Thursday, September 20, 2018

It's party time!

For what it's worth, a few more thoughts on the Kavanaugh imbroglio:

1. I think Ford's story is generically credible in the sense that things like that happen at drinking parties with teenagers or college students. It falls right in line a painfully familiar narrative.

Of course, that doesn't make it true–or even presumptively true. Indeed, because the narrative is so familiar, it's easy to fabricate. 

2. On the face of it, there are holes in her story. As Ben Shapiro notes:

Why Do Her Therapist’s Notes Conflict With Her Account? 
Ford showed her therapist’s notes to The Washington Post. Those notes conflict with her account. The notes don’t include names, instead stating that the alleged perpetrators were “from an elitist boys’ school,” and had since become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes also state that four boys were involved, not two; she says her therapist got it wrong, and that there were four boys at the party but only two boys involved. Another therapy session the following year includes the charge that Ford underwent a “rape attempt” in “her late teens,” but she was allegedly 15 – not late teens – when this incident occurred. Her husband, who was present for the first therapy session, said Kavanaugh’s name was raised, but the Post account doesn’t say that Kavanaugh was called the alleged perpetrator.


The fact that she says she doesn't remember the year or the place could be a calculating strategy to render her allegation unfalsifiable. The more specific you are, the easier to prove or disprove the allegation. Maybe her recollection really is that cloudy, or maybe it's studied vagueness. It creates multiple possibilities for someone to come foreword and say they saw something like that somewhere, sometime–while it conveniently precludes definitive refutation. I find it very hard to believe she doesn't even remember how old she was. 

In addition, just a few days ago her lawyer made a claim about another girl who attendee the party. That looks like an evolving story. And you have to wonder if that embellishment wasn't added to make room for a surprise witness. 

3. BTW, I'm struck by supporters who appeal to her therapist's notes, as if that corroborates her story. But that's just reading back what she told her therapist. That's not independent evidence. It's the same source–her own testimony. 

4. Turning from the accuser to the accused, there's a conundrum. When Ahnuld ran for governor, he was quite forthcoming, even boastful, about his Bacchanalian past (which, as it turned out, wasn't just a thing of the past). Because his reputation preceded him, it preemptively defused attacks on his character. Voters already made allowance for that. It was priced in. In politics, dissipation is the best inoculant! 

When, however, candidates like Kavanaugh trade on their stainless image, that makes them vastly more vulnerable to allegations that tarnish the stainless image. Any little thing shows up against a contrastive background. 

5. Once again, I'm struck by supporters who appeal to his denial (as well as Mark Judge's denial), as if that's evidence of innocence. But if Kavanaugh did it, we'd expect him to deny it. So that's not evidence. Admitting something contrary to your self-interest is evidentiary, but to make a self-serving denial is not evidentiary. 

6. Just as I find her story unconvincing, I find it unconvincing when he extends his spotless image all the way back to his  teens. There's evidence that he used to hang out with Mark Judge, who by his own admission was a party animal. How could Kavanaugh's extracurricular activities be hermetically sealed from his buddy's? 

That doesn't mean I think Kavanaugh was ever the bacchant that Judge was. It's my impression that Kavanaugh was more ambitious, disciplined, and single-minded. I doubt he'd have been so academically competitive if he was as out-of-control as Judge. Even if Kavanaugh was a hard drinker at parties, he could turn it off. 

Suppose he said: "As a teenager, I was a party boy–just like many future senators! I went to drinking parties. The boys got drunk and the girls got drunk. Everybody got drunk to lower their sexual inhibitions. I don't remember everything I did when I was under the influence. The girls don't remember everything they did when they were under the influence." 

Maybe that's the true story. If true, that's exculpatory. Yet he can't get away with saying that. 

10 comments:

  1. While I remain skeptical of the claims against Roy Moore, there was corroborating evidence. Certainly the guy had an odd interest in teenage girls.

    On the other hand there is nothing to corroborate Ford's claims and the one thing which purports to (the notes) actually undermines it.

    Her story almost seems designed to prevent rebuttal. She doesn't remember where the party was, when it was, and most importantly who drove her to and from the party.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ask your liberal friends how Beverly Nelson's doing. It's fun to hear them say, "Who?" and then you can go, "You know, the woman you cared so much about literally less than a year ago."

      Delete
  2. "BTW, I'm struck by supporters who appeal to her therapist's notes, as if that corroborates her story. But that's just reading back what she told her therapist. That's not independent evidence. It's the same source–her own testimony. "

    Well, if she said it was Kavanaugh and said in 2000, before he became a judge, the I would find it substantial evidence. But in 2012 Romney said he'd name K to the Supreme Court. It would be interesting to hear from her and question her about her knowledge of K's employment.

    I do believe she was sexually assaulted, but not by K. My hunch is that she thought that if she accused K of sexual assault there would be a cascade of other women, as has happened in other cases.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Karen Monahan, meanwhile, has come forth with actual medical record detailing the abuse she alleges was from Congress"man" Keith Ellison, but for some reason the media doesn't care about that.

    In fact, when she was asked "Democrats say [they] believe women, do they believe you?" she responded: "No, they don't. I've been smeared, threatened, isolated from my own party. I provided medical records from 2017, stating on two different Dr. visits, I told them about the abuse and who did it. My therapist released records stating I have been dealing and healing from the abuse."

    It's almost like one of these women is making evidence-free claims against a Republican and the other is making evidence-backed claims against a Democrat.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm wondering if Ford actually implicated Kavanaugh as the primary offender in 2012, or whether he was merely among those named at the time as being a participant. If the later, then for all we know it was Judge who was the primary offender and Ford only lately claims it was Kavanaugh. While Kavanaugh, out of loyalty to his friend Judge, refuses to tell the truth it was Judge who assaulted Ford and he himself (Kavanaugh) who may have (intentionally? though delayed?) knocked Judge off of Ford.

    Another possibility is that there's an element of truth to her story and that there actually were 4 men involved, but for some reason she's trying to protect the other two men. Even if the other two men weren't witnesses to the assault, why doesn't she name them anyway since they can be witnesses to the reality of the party? If they really exist, then they can possibly help identify the year and house in which the incident allegedly occurred.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's probably useful to remember that all we have so far is a redacted letter written to a biased senator. There's no testimony under oath in any of this, let alone evidence for anything. So, who knows what the final claims will be, if it even ever gets under oath?

      Delete
    2. But, Peter, we also have the redacted therapists notes!

      Delete
    3. Yes, I forgot about the redacted therapist notes that contradict the redacted letter because the therapist must have written it down wrong....

      Delete
  5. It seems highly unlikely that Ford is telling the truth. A lot of the relevant issues have already been discussed here, but I'll add some others.

    Kavanaugh seems to have drank a lot as a teenager, but attempting to rape a girl is another matter. What we know of the rest of Kavanaugh's life makes attempted rape seem unlikely.

    Ford claims to not remember things you'd expect her to remember if her claims were true, as Steve mentions above. But her memory problems are worse than that. The Washington Post reported, "She said that each person had one beer but that Kavanaugh and Judge had started drinking earlier and were heavily intoxicated." As Dan McLaughlin mentioned, "Which seems awfully convenient if it is important for her to maintain that her memory of the incident is unclouded by alcohol, and frankly sounds a lot like the kind of thing teenagers say when caught drinking ('Honestly Mom, those guys were drunk but I only just had one beer.')" How likely is it that she can't remember, or has significant doubts about, so many significant details (the year the events happened, whose house she was at, how she got home), yet she remembers how much beer each participant at the party had drank at a particular point in time during the party? Had she been monitoring everybody's beer intake leading up to that point and retained that information for a few decades while, simultaneously, forgetting other details you'd expect her to remember?

    And I don't understand why so many people seem to have so little trouble with her account of how she allegedly avoided being raped. Yes, it's possible for a girl to get away from two older boys who are going after her, at least one of whom wants to rape her. The supposed drunkenness of the boys makes the scenario more plausible than it would be otherwise. Still, it seems unlikely upfront. Usually, two older boys, especially when one who wants to rape the girl already has her pinned down, wouldn't let her get out of the room and into a bathroom with enough time to close and lock the door. This isn't a major problem for Ford to overcome, but it is somewhat improbable upfront that the scenario she describes would occur. And that improbability is being added to a long series of other improbabilities she wants us to accept.

    The most recent behavior of Ford and those closely affiliated with her is problematic as well (the demand for an FBI investigation, the attempt to get Kavanaugh to testify first, the attempt to only allow Senators to ask her questions, the same Senators they previously said weren't competent to investigate the case on their own, etc.). If Ford is telling the truth, why does she keep acting like somebody who's suspiciously hesitant, defensive, and evasive?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, if the boys were on the high school football team, in their youthful physical prime, they could easily overpower her.

      Delete