That doesn’t mean you are assuming he is guilty, but you can’t start out by discrediting someone’s accusation in a case like this.
Never did. I actually think that she’s being truthful, as far as she remembers the event.
it is not less credible because the other people she named as being there don’t remember the party.
I’ll have to disagree. It’s not exculpatory, but it weakens the case.
If they did remember, it would strengthen the credibility of the accusation however.
First, her personal credibility. She has no history of making false accusations. She has no criminal history. No one has released statements challenging her credibility (unlike Kavanaugh). She has a documented and corroborated history of talking about the allegation that predates the confirmation hearings. She is not a political operative (although she is a registered democrat for what that’s worth). She has nothing personally to gain or lose depending on the outcome of the decision to confirm or not. She is willing to testify to the allegation under oath.
We grant her the benefit of the doubt that all these things are true. However, not all are settled facts.
Compare this to Kavanaugh’s testimony to see who is more credible.
I found both to be credible. And it is possible that both are being truthful, to their recollections.
Thirdly, she was willing to take a lie detector test, which showed that she wasn’t lying. I don’t know how much weight you can give to a lie detector test, but it adds to her credibility that she was willing to take one, and further adds to it that it showed that she wasn’t lying.
The polygraph tells you if the person is telling you the truth as they recall it. It does not tell you what the truth actually is.
Did BK ask for a lie detector test?
No, but I prefer not to infer from a lack of evidence. YMMV.
What certainly is funny is your mentioning Merrick Garland, a moderate, who wasn’t confirmed or even interviewed by the JC for nearly a year. So cry me a river on blaming the Dems for what’s going on now.
The ironic part is that Kavanaugh votes with Garland 93% of the time. But Garland is a saint, and Kavanaugh was Satan, even before these allegations came out.
But sorry, I entirely blame the Dems for turning this into a political shitshow. If this had been handled in normal order (confidentially, among the entire SJC when the letter was received, there would have been an awfully good chance that Kavanaugh would have been withdrawn. McConnell was not a supporter of the nomination, because he knew there would still be hard feelings from the Dems on his role in the Clinton matter and the Bush White House.
But, it was leaked to the press after the hearings, late in the game. Any reasonable person would interpret this as the Dems expecting that Kav would be withdrawn, and then hoping to run out the clock to the election. And in the process, Dr. Ford’s desire for confidentiality was ignored (ironically, one could say that she was assaulted by Kavanaugh in 1982, but fucked by the Democrats in 2018) and she was thrown under the bus, resulting in death threats and pure venom against both the Ford and Kavanaugh families.
And, even worse, Grassley’s offer to actually come to CA to take her statement seems to not have been passed on by her attorneys, who we later find were recommended to her by Feinstein. Legal malpractice; they wanted a spectacle which they thought would give them electoral advantage. (From the polling, it seems not to be the case.)
So, no, they caused this, and they didn’t have to. There is no other rational way to interpret the facts.
Now, the Dems could still get out of this if they decide to stop playing politics and really, truly, want to keep Kav off the Court. Since nobody wanted any of this, all they would have to do is tell Trump “Look, you nominated a guy with too many skeletons in his closet. Pull him back, and send up Kethledge; we’ll agree to confirm him before the election.”
But, they won’t.
What goes around comes around I guess. They both are playing dirty with the Supreme Court these days. Stop being so one-sided about it.
Oh, Garland was dirty pool, I agree. But there was never any character assasination of him. On a “dirty tricks” scale of one to ten, Garland was about a three or four. On this one, I’d like to say it’s a ten, but every time I think that the Dems can’t go lower, they surprise me.
They are not sworn affidavits, they are statements or sworn statements that aren’t witnessed and sealed.
It has been reported on multiple venues that statements made to the SJC are done so under penalty of perjury.
Hope that helps, but I doubt it. :-)