The Brett Kavanaugh accusation isn’t a ‘he said, she said’ anymore

[cigaretteman]

By Aaron Blake
September 18 at 3:08 PM

This post has been updated.

In her must-read recap of how alleged sexual assaults are prosecuted, The Washington Post’s Deanna Paul quotes a former district attorney saying she doesn’t like calling these cases “he said, she saids."

"I stand to believe there’s no such thing as a ‘he-said-she-said’ case,” Linda Fairstein said. “As a prosecutor, it’s your job to break down every minute of the encounter so that details on one side pushes the facts over the edge.”

This is an important point — and it’s also key to our evolving understanding of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation against Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh.

While critics of the accusation have dismissed it as a “he said, she said,” and argue that we have two competing accounts that simply can’t be reconciled, that’s increasingly not the case. Both Ford and Kavanaugh, in fact, have provided statements that could be seen as corroborating evidence or require corroboration, were this to be handled in a legal setting.

ADVERTISING
Republicans including President Trump have cast doubt upon Ford’s accusation by pointing out that it came to light mere days before Kavanaugh was set to be approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee — and after his confirmation hearings had already been concluded. This is probably the biggest argument against the legitimacy of the accusation.

But Ford has also documented a session in which she told her therapist about the alleged episode six years ago, and she reached out to The Washington Post before Kavanaugh was Trump’s nominee (but while he was on Trump’s shortlist).

Critics allege these amount to little to substantiate her claims, but legally speaking, they’re substantial. As Georgetown University law professor David Super notes, federal law explicitly says these previous statements are not regarded as hearsay, or unreliable, when they are used “to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying.”

That’s exactly what Republicans are implying — often gently and without expressly calling Ford a liar.

“Calling it ‘he said, she said’ implies that both accounts are uncorroborated,” Super said. “But these prior consistent statements are corroboration. And with so many complaining about the lateness of the charges, they are at least implying recent fabrication. That makes her prior consistent statements not hearsay. Even a court would consider them.”

Ford’s prior statements, though, go only so far in bolstering her claim. The therapist’s notes describe four boys being in the room in which the episode happened, rather than the two she now says were there. Ford blames the therapist for not accurately recording what she said. But just as the previous statements could be used to bolster her claim, this could be used to argue that she changed her story.

Also pushing this into the realm of actual evidence is Kavanaugh’s latest apparent defense: That he wasn’t even at such a party. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said Monday that Kavanaugh told him he wasn’t.


Hatch clarified that Kavanaugh said “he was not at a party like the one [Ford] describes" and that Ford "may be mistaking [Kavanaugh] for someone else.”

That means we have another claim that could be corroborated or disproved. Other people at the party could testify about whether the party was similar to how Ford described it and whether Kavanaugh was there. There could be evidence introduced to support or dispute Kavanaugh’s denial, and his credibility could be adjusted accordingly — just as Ford’s old actions could be used as corroborating evidence to bolster her claims. (For what it’s worth, nobody else at the party is currently slated to testify publicly.)

None of this makes the case clear-cut, and we may never get definitive answers as to whether Kavanaugh was at the party or whether Ford’s allegation is true. What’s more, Ford’s past statements about the alleged episode aren’t proof of wrongdoing.

But to dismiss this all as a “he said, she said,” also misses the point. There are key questions that have answers here; we’ll see if the hearing Monday provides any.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...said-she-said-anymore/?utm_term=.63b92efc98b8

 

[The Tradition]

The woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of a drunken assault when both were teenagers has now come forward publicly, and on Monday it caused Republicans to delay a confirmation vote and schedule another public hearing. Yet there is no way to confirm her story after 36 years, and to let it stop Mr. Kavanaugh’s confirmation would ratify what has all the earmarks of a calculated political ambush.

This is not to say Christine Blasey Ford isn’t sincere in what she remembers. In an interview published in the Washington Post on Sunday, Ms. Ford offered a few more details of the story she told anonymously starting in July. She says she was 15 when Mr. Kavanaugh, who would have been 17, and a male friend pushed her into a bedroom at a drinking party, held her down, and pawed her until the male friend jumped on them both and she escaped to a bathroom until the two boys left the room.

Mr. Kavanaugh denies all this “categorically and unequivocally,” and there is simply no way to prove it. The only witness to the event is Mr. Kavanaugh’s high school male friend, Mark Judge, who also says he recalls no such event. Ms. Ford concedes she told no one about it—not even a high school girl friend or family member—until 2012 when she told the story as part of couples therapy with her husband.

The vagaries of memory are well known, all the more so when they emerge in the cauldron of a therapy session to rescue a marriage. Experts know that human beings can come to believe firmly over the years that something happened when it never did or is based on partial truth. Mistaken identity is also possible.

The Post reports that the therapist’s notes from 2012 say there were four male assailants, but Ms. Ford says that was a mistake. Ms. Ford also can’t recall in whose home the alleged assault took place, how she got there, or how she got home that evening.


This is simply too distant and uncorroborated a story to warrant a new hearing or to delay a vote. We’ve heard from all three principals, and there are no other witnesses to call. Democrats will use Monday’s hearing as a political spectacle to coax Mr. Kavanaugh into looking defensive or angry, and to portray Republicans as anti-women. Odds are it will be a circus.

***
The timing and details of how Ms. Ford came forward, and how her name was coaxed into public view, should also raise red flags about the partisan motives at play. The Post says Ms. Ford contacted the paper via a tip line in July but wanted to remain anonymous. She then brought her story to a Democratic official while still hoping to stay anonymous.

Yet she also then retained a lawyer, Debra Katz, who has a history of Democratic activism and spoke in public defense of Bill Clinton against the accusations by Paula Jones. Ms. Katz urged Ms. Ford to take a polygraph test. The Post says she passed the polygraph, though a polygraph merely shows that she believes the story she is telling.

The more relevant question is why go to such lengths if Ms. Ford really wanted her name to stay a secret? Even this weekend she could have chosen to remain anonymous. These are the actions of someone who was prepared to go public from the beginning if she had to.

The role of Senator Dianne Feinstein is also highly irregular and transparently political. The ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee knew about Ms. Ford’s accusations in late July or early August yet kept quiet. If she took it seriously, she had multiple opportunities to ask Judge Kavanaugh or have committee staff interview the principals. But in that event the details would have been vetted and Senators would have had time to assess their credibility.

Instead Ms. Feinstein waited until the day before a committee markup on the nomination to release a statement that she had “information” about the accusation and had sent it to the FBI. Her statement was a political stunt.

She was seeking to insulate herself from liberal charges that she sat on the letter. Or—and this seems increasingly likely given the course of events—Senator Feinstein was holding the story to spring at the last minute in the hope that events would play out as they have. Surely she knew that once word of the accusation was public, the press would pursue the story and Ms. Ford would be identified by name one way or another.

***
Democrats waited until Ms. Ford went public to make public statements. But clearly some were feeding the names of Ms. Ford and her lawyer to the press, and now they are piling on what they hope will be an election-eve #MeToo conflagration.


“Senator [and Judiciary Chairman] Grassley must postpone the vote until, at a very minimum, these serious and credible allegations are thoroughly investigated,” declared Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Sunday. “For too long, when women have made serious allegations of abuse, they have been ignored. That cannot happen in this case.”

His obvious political goal is to delay the confirmation vote past the election, fan the #MeToo political furies until then, and hope that at least two GOP Senators wilt under political pressure. If Republican Senators Jeff Flake and Bob Corker think a hearing will satisfy Mr. Schumer, they are right to retire from politics.

GOP Senators should understand that the political cost of defeating Mr. Kavanaugh will likely include the loss of the Senate. Democrats are already motivated to vote against Donald Trump, and if Republicans panic now their own voters will rightly be furious. They would be letting Democrats get away with the same dirty trick they tried and failed to pull off against Clarence Thomas.

It would also be a serious injustice to a man who has by all accounts other than Ms. Ford’s led a life of respect for women and the law. Every #MeToo miscreant is a repeat offender. The accusation against Mr. Kavanaugh is behavior manifested nowhere else in his life.

No one, including Donald Trump, needs to attack Ms. Ford. She believes what she believes. This is not he said-she said. This is a case of an alleged teenage encounter, partially recalled 30 years later without corroboration, and brought forward to ruin Mr. Kavanaugh’s reputation for partisan purposes.

Letting an accusation that is this old, this unsubstantiated and this procedurally irregular defeat Mr. Kavanaugh would also mean weaponizing every sexual assault allegation no matter the evidence. It will tarnish the #MeToo cause with the smear of partisanship, and it will unleash even greater polarizing furies.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-metoo-kavanaugh-ambush-1537197395

 

[unIowa]

Ask me about the HS parties I got bombed at, yeah at 40 I don't remember them either.

 

[mstp1992]

The woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of a drunken assault when both were teenagers has now come forward publicly, and on Monday it caused Republicans to delay a confirmation vote and schedule another public hearing. Yet there is no way to confirm her story after 36 years, and to let it stop Mr. Kavanaugh’s confirmation would ratify what has all the earmarks of a calculated political ambush.

This is not to say Christine Blasey Ford isn’t sincere in what she remembers. In an interview published in the Washington Post on Sunday, Ms. Ford offered a few more details of the story she told anonymously starting in July. She says she was 15 when Mr. Kavanaugh, who would have been 17, and a male friend pushed her into a bedroom at a drinking party, held her down, and pawed her until the male friend jumped on them both and she escaped to a bathroom until the two boys left the room.

Mr. Kavanaugh denies all this “categorically and unequivocally,” and there is simply no way to prove it. The only witness to the event is Mr. Kavanaugh’s high school male friend, Mark Judge, who also says he recalls no such event. Ms. Ford concedes she told no one about it—not even a high school girl friend or family member—until 2012 when she told the story as part of couples therapy with her husband.

The vagaries of memory are well known, all the more so when they emerge in the cauldron of a therapy session to rescue a marriage. Experts know that human beings can come to believe firmly over the years that something happened when it never did or is based on partial truth. Mistaken identity is also possible.

The Post reports that the therapist’s notes from 2012 say there were four male assailants, but Ms. Ford says that was a mistake. Ms. Ford also can’t recall in whose home the alleged assault took place, how she got there, or how she got home that evening.


This is simply too distant and uncorroborated a story to warrant a new hearing or to delay a vote. We’ve heard from all three principals, and there are no other witnesses to call. Democrats will use Monday’s hearing as a political spectacle to coax Mr. Kavanaugh into looking defensive or angry, and to portray Republicans as anti-women. Odds are it will be a circus.

***
The timing and details of how Ms. Ford came forward, and how her name was coaxed into public view, should also raise red flags about the partisan motives at play. The Post says Ms. Ford contacted the paper via a tip line in July but wanted to remain anonymous. She then brought her story to a Democratic official while still hoping to stay anonymous.

Yet she also then retained a lawyer, Debra Katz, who has a history of Democratic activism and spoke in public defense of Bill Clinton against the accusations by Paula Jones. Ms. Katz urged Ms. Ford to take a polygraph test. The Post says she passed the polygraph, though a polygraph merely shows that she believes the story she is telling.

The more relevant question is why go to such lengths if Ms. Ford really wanted her name to stay a secret? Even this weekend she could have chosen to remain anonymous. These are the actions of someone who was prepared to go public from the beginning if she had to.

The role of Senator Dianne Feinstein is also highly irregular and transparently political. The ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee knew about Ms. Ford’s accusations in late July or early August yet kept quiet. If she took it seriously, she had multiple opportunities to ask Judge Kavanaugh or have committee staff interview the principals. But in that event the details would have been vetted and Senators would have had time to assess their credibility.

Instead Ms. Feinstein waited until the day before a committee markup on the nomination to release a statement that she had “information” about the accusation and had sent it to the FBI. Her statement was a political stunt.

She was seeking to insulate herself from liberal charges that she sat on the letter. Or—and this seems increasingly likely given the course of events—Senator Feinstein was holding the story to spring at the last minute in the hope that events would play out as they have. Surely she knew that once word of the accusation was public, the press would pursue the story and Ms. Ford would be identified by name one way or another.

***
Democrats waited until Ms. Ford went public to make public statements. But clearly some were feeding the names of Ms. Ford and her lawyer to the press, and now they are piling on what they hope will be an election-eve #MeToo conflagration.


“Senator [and Judiciary Chairman] Grassley must postpone the vote until, at a very minimum, these serious and credible allegations are thoroughly investigated,” declared Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Sunday. “For too long, when women have made serious allegations of abuse, they have been ignored. That cannot happen in this case.”

His obvious political goal is to delay the confirmation vote past the election, fan the #MeToo political furies until then, and hope that at least two GOP Senators wilt under political pressure. If Republican Senators Jeff Flake and Bob Corker think a hearing will satisfy Mr. Schumer, they are right to retire from politics.

GOP Senators should understand that the political cost of defeating Mr. Kavanaugh will likely include the loss of the Senate. Democrats are already motivated to vote against Donald Trump, and if Republicans panic now their own voters will rightly be furious. They would be letting Democrats get away with the same dirty trick they tried and failed to pull off against Clarence Thomas.

It would also be a serious injustice to a man who has by all accounts other than Ms. Ford’s led a life of respect for women and the law. Every #MeToo miscreant is a repeat offender. The accusation against Mr. Kavanaugh is behavior manifested nowhere else in his life.

No one, including Donald Trump, needs to attack Ms. Ford. She believes what she believes. This is not he said-she said. This is a case of an alleged teenage encounter, partially recalled 30 years later without corroboration, and brought forward to ruin Mr. Kavanaugh’s reputation for partisan purposes.

Letting an accusation that is this old, this unsubstantiated and this procedurally irregular defeat Mr. Kavanaugh would also mean weaponizing every sexual assault allegation no matter the evidence. It will tarnish the #MeToo cause with the smear of partisanship, and it will unleash even greater polarizing furies.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-metoo-kavanaugh-ambush-1537197395

You’re complicit in the further polarization of our nation.

You voted for Trump.

 

[Tom Paris]

Ask me about the HS parties I got bombed at, yeah at 40 I don't remember them either.

I can remember if I assaulted a girl or not. Did not.

 

[unIowa]

Ask me about the HS parties I got bombed at, yeah at 40 I don't remember them either.

I can remember if I assaulted a girl or not. Did not.

I agree but I can’t recall if a girl assulted me...no girl ever sexually assaulted me at parties I was nearly passed out at, sad.

 

[unIowa]

Watching CNN now and people seem shocked the HS kids would get drunk, a lot, in the 80s and 90s.

Lol....OMG HS kids get drunk!

 

[irishtex63]

I can remember if I assaulted a girl or not. Did not.

You sound remarkably like Brett Kavanaugh.

 

[Tom Paris]

You sound remarkably like Brett Kavanaugh.

Well one of us has a victim accusing him of assault...and one of us doesn't. Fairly different, in my opinion.

 

[The Tradition]

I can remember if I assaulted a girl or not. Did not.

Apparently, you've never been "blackout" drunk.

 

[irishtex63]

Well one of us has a victim accusing him of assault...and one of us doesn't. Fairly different, in my opinion.

Very different situations, he could be just as innocent as you though which would be a real kick in the nuts.

 

[Tom Paris]

Very different situations, he could be just as innocent as you though which would be a real kick in the nuts.

No. Not really. I pretty much have assumed the Cons are going to push him through no matter what.

 

[SSG T]

Very different situations, he could be just as innocent as you though which would be a real kick in the nuts.

Easy solution...investigate it and see if the allegation holds up. If not, then loudly proclaim he was wrongfully accused. If it does, then he should do what's right and remove himself from consideration.

 

[Tom Paris]

Apparently, you've never been "blackout" drunk.

Yay for me!

 

[Speedway1]

No. Not really. I pretty much have assumed the Cons are going to push him through no matter what.

As they should. This is all Democrat BS as usual. It is hard for me to remember much from any High School activities. And nobody, I mean nobody is perfect. It is just BS , check this lady's bank account in the near future. Wonder if it was Soros or the DNC that will funnel here the money.

 

[NoleATL]

"Kavanaugh was not at the party, and if he was, it might have been "rough horseplay", and the person who could verify whether he was there (or not) is refusing to testify."

 

[gohawks50]

As they should. This is all Democrat BS as usual. It is hard for me to remember much from any High School activities. And nobody, I mean nobody is perfect. It is just BS , check this lady's bank account in the near future. Wonder if it was Soros or the DNC that will funnel here the money.

As a Kavanaugh supporter I would be careful about the suggestion of examining bank accounts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...5482bf5e0f5_story.html?utm_term=.e026c5ee816b

 

[SSG T]

"Kavanaugh was not at the party, and if he was, it might have been "rough horseplay", and the person who could verify whether he was there (or not) is refusing to testify."

Did they really just use the OJ "I didn't do it but if I had" line of reasoning?

 

[SL Hawk Fan]

"Kavanaugh was not at the party, and if he was, it might have been "rough horseplay", and the person who could verify whether he was there (or not) is refusing to testify."

Is it true that Kav's documented friend (Mr. Judge) is refusing to testify? That alone creates some bad optics for Kav, since surely Judge would be willing to appear in court and testify under oath, if such testimony would validate Kav's version of events.

 

[Speedway1]

Did they really just use the OJ "I didn't do it but if I had" line of reasoning?

Do your really believe this lady? Really? Does it not smell even a little bit to you?

 

[silasstarr]

Easy solution...investigate it and see if the allegation holds up. If not, then loudly proclaim he was wrongfully accused. If it does, then he should do what's right and remove himself from consideration.

Let’s hook him up to a lie detector. He’s already proven in testimony that he freezes up when lying.

 

[SSG T]

Do your really believe this lady? Really? Does it not smell even a little bit to you?

I'll just say this...her accusations are more believable than his denials. As I said, investigate it. If it turns out she's lying, burn the witch. If it turns out he did it, fry him (both of those figuratively).

BTW, even if he were found innocent of this, I'd want him voted down, he's already perjured himself, which is part of the reason I find her accusation more believable.

 

[SSG T]

Let’s hook him up to a lie detector. He’s already proven in testimony that he freezes up when lying.

Maybe one that gives a very low level shock when lying occurs, like putting your tongue on both posts of a 9 volt battery.

 

[mstp1992]

Do your really believe this lady? Really? Does it not smell even a little bit to you?

I’m of the mindset I don’t have enough information.

I’m also not likely to blindly believe Kavanaugh 100%.

 

[Huey Grey]

I’m of the mindset I don’t have enough information.

I’m also not likely to blindly believe Kavanaugh 100%.

Which is why we need an investigation. To blow one off completely is something Russia would do.

 

[pahawk1]

As they should. This is all Democrat BS as usual. It is hard for me to remember much from any High School activities. And nobody, I mean nobody is perfect. It is just BS , check this lady's bank account in the near future. Wonder if it was Soros or the DNC that will funnel here the money.

I agree with you 100%. This has the Democrats written all over it. And for the record- i am a woman. And in no way do i believe this accuser.

 

[Huey Grey]

I agree with you 100%. This has the Democrats written all over it. And for the record- i am a woman. And in no way do i believe this accuser.

She passed a lie detector test.

 

[pahawk1]

She passed a lie detector test.

She passed a lie detector test given by a former FBI agent in which she wasn’t asked if the accusations were true, but whether or not she submitted that statement.

Additionally, lie detector tests aren’t admissible in court for a reason. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see through this charade.

 

[Greenway12]

Why is she refusing to testify? Why is she refusing to release the transcript of the polygraph? Why did she suddenly scrub all her social media? What is Ford hiding?

 

[Huey Grey]

She passed a lie detector test given by a former FBI agent in which she wasn’t asked if the accusations were true, but whether or not she submitted that statement.

Additionally, lie detector tests aren’t admissible in court for a reason. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see through this charade.

Investigate her claims then. And Kav's. Surely you can see why it looks like the cons are trying to hide something when they won't allow anything but speculation into the open.

 

[Huey Grey]

Why is she refusing to testify? Why is she refusing to release the transcript of the polygraph? Why did she suddenly scrub all her social media? What is Ford hiding?

I have a solution to all of these questions. It's called an investigation.

 

[Speedway1]

I'll just say this...her accusations are more believable than his denials. As I said, investigate it. If it turns out she's lying, burn the witch. If it turns out he did it, fry him (both of those figuratively).

BTW, even if he were found innocent of this, I'd want him voted down, he's already perjured himself, which is part of the reason I find her accusation more believable.

How did he perjure himself?

 

[MitchL]

Easy solution...investigate it and see if the allegation holds up. If not, then loudly proclaim he was wrongfully accused. If it does, then he should do what's right and remove himself from consideration.

Yep, and you can bet your ass the RNC is using polling services as we speak to determine if there are negative connotations happening with the electorate about this controversy. If they find out that there are, indeed, BK will be asking the Idiot In Chief to remove his name from consideration by the end of the week.

 

[Speedway1]

She passed a lie detector test.

So, why did she take one? And how long ago? Several months back? This was all conjured up by the Democrats months ago. What a bunch lying POS hacks.

 

[Speedway1]

Yep, and you can bet your ass the RNC is using polling services as we speak to determine if there are negative connotations happening with the electorate about this controversy. If they find out that there are, indeed, BK will be asking the Idiot In Chief to remove his name from consideration by the end of the week.

Stop listening to the douche bag F.Chuck Todd.

 

[Huey Grey]

So, why did she take one? And how long ago? Several months back? This was all conjured up by the Democrats months ago. What a bunch lying POS hacks.

All good questions. An investigation could answer them.

 

[MitchL]

Stop listening to the douche bag F.Chuck Todd.

Sleepy Chuck?

 

[Panic1769]

I'll just say this...her accusations are more believable than his denials. As I said, investigate it. If it turns out she's lying, burn the witch. If it turns out he did it, fry him (both of those figuratively).

BTW, even if he were found innocent of this, I'd want him voted down, he's already perjured himself, which is part of the reason I find her accusation more believable.

More believable than his denials?? She can’t remember where the party was, who was there, how she got there, when the party was etc. She also said Mark Judge stopped the alleged assault. He denies that this happened. You only consider this more believable because you don’t want Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court.

 

[StopIt]

By Aaron Blake
September 18 at 3:08 PM

This post has been updated.

In her must-read recap of how alleged sexual assaults are prosecuted, The Washington Post’s Deanna Paul quotes a former district attorney saying she doesn’t like calling these cases “he said, she saids."

"I stand to believe there’s no such thing as a ‘he-said-she-said’ case,” Linda Fairstein said. “As a prosecutor, it’s your job to break down every minute of the encounter so that details on one side pushes the facts over the edge.”

This is an important point — and it’s also key to our evolving understanding of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation against Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh.

While critics of the accusation have dismissed it as a “he said, she said,” and argue that we have two competing accounts that simply can’t be reconciled, that’s increasingly not the case. Both Ford and Kavanaugh, in fact, have provided statements that could be seen as corroborating evidence or require corroboration, were this to be handled in a legal setting.

ADVERTISING
Republicans including President Trump have cast doubt upon Ford’s accusation by pointing out that it came to light mere days before Kavanaugh was set to be approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee — and after his confirmation hearings had already been concluded. This is probably the biggest argument against the legitimacy of the accusation.

But Ford has also documented a session in which she told her therapist about the alleged episode six years ago, and she reached out to The Washington Post before Kavanaugh was Trump’s nominee (but while he was on Trump’s shortlist).

Critics allege these amount to little to substantiate her claims, but legally speaking, they’re substantial. As Georgetown University law professor David Super notes, federal law explicitly says these previous statements are not regarded as hearsay, or unreliable, when they are used “to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying.”

That’s exactly what Republicans are implying — often gently and without expressly calling Ford a liar.

“Calling it ‘he said, she said’ implies that both accounts are uncorroborated,” Super said. “But these prior consistent statements are corroboration. And with so many complaining about the lateness of the charges, they are at least implying recent fabrication. That makes her prior consistent statements not hearsay. Even a court would consider them.”

Ford’s prior statements, though, go only so far in bolstering her claim. The therapist’s notes describe four boys being in the room in which the episode happened, rather than the two she now says were there. Ford blames the therapist for not accurately recording what she said. But just as the previous statements could be used to bolster her claim, this could be used to argue that she changed her story.

Also pushing this into the realm of actual evidence is Kavanaugh’s latest apparent defense: That he wasn’t even at such a party. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said Monday that Kavanaugh told him he wasn’t.


Hatch clarified that Kavanaugh said “he was not at a party like the one [Ford] describes" and that Ford "may be mistaking [Kavanaugh] for someone else.”

That means we have another claim that could be corroborated or disproved. Other people at the party could testify about whether the party was similar to how Ford described it and whether Kavanaugh was there. There could be evidence introduced to support or dispute Kavanaugh’s denial, and his credibility could be adjusted accordingly — just as Ford’s old actions could be used as corroborating evidence to bolster her claims. (For what it’s worth, nobody else at the party is currently slated to testify publicly.)

None of this makes the case clear-cut, and we may never get definitive answers as to whether Kavanaugh was at the party or whether Ford’s allegation is true. What’s more, Ford’s past statements about the alleged episode aren’t proof of wrongdoing.

But to dismiss this all as a “he said, she said,” also misses the point. There are key questions that have answers here; we’ll see if the hearing Monday provides any.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...said-she-said-anymore/?utm_term=.63b92efc98b8

More like, she said and he didn't!

"I can't say everything's truthful. I don't know."

- Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

 

[who r u]

i am a woman.