We should presume innocence of course.
But it's a very difficult situation. This is for the nomination for a lifelong position where there is very little chance he could be removed in future.
He's also one of a very tiny number of Supreme Court Judges, who essentially oversee "Truth, Justice and the American Way" so any suggestion of serious wrongdoing does shine a negative light on the position as a whole.Whilst nobody is perfect, an accusation of sexual assault needs to be investigated properly.
Well the story she gave her therapist didn't match what she is now claiming..
The senate interview can be held in private - its up to her.
Does it matter who asks the questions? - all either side can do is give their version under oath, there is no other evidence. It is a classic 'he says/she says' (or in this case 'they say/she says')
Source?
- The Washington Post
The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part.
Thanks for the source.
The very next line from what you quoted.
Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.
Seems very plausible that the therapist wrote this down incorrectly.
Certainly a lot more plausible that she created this story in 2012 just to get Kavanaugh now.
Is plausible good enough? - especially when it appears that she is going to refuse to testify under oath.
It's far more plausible than her planning this 6 years ago to get Kavanaugh now.
And she wants the FBI to investigate first. Which is reasonable. They will be able to determine if there is any corroborating evidence, such as confirming the other 4 attendees.
Democrat Senators tying themselves in knots is especially funny when the process is to find an unbiased Judge.
It is a growing mantra on and off Capitol Hill. Both members and commentators have insisted that Christine Blasey Ford “has a right to be believed.” Hawaii's Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono not only has insisted that she and other women alleging abuse “need to be believed,” but men need to “just shut up and step up.” It is a jarring disconnect for members who insist that they confirm a nominee who will approach legal questions with a fair and open mind while dispensing with such considerations in their own treatment of his nomination.
Clinton declared "I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault ... You have the right to be believed, and we're with you."
What precisely does that mean? In the case of Ford, she is a highly credible person with a distinguished background as a college professor. However, does that alone mean that you should believe her over Kavanaugh, a person with a similarly distinguished background? Ford has only offered an allegation with minimal factual support. Indeed, she admits that she cannot recall the specific date or specific party involved in the assault. That does not mean that she lacks credibility but no reasonable judge would declare that they believe one party based solely on the initial (and contested) allegation.
Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford both deserve blind justice, not bias