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.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/35935/6-questions-about-sexual-assault-allegations-ben-shapiro

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.