The gaps in her memory are consistent with someone who has had a traumatic experience, and are actually what made her more believable - someone who was lying or embellishing would have made the story more seamless. Possible evidence for her story is actually right in that bizarre calendar he claims to have kept since 1982. He testified that his calendar didn't show a party on the weekends that summer, but the July 1 entry - a Thursday - lists a get together that included the boys she said were there on the night in question. If the FBI is allowed to investigate, it should be fairly easy to determine if the house that it took place in matches the description she gave in HER testimony.
It should also be noted that the GOP IMMEDIATELY yanked Prosecutor Mitchell's participation in the questioning as soon as she pointed out that date on the calendar, perhaps because they didn't want her wandering into that particular minefield.
As to the article you posted - it's another example of victim-blaming. It's one of the reasons why victims of these events are not willing to come forward. I don't remember her exact words, but I recall one of the things Dr. Ford said - that she knew she had to come forward even though she might be "jumping in front of a train that was going to go there anyway." She had nothing to gain and a lot to lose by coming forward, and yet she did it anyway because she felt that Congress and the American people had to know what kind of man they were about to elevate to a lifetime position on our highest court. That's a patriot.
But at this point, I think the issue is no longer an alleged assault that may never be proven or even his excessive drinking - it's now become a question of his credibility and his truthfulness. The descriptions of the phrases used in his yearbook, given under oath, were laughable - they were all related to sex, not drinking games. There's no drinking game called "the devil's triangle", but he appeared to be making it up as he went along - making it up while he was under oath. That's called perjury.
Now it's reported - with documentation - that he was involved as early as July in trying to discredit the story of a second accuser, but told the committee under oath that he knew nothing about the allegation until the article appeared a few months later. More possible perjury.
Statements he made in the earlier hearings are also suspect, such as those about his involvement and/or possession of stolen emails, his involvement with memos that promoted torture, etc. There's a reason why over 95% of his documents have been hidden from even Congress.
So we're left with two questions:
1. Has he lied to Congress about any of this stuff? It appears that he may have.
2. Why him and why the rush to get him confirmed when the McConnell held Scalia's seat vacant for almost a year, refusing to even allow Merrick Garland to be interviewed much less face a confirmation hearing? As Dr. Ford said in her testimony, there is a long list of others who are supposedly equally qualified for the position, so why him? Why him, and what's the urgency?
Perhaps because he's the only judge who has expressed an opinion that a President cannot even be investigated for a crime while in office. Perhaps because one of the cases on the SCOTUS docket - to be argued later this month before the midterm elections - is whether someone charged with a federal crime can also be charged for the same crime in a state court. Whoever is eventually confirmed cannot weigh in on that case unless they are on the court when oral arguments are heard. Trump picked the one nominee that might give him an edge and allow him to pardon people.knowing they can't be pursued at the state level.
As for "innocent until proven guilty", it really doesn't apply here because this is not a criminal investigation. It is, as many have noted, a glorified job interview. When you're hiring someone or considering a promotion, do you need to know conclusively beyond a reasonable doubt that this person has done things that came up during your due diligence? Of course not - you rely on the preponderance of the evidence. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. |
