So, when I made my last post, there were some free-floating allegations of sexual misconduct out there, but we didn't have all the facts. Nonetheless, there was enough there to be concerned. Now that it's out there that Professor Ford has, for at least 6 years, told people that Judge Kavanaugh tried to rape her when she was 15, and he was 17, we're left with something that we haven't seen since Anita Hill alleged that Clarence Thomas sexually harassed her when both were employed at the EEOC.
Now, to be clear, this is a bit different (though it does appear that Hill's testimony was truthful, but we'll leave it at that), since the acts described are clear-cut - if Kavanaugh did what Professor Ford says he did, the Kavanaugh at 17 committed the crime of attempted rape. And Professor Ford, being a victim of attempted rape would not have forgotten about it.
Here's something else that I found striking - her prior consistent testimony. Professor Ford has been telling people, including her therapist, her husband, and the FBI since 2012 that Judge Kavanaugh tried to rape her. Now, that's important as far as determining her motive. Rule 801(d)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Evidence states that a prior consistent statement can be used to disprove motive. So, if Professor Ford was a big supporter of Roe v. Wade, and made her statement for the first time to anyone last week that Judge Kavanaugh tried to rape her, then that would be suspicious. But instead, she told lots of people not just before Judge Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court, but before the #MeToo movement.
Also, and though a lie detector test is not admissible in Court, she told the FBI about the incident, and took a lie detector test. Now, that tells me that she is absolutely certain that Kavanaugh tried to rape her because lying to the FBI is a crime. And it isn't a crime that no one gets prosecuted for - people get prosecuted and imprisoned for it all the time. So, if she went to the FBI, and underwent a lie detector test, she did so with no reservations whatsoever.
These facts leave us with three paths:
1) Professor Ford is Crazy: This is always a possibility. Professor Ford could have seen Kavanaugh's name in the newspaper and attached a delusion on him. But I think this is unlikely for lots of reasons. First, Professor Ford is too old to just start having delusions. Schizophrenia and other mental diseases appear in the late 20's and early 30's, which means that by the time she started telling people about the attack, she should have been having delusions for 15 years, which people would recognize.
2) Professor Ford is Mistaken: Professor Ford was attacked over thirty years ago, when she was 15, slightly drunk, and attacked in the dark. Her recollection of her attacker may not have been as clear as it could have been. So, it is possible (though unlikely) that she recognized Kavanaugh as being one of the guys in the social group, two of whom later attacked her. That's possible, and will almost certainly be Kavanaugh's defense - that it wasn't him.
3) Kavanaugh Attempted to Rape Professor Ford: At this point, with what we know, this is the most likely scenario. Even though she was drunk when the attack occurred, this sort of attack has to be a sobering experience. The odds of her remembering this clearly, especially if she sought help from a mental health professional, are very high.
The other complicating factor is that Kavanaugh hasn't exactly been truthful in his testimony to Congress. He pretended to not know the name of a law firm one of his close friends works for, and has worked for for the past 15 years. He claimed to not know about the use of stolen emails when contemporaneous records show otherwise. All in all, his most recent testimony to the Senate had at least five instances of either perjury or testimony that came damn close. So Kavanaugh's denials are pretty worthless at this point. That doesn't mean he did it (she could have the wrong guy), but if he did, he would almost certainly lie about it.
The other factor is whether or not there are other women out there. Now, normally, I stick with my rule of 3 - after the third accuser comes forward, you can assume pretty much that the allegations are true - but here, given Professors prior consistent testimony, any other woman who comes forward would have to be believed at this point.
No comments:
Post a Comment