First some facts:
-Ms. Ford was likely the victim of some type of assault. As many have pointed out, there is a lot of evidence that something happened to her as a teenager. Witnesses corroborate a change in behavior, her therapist’s notes, etc. Note the word LIKELY, because there could be an alternate explanation for those things. Implanted and false memories are a documented scientific phenomenon. It is certainly possible that Ms. Ford’s behavior changed for another reason, and the “memory” of sexual assault was generated as a result of her therapy.
-The evidence in defense of Kavanaugh regarding Ms. Ford’s claims is being waved away by Kavanaugh’s critics. It’s significant. She’s so far named three other people who were supposedly at this party, all three of whom have denied that Kavanaugh committed the assault. Her “lifelong friend”, Leland Keyser, who was identified as an attendee of the party, has flat out denied that Ms. Ford’s accusation. She has stated that she never knew Judge Kavanaugh and was never at a party with him. I could understand skepticism about the testimony of the other person in the room (Mark Judge, a lifelong friend of Judge Kavanaugh), or the second named witness (PJ Smyth, who was also in Kavanaugh’s social circle), but what possible reason would Ms. Ford’s “lifelong friend” have to contradict her story? Ms. Ford can’t remember the date or place of the assault. She doesn’t know what happened before or after the party. Her story has changed multiple times (her therapist’s notes say four people were involved in the attack, then she was the only female at the party, now there were two females). I don’t believe she made this story up, but the possibility that she is misremembering, or that she has a case of mistaken identity.
-The timing of this revelation by Sen. Feinstein is the slimiest of slimy tactics. The appropriate thing to do would have been to reveal this accusation as soon as she received it, to be reviewed as part of the normal confirmation process. No reasonable person would have believed that this accusation would have stayed hidden to “protect the victim’s privacy”. Even the alleged victim, who stated she wanted to remain anonymous, realized that anonymity was impossible in this case; she hired an attorney to represent her almost immediately after contacting Sen. Feinstein’s office. The relevant details regarding this accusation (therapist’s notes, names of other attendees) were all either provided by Ms. Ford immediately or close enough to immediately that it makes no difference. Sen. Feinstein then sat on those accusations and details until it became certain that Judge Kavanaugh would be confirmed through normal processes. What was the benefit of waiting? The benefit was that it gives Democrats a chance to delay filling the Supreme Court seat until after the midterms at which point they plan on leaving the seat empty until the next presidential election. I’m really disappointed in other commenters whom I’ve come to respect defending this practice as no big deal. Especially when they refer to the shady tactics used by Republicans. Instead of “they go low, we go high” it’s “they go low, we kick them in the balls”. Stop defending scorched earth tactics. Let go of your Trump derangement syndrome. Just because Democrats are doing it doesn’t mean it’s right.
Now some opinions:
-Ms. Ford’s accusation has SOME credibility (I legitimately believe she was, or believes she was, assaulted, though possibly by someone other than Kavanaugh). The second accusation by Ms. Ramirez has none. There is zero evidence it happened, all of her corroborating witnesses have denied it happened. Only after being sought out by Democratic operatives and then consulting with her attorneys and handlers did she “remember” that it was Kavanaugh who exposed himself. After the New Yorker interviewed her, she stated to friends that she STILL wasn’t sure it was Kavanaugh. If the circumstances of this testimony were brought under a criminal court they would be laughed out of the courtroom and the attorney who thought it would be admissible would likely be disciplined. The New York Times investigated this and found it too improbable to print. The fact that this was printed by a reputable news source is an absolute disgrace.
-For those who are complaining about Merrick Garland being blocked: this was a topic that had long been debated in the Senate. Joe Biden famously discussed it in the final years of Bush Sr.’s presidency establishing “The Biden Rule”, an understanding that supreme court nominees should not be put forward in a presidential election year. No it was not a formal “rule” of the senate, but was something that had been debated and discussed multiple times. Chuck Shumer, Democratic senator and current minority leader in the senate, stated that no other supreme court nominees should be considered for the final 18 months of Dubya’s presidency. It’s true that there were no current vacancies at that time, but Republicans took Democrats at their word that this was an agreed upon understanding. Also, Mitch McConnell was taking a pretty big risk with that strategy. It quickly became clear that Trump would be the nominee, and was almost universally considered an underdog in the election. The safe bet would have been to confirm an older moderate like Garland instead of risking an election loss and having President H. Clinton nominate a real radical. Instead Trump beat the odds and McConnell’s bet paid off.
-I was initially against an FBI investigation. How can you investigate a crime without a crime scene, witnesses or evidence? Nereo convinced me otherwise though. I do think that there is value to having a short investigation into witnesses, dates, times, etc. Unfortunately that won’t happen though, because Republicans are now assured that any delay will only give Democrats more time to dig up anyone willing to “reassess” their memories to determine that Kavanaugh assaulted them too. Ms. Ramirez’s story, meant to delay the hearing further and lend credence to Ms. Ford’s story, may ironically have the opposite effect. Defenders of Kavanaugh are now seeing, rather than one claim credible enough to be investigated, two partisan hit jobs. Even more reason to hold the hearing ASAP and vote for confirmation ASAP.
-For the people cheering on how this happened, are you comfortable with how this process is being done? Are you at all concerned about similar tactics being used for progressive Supreme Court nominees? Do you honestly believe that Sen. Feinstein acted in a reasonable and responsible manner? Are you comfortable with the fact that if Democrats successfully delay a supreme court confirmation beyond the mid-terms they will keep that seat empty for two and a half years or more? Haven’t you noticed that every time Democrats have used shady tactics (filling the “amendment tree” during their time in the majority, passing Obamacare under reconciliation, nuking the filibuster for judicial nominees), Republicans have upped the ante?
-If a decades old accusation of assault, one where all the alleged victims witnesses refute the story, is enough to derail this nomination, won’t it be enough for any other nomination?