ford Has No Case"

#1 Comment By Nate J On October 2, 2018 @ 1:52 pm

@BD:
“And some of her ‘inconsistencies’ are laughable. So Ford claimed it happened in the early ’80s in one place and in the mid-’80s in another? Good job, Clousseau, you cracked apart her whole story!”

– – –

BD, drop the snark and just answer me sincerely:

Do you believe that—in light of her giving three different accounts of the “gathering” with three different numbers of attendees, not being able to produce a single witness, not knowing the location of the supposed attack, or not remembering how she ever got home from this unknown house—wavering on the year of this incident might be just a little damning?

She literally knows nothing except that it was Kavanaugh. Nothing. Anyone can give a name. She gives nothing else, and you are ready to gloss over the fact she cannot pin the year down reliably?

May you never be falsely accused on such flimsy “information”.

#2 Comment By Nate J On October 2, 2018 @ 1:58 pm

@Franklin Evans:
“Clearly, my Conversations with Lucifer posts are way beyond your paltry comprehension. Only adherence to Rod’s ground rules for posting civility make me stop there.”

You cannot see it, but my eyes actually rolled so far back in my head that they got stuck there.

#3 Comment By Rick On October 2, 2018 @ 1:58 pm

The only thing that’s going to prevent Mr. Kavanaugh from being on the US Supreme Court is his own big mouth.

His testimony was amateur hour. Even a first year law student could have carried themselves better.

As for this report it’s meaningless. Mitchel was a hired gun brought in to appear sensitive but really she was there to cloak their livid misogyny.

Let’s put it this way. Ford’s testimony was compelling, humble, reserved, patient, reasoned and at face value seemed truthful.

But even with that I wasn’t ready to condemn someone as unfit based on her allegations alone.

But then Kavanaugh —a supposed legal genius — gave the most arrogant, combative, inexplicable, unhinged, vapidly perjurous testimony I’ve ever seen a public figure do for such a serious position.

After his testimony I have no doubt whatsoever he committed that assault.

Which means he failed completely as a litigator defending HIMSELF!!!

Seriously. Think about it. He was that bad.

Which makes him beyond incompetent. I honestly couldn’t believe what I was seeing.

I used to go to court to watch my grandfather who was a hell of a good trial lawyer, but also specialized in arguing before Federal appellate courts.

Once at the 11th circuit we were in the waiting room. Other lawyers looked at their notes, high fived each other, said things like “we got this,” shook themselves out.

Kicked back my grandfather leaned over and said “the more they fidget like that now to more they’re going to get eaten alive in arguments.”

That’s exactly what happened to a person. Once the judges started asking questions “they were dead” as my grandfather would say.

If one hadn’t anticipated those questions in advance and tailored the argument to avoid them the three justices on the bench would eviscerate you.

Mr. Kavanaugh is dead.

He’s dead because he didn’t prepare properly for testimony.

He’s dead because he’s an entitled arrogant SOB.

My Grandfather didn’t go to Yale. He went to the University of Miami Law School on the GI Bill.

He worked hard also.

He was 1000 times the litigator on display last Thursday — on a bad day.

#4 Comment By Lamm2 On October 2, 2018 @ 2:10 pm

“She doesn’t want to provide the committee with her therapy notes. Golly, she doesn’t want folks like Lindsey Graham and Don McGhan to see the therapy notes that would have involved all sorts of personal matters that had nothing to do with the alleged assault. Big mystery there.”

It helps to evaluate the actual evidence and then ask questions. The therapy notes which were reported in WaPo had exculpatory evidence. The notes reported that Ford said it happened in the mid 80s when she was in her late teens and there were four boys there. When Ford wrote a statement for her polygraph test she first wrote early 80s then scratched out the word: early. Her polygraph test for for the 80s – no specific time in the 80s. The twists and turns she has made changing her story when she realizes she can’t back up her story are interesting.

As a side note, Ford has three degrees. Her expertise is clinical psychology, statistics for psychology studies, and has a number of published papers. Several of her papers are about dealing with trauma. One includes using hypnosis by a therapist and self-hypnosis.

Guess what? If her therapy notes show Ford has used these techniques on herself, her testimony could be disqualified. The DOJ requires disclosure of the use of hypnotism involving a witness, and the AMA concurs. What do Dr. Ford’s therapist notes say about hypnotism?

#5 Comment By Harve On October 2, 2018 @ 2:47 pm

Janwaar Bibi says:

“The US is not a third-world country but it is no less prone to hysteria, lynch mobs and mass moronic behavior.”

Indeed, as the vote in a handful of precincts in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin in 2016 clearly demonstrated.

#6 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On October 2, 2018 @ 3:02 pm

With regard to Franklin Evans’s Conversations with Lucifer series, I would like to refer everyone to a highly regarded anthology of news columns done by C.S. Lewis, entitled The Screwtape Letters. Lewis manages to put nearly all his contributions on Christian theology and ethics into the mouth of a lower-middle level bureaucrat in the vast enterprise known as hell, and makes his points very well.

#7 Comment By MM On October 2, 2018 @ 3:22 pm

Lamm: “What do Dr. Ford’s therapist notes say about hypnotism?”

It’s a good question, but you’d think her therapist would’ve been interviewed for the sake of corroboration.

According to her testimony last week, prior to July 2018 she never named Kavanaugh to anybody outside of therapy, meaning her husband and the therapist(s) were privy to this admission.

The value of spousal testimony is minimal, for the same reason they aren’t relied upon to establish alibis absent other evidence.

The therapist is the only other person who could verify how she came to the conclusion it was Kavanaugh.

#8 Comment By Erin M. On October 2, 2018 @ 3:33 pm

I think Larrison fully summarizes the reasons that Kavanaugh isn’t fit for the supreme court.

But without weighing in on the questions of the specific Ford case, I think there is something that Rod and a lot of other people are missing, and that you cannot understand this broader political moment without understanding. And that is the fundamentally different experience of men and women when it comes to bodily safety and autonomy and sexual assault, the way that women have been asked to silently carry this within themselves, and the anger that is now exploding.

Rod has spent a lot of ink empathizing with the anguish that Kavanaugh would be feeling if it turns out he is being falsely accused. Rod and other readers, I ask you to take a minute to empathize with the anguish and anger that women around the country are feeling right now. Step into a world that has been mostly hidden from you, and just listen to the anguish and the anger in these overwhelmingly common stories from women. [2]

This is why it is so important to take Ford seriously. Not to assume that Kavanaugh is guilty, but to have a thorough investigation, and not dismiss her. When you expend 90% of your energy worrying about false accusations, and almost none of it worrying about *what happens to the literally millions of American women who have these experiences but cannot prove them*, then that is an enormous problem. And until you begin to understand that, this anger is just going to get worse, and it will indeed become dangerous, beginning not to care who is trampled in its path. I don’t think it’s there yet (in some individuals, yes, but not collectively), but that is where all intolerably ignored anger leads, just ask Trump supporters.

One more thing: I have been reading Carolyn Hax, who I linked to, for over a decade. This is the first time I’ve ever seen here give her column over to current events. I think she felt she had no choice, given what was showing up in her inbox.

#9 Comment By Lori On October 2, 2018 @ 3:58 pm

“But the blunt fact is that when the going got tough, he chose to lie under oath. That ought to be the end of the discussion.”

That is a ridiculous standard when we start bringing in things that are completely irrelevant to a person’s ability to do their job and are personal, humiliating, and far in the past.

What if Obama had been grilled by Republican senators, under oath, about the rumors regarding his cocaine use and gay sex in college? Would you consider his getting angry or giving evasive answers to mean he should be charged with perjury? Or would you consider that line of questioning so beyond the pale that it would have been the senators you wanted censured? I’m guessing it’s the latter.

You cannot aggressively grill somebody about irrelevant and embarrassing trivia from their teenage years and then say that evasive–not even false, but just evasive–answers are disqualifying. If you don’t think that same tactic could be used against every single nominee you’d like and support, you are totally deluded.

#10 Comment By Franklin Evans On October 2, 2018 @ 3:59 pm

Elijah,

If you’ve missed the several hundreds of words I’ve posted about the judicial process, its requirements and how they are too often ignored, corrupted or used as an arbitrary cudgel, I won’t belabor this thread by reiterating them. In short, we have a system that works, but only when the people responsible for it are committed to it despite their personal prejudices and biases. There are plenty of them. I won’t tolerate painting them with the same brush as those deserving of our outrage.

I have some limited experience with the processes. I report on what I’ve seen, and on the knowledge about them I’ve gotten from those within it.

My speculation as labeled is just that. If you choose to read into it some personal desire to impose it upon others, that must be between you and your dotty old grandmother. Ahem. Grin.

In practical terms, of course every end justifies the means. As an abstract, it is both true and totally trivial. I’m offering my personal judgment of the means in question, not on the abstract concept.

I won’t argue your comparison to Clinton (either or both of them). The point here is that neither of them are in an office of power. Trump is. I’m prepared to just not vote at all for any opponent of Trump, should my personal opinion of the candidate descend to that level of distrust, as yours did with Clinton. I will not cast my vote for Trump on that basis. He doesn’t deserve votes, for the reasons I’ve stated.

#11 Comment By Franklin Evans On October 2, 2018 @ 4:00 pm

Nate,

I know a good exorcist, should you wish to meet him.

#12 Comment By Franklin Evans On October 2, 2018 @ 4:03 pm

MM,

It’s obvious you didn’t like the actual answer I gave, including the part where I decline to speak for Dr. Ford.

#13 Comment By Lori On October 2, 2018 @ 4:19 pm

“This was not a trial, it was a job interview. If you showed up at any job interview behaving like Brett Kavanaugh did, you would most certainly not get the job. Why should he?”

If you showed up for a job interview and the people interviewing you accused you of being a rapist, asked you to explain things written in your high school yearbook, and grilled you about your college drinking habits, you could turn around and sue them.

#14 Comment By Hector_St_Clare On October 2, 2018 @ 5:24 pm

Or what about the gap in Ford’s memory that Mitchell declares is the single “most important” problem with her story: the fact that Ford does not recall how she got home that night? If Ford were in fact concocting a fictional story, one would expect her to create a seamless narrative wherever she could. The fact that she has not attempted to fill in these gaps in fact speaks to her credibility. Here is the kind of story a liar might offer: “Earlier that week my mother had given me $20 dollars to buy a new skirt for school and I had that money in my pocket. After I fled the party I walked down some unfamiliar streets and was a bit lost but fortunately spotted a taxi. I used the money my mother gave me to pay the taxi to take me home.”

Yea, this. People who are fabricating stories usually fabricate good ones: they don’t leave unexplained holes like this. (A point that conservative Christian apologist Timothy McGrew is fond of making when discusing the historical reliability of the Gospels).

For that matter, I don’t consider it hard to believe that she walked seven miles home. I’m a “high end of moderate” drinker who goes out to bars and clubs not infrequently on weekend nights and would not hesitate at a three mile walk home on a normal night. I can imagine a terrified, disoriented 15-year old who had just survived an attempted rape would really, really want some solitude and might spend the entire night walking home.

#15 Comment By Hector_St_Clare On October 2, 2018 @ 5:26 pm

May you never be falsely accused on such flimsy “information”.

I certainly hope I’m not, but if I do (and I’ve thought at some length about how I would handle it if I was), I’m pretty sure I would handle it better than Brett Kavanaugh, and do a better job of defending myself.

#16 Comment By Ken T On October 2, 2018 @ 5:50 pm

One wonders what Mitchell has planned as her next career. Since she will never again be able to bring a successful sex crime prosecution. Every defense attorney she comes up against will simply introduce her memo into evidence and have the accuser’s testimony thrown out.

#17 Comment By Annie On October 2, 2018 @ 6:02 pm

If the therapy notes are going to be trotted our as ‘proof,’ then they must be open for review. Otherwise they should be considered worthless. You don’t get to have it both ways, accusing a man with proof in one breath, but saying the proof is off limits the next. Sorry life isn’t fair. Kavanaugh gets to be called a gang rapist, and you have to open your medical files. There should be no ability to introduce evidence in this skewed manner.

It’s shocking that needs to be stated.

#18 Comment By MM On October 2, 2018 @ 9:46 pm

Hector: “People who are fabricating stories usually fabricate good ones: they don’t leave unexplained holes like this.”

So, if her testimony had been airtight, would the reverse be true? Not guilty, story is too perfect. But since her testimony has some inconsistencies, a little “color and life”, that makes it *more* credible? Guilty then.

I don’t think so. There’s a fallacy in there somewhere, even leaving aside the presumption of guilt.

For the record, I believe something happened to her at a party when she was 15. That doesn’t mean she named the right perpetrator. And her background and drinking habits haven’t been investigated, and likely won’t ever be.

Either way, nobody needs facts or consistency to make up their minds. People see what they want, and ignore the rest…

#19 Comment By cka2nd On October 2, 2018 @ 10:34 pm

MM says: “Senate Democrats set a perjury trap for him, and he may have stepped right in it.”

I have no doubt that the Dems did opposition research on Kavanaugh, but how could they have known that he would react by perjuring himself? He could have begged off recalling what he had done when he drank to excess as a youth, using the highly successful George W. Bush defense, and expressed deep regret if he had hurt or offended anyone while in an inebriated state. Who could have predicted that he would react by minimizing his drinking habits and denying a whole host of little things that have now come back to bite him on the butt? I think you are over thinking this, or presuming more powers of forethought (“He’s going to lie about sexual references in his yearbook and what a ‘Renate Alumnius’ is, and we’ll have him!”) than anyone, let alone the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, could possess.

Hell, the fact that Feinstein sat on Ford’s letter until her own Democratic colleagues forced her to share it with them was probably based on her calculation that Kavanaugh WOULD use the Bush “young and irresponsible” defense, which would have de-fanged Ford’s charges from the get-go, and Ramirez’s as well (“I was young and irresponsible, and if I exposed myself to you at a party, I deeply regret it and offer you my most sincere apology.”). With those two out of the way, Swetnick’s charge probably would have continued making the rounds of the press until some less than reputable outlet ran with it, maybe.

By the way, I bet the lie about “Renate Alumnius” is the one that really stood out for a lot of people. The boofing and all that stuff might have been meaningless expressions to most of us, but given the context of how often and where “Renate Alumnius” appeared in that yearbook, that was the very recognizable act of a vicious little clique of kids, and 99% of us have either dealt with such a clique, or been part of one, or both, in our young and irresponsible days.

#20 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On October 2, 2018 @ 10:57 pm

For the record, I believe something happened to her at a party when she was 15. That doesn’t mean she named the right perpetrator. And her background and drinking habits haven’t been investigated, and likely won’t ever be.

A reasonable assessment. It might well have been Kavanaugh, and she might in all sincerity have mixed up two or three different memories. Its happened to most of us, in small ways, hasn’t it?

One wonders what Mitchell has planned as her next career. Since she will never again be able to bring a successful sex crime prosecution. Every defense attorney she comes up against will simply introduce her memo into evidence and have the accuser’s testimony thrown out.

Don’t be silly. If Mitchell brings a case to trial, this memo will not be useful to the defense. That’s what it means to assess WHETHER there is a case worth presenting to a jury.

#21 Comment By cka2nd On October 2, 2018 @ 10:57 pm

Lori says: “What if Obama had been grilled by Republican senators, under oath, about the rumors regarding his cocaine use and gay sex in college? Would you consider his getting angry or giving evasive answers to mean he should be charged with perjury? Or would you consider that line of questioning so beyond the pale that it would have been the senators you wanted censured? I’m guessing it’s the latter.”

What is wrong with the George W. Bush defense? You know, “When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible.” Kavanaugh could have used a variation of it, and Obama too, if he had been asked about alleged cocaine use, and judging from what happened to Bush, they both would have sailed through, and young George W. was way more privileged than Kavanaugh ever was. Instead, Kavanaugh responded with evasions, untruths and, one could argue, anger and emotion unbecoming a judge, let alone a prospective member of the U.S. Supreme Court. I honestly don’t get it, why Kavanaugh didn’t avail himself of a perfectly good and successful defense strategy.

#22 Comment By cka2nd On October 3, 2018 @ 12:06 am

Erin M., thank you for the link to Ms. Hax’s column. At least three of my sisters have experienced some form of sexual harassment, abuse or assault, and I can only imagine how they are responding to the news these last few weeks. A number of Ms. Hax’s correspondents report that they have never told most of their family about their experiences of assault, harassment and rape, including their children, and it struck me, again, how important it is for parents and children to eat dinner with each other and talk about current affairs, and to watch TV and movies with each other, and for parents to use those occasions to impart SERIOUS life lessons to their children: “Talk to me/us if something like that crime happens to you, or if you have done something like what those kids did in that movie or TV show, so that we can try to make it right. Not protect you when you have done wrong, not make sure that you face no consequences, but so that we can help you make it right. And if someone has done something to you, so that we can make sure that that person faces the consequences of their actions.” I suppose this is a nod both to my own parents, and to “The Waltons,” which I still hold up as being one of the best portrayals of a family ever in American popular culture (right up there with the original “Roseanne,” of all things).

#23 Comment By MM On October 3, 2018 @ 12:07 am

cka2nd: “I have no doubt that the Dems did opposition research on Kavanaugh, but how could they have known that he would react by perjuring himself?”

How would you react if you were being bombarded by what you considered to be obscenely false accusations by a bunch of politicians who weren’t going to support you anyway?

Even under oath, a passionate defense can lead to misstatements of minor details. If he had kept his cool and not made any errors at all, these same Democratics Senators would be saying he was just reading from a script, devoid of emotion.

But to prove perjury, there are several difficult hoops to jump through. Ford, in her own testimony, made several misstatements, and not about minor details. They involved naming Kavanaugh as the guilty party. I haven’t heard any GOP Senators suggest she should be brought up on perjury charges. And now I read that other testimony she gave may have been false, regarding her past experience with polygraph tests.

Will any of this change anybody’s minds? Of course not.

By the way, anybody hoping for a perjury charge from DOJ is going to be sorely disappointed. Rosenstein, Wray, and Kavanaugh are all old buddies.

You can complain about that all day long, but that’s how DC works. They protect their own, given them the benefit of the doubt. No progressives I know gave a damn when former AG Holder avoided a perjury charge. And he lied more than once before Congress, on the topic of gun-running and spying on reporters… a bit more serious than drinking habits in high school, wouldn’t you say?

#24 Comment By Lamm2 On October 3, 2018 @ 1:08 am

My, my, my. I smelled a rat in Ford’s testimony about the polygraph and forensic interviews…. and sure enough, there was a rat.

An ex-boyfriend of Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford told Senate investigators he witnessed her coach a friend on how to take a polygraph, contradicting her sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.

Ford’s Ex-Boyfriend Told Senate He Saw Her Do Polygraph Coaching [3]

#25 Comment By muad’dib On October 3, 2018 @ 9:34 am

You cannot aggressively grill somebody about irrelevant and embarrassing trivia from their teenage years and then say that evasive–not even false, but just evasive–answers are disqualifying. If you don’t think that same tactic could be used against every single nominee you’d like and support, you are totally deluded.

You can even impeach a President doing just that…

Just ask Bill Clinton, he’ll tell you all about it. It started with a land deal in the 80’s in which the Clintons lost money and it ended with a blue dress, if you don’t remember the fine details, you can ask Kavanaugh about it, he was part of the team aggressively grilling somebody about irrelevant and embarrassing trivia.

I have to say that I am highly amused by these threads, people speak as if the last thirty years of American History haven’t occurred.

#26 Comment By Ken T On October 3, 2018 @ 9:36 am

Don’t be silly. If Mitchell brings a case to trial, this memo will not be useful to the defense.

Sorry, but I think you’re wrong about that. The sort of memory gaps shown by Ford are absolutely typical of survivors of major trauma. Mitchell is now on record as stating her opinion – as a prosecutor – that such testimony is not credible. So any defense attorney worth his fee will use that to attack the accuser. “Your Honor, this memo proves that Ms. Mitchell doesn’t believe her own witness – I demand that this testimony be disallowed.” Even if it makes it through the original trial, it is a gold-plated grounds for appeal on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of her previous convictions end up being successfully overturned on that basis. She’s finished.

#27 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On October 3, 2018 @ 11:52 am

Ken T, it really depends on whether there is such a thing as a rape survivor with more complete memories, partly because prosecution occurs much closer to the time of the offense, supported by the testimony of other witnesses and/or circumstantial and physical evidence. If there is, Mitchell could easily go to trial and prevail. The weakness of your argument is the presumption that if one witness is weak after 35 years when a case was never reported to the police, then anyone who is raped will suffer all the same deficiencies in the case that could be presented. That is as invalid as any other gross generalization. And Mitchell would be quite skilled at saying so.

How would you react if you were being bombarded by what you considered to be obscenely false accusations by a bunch of politicians who weren’t going to support you anyway?

Well, I could certainly respond without perjury.

#28 Comment By MM On October 3, 2018 @ 11:55 am

muad’dib: “I have to say that I am highly amused by these threads, people speak as if the last thirty years of American History haven’t occurred.”

Didn’t President Clinton commit perjury and obstruction of justice? Not just Ken Starr’s opinion, but a federal judge concluded that.

Didn’t 40 people, including President Clinton’s brother, plead guilty, or were indicted and convicted, for a whole host of felonies?

Perhaps you remember the last 30 years, except for those particular details, huh?

#29 Comment By LFM On October 3, 2018 @ 12:27 pm

I have empathy with the anguish of the accuser whose word is not believed or not taken seriously.

I have empathy with the anguish of the falsely accused.

But empathy and belief are beside the point. The reason why it is important to tell someone of a rape or attempted rape, the reason why it is important to see a doctor if this is relevant, the reason why it is wise to make notes of it yourself (for want of a better confidante), is not that this will necessarily ascertain that you are belived. It is because any or all of these things make it easier to *prove* your allegations against your attempted rapist. I will believe a good friend who tells me she was raped, but if she refuses to go to a doctor, refuses to go to the police ASAP, refuses to enter it in a journal (which can have some value as evidence, I believe – correct me if I’m wrong), well, I’ll speak up for her in court if she eventually decides to sue or press charges, but I would not give her much of a chance of proving her case. Convictions for serious crimes should not rest only upon the believability of the victim, as I think most people would agree with a less emotionally charged subject than rape or sexual assault.

#30 Comment By MM On October 3, 2018 @ 1:57 pm

Jenkins: “Well, I could certainly respond without perjury.”

Given your definition of perjury, she’s guilty of the same.

So what are the consequences for both of them, in your court of law?

#31 Comment By cka2nd On October 3, 2018 @ 3:53 pm

MM says: “I haven’t heard any GOP Senators suggest she should be brought up on perjury charges.”

Who’s asking that Kavanaugh be brought up on perjury charges? Those of us who do believe he’s lied under oath merely want his nomination pulled.

#32 Comment By muad’dib On October 3, 2018 @ 4:20 pm

Perhaps you remember the last 30 years, except for those particular details, huh?

I remember a witch hunt that started with Whitewater, Cattle trading, Vince Foster’s murder, Travel gate and whatever BS republicans could come up with, and after 8 years and lord knows how many millions you spent, all you got was perjury about a blue dress.

Lets put Kavanaugh thru the same wringer and see what comes out, but I suspect you’ll get a lot more than a single instance of perjury.

#33 Comment By BD On October 3, 2018 @ 4:22 pm

“Do you believe that—in light of her giving three different accounts of the “gathering” with three different numbers of attendees, not being able to produce a single witness, not knowing the location of the supposed attack, or not remembering how she ever got home from this unknown house—wavering on the year of this incident might be just a little damning?”

My sincere answer is that Ford has obviously not proven enough of a case to convict, which of course is not what this is about anyway (this isn’t a criminal trial), and if Mitchell was really handling this in such a manner she would have interviewed other witnesses and been given more time with both Ford and Kavanaugh. Mitchell instead was brought in to question both for the GOP (optics, but actually a good precedent for other reasons for another thread) and therefore she shouldn’t have even produced this “conclusion” because she certainly didn’t have enough to go by.

But also the fact that an alleged sex assault victim can’t recall many of the details of a matter that she was trying to forget decades ago is not surprising nor damning. Not enough to convict anyone, but certainly not some indication that her story is crap. And like I said to Rod–try to picture this all happening with a Dem nominee, and ask yourself if you’d be so quick to assume the accusations are garbage. I’m at least acknowledging that there’s a lot that’s unknown here.

#34 Comment By Erin M. On October 3, 2018 @ 5:23 pm

The conservative response throughout this seems to be, “How would *you* respond if” blah blah blah.

Soft bigotry of low expectations anyone? We don’t ask that our highest judges in the land have ordinary temperaments. This is an extraordinarily exclusive position, and it is completely appropriate to expect extraordinary temperament and behavior, even under highly challenging circumstances.

#35 Comment By Erin M. On October 3, 2018 @ 5:25 pm

cka2nd: Glad you appreciated the link. I wish I had discovered it earlier when more people were reading these threads. Sexual assault and rape have also touched my family, and many of my friends, and I feel so much anger and sadness on their behalf–and on my own, for how easily I could be in their shoes. I don’t think most people understand what a truly pervasive horror this is.

#36 Comment By MM On October 3, 2018 @ 7:38 pm

muad’dib: “I remember a witch hunt that started with…”

Got it. You selective memory, brought on by a bad case of ideological jaundice.

Apparently, you also don’t remember Clinton’s Attorney General, Janet Reno, personally authorizing every expansion of those various investigations, whether it was Robert Fiske, Ken Starr, or Robert Wray.

Sorry, you’re not going to get what you want. Kavanaugh may have aspects of his past he’s not proud of, but they don’t hold a candle to what the Clintons were involved in. No Special Counsel is going to investigate uncorroborated claims from 35 years ago.

You can go dig in the sand if you’re looking for probable cause for that kind of fishing expedition…

#37 Comment By MM On October 3, 2018 @ 7:40 pm

cka2nd: “Who’s asking that Kavanaugh be brought up on perjury charges? Those of us who do believe he’s lied under oath merely want his nomination pulled.”

If you believe he’s committed a crime, you should want him investigated and prosecuted for it. Anyway, the goal here isn’t truth and justice anyway.

But I have a thought experiment as to how this could work out. Are you interested? You’re not going to like it…

#38 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On October 3, 2018 @ 10:59 pm

Given your definition of perjury, she’s guilty of the same.

I haven’t offered a definition of perjury. Could you inform me what my definition of perjury is?

#39 Comment By MM On October 4, 2018 @ 12:38 pm

Jenkins: “Could you inform me what my definition of perjury is?”

Based on your use of the word in the context of Kavanaugh’s testimony, false or inaccurate statements.

Legal perjury means intential lying under oath about a material matter, which has a burden of proof that has not yet been met in this case.

Perhaps you’re just changing the meaning of the word to suit whatever you’re aguing? Wouldn’t be the first time.

If you don’t like him and just think he’s being inaccurate about his drinking habits from 30+ years ago, that’s not perjury.

Frankly, I don’t see how you prove perjury regarding a topic like that. By definition, drinking impairs memory, and proving someone who drank heavily was intentionally lying about would be a very difficult task.