I remember a Constitution where people were innocent until proven guilty. I guess you've never read your copy of it.
Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for locking him behind bars. For a Supreme Court nomination, I think we should avoid a nomination where there is substantial evidence supporting the appearance of impropriety.
We should approach this situation very cautiously, as we don't want to set a precedent that supreme-court nominations can be sabotaged just by finding some kook to make a false allegation of decades-old misconduct, but let's take what we know.
She apparently told her husband a long time ago that she was physically abused. In 2012, additional details were discussed with a psychiatrist.
1) It seems unlikely that her, her husband, and her psychiatrist are engaged in a conspiracy to lie, so I'm inclined to believe something happened.
2) It is possible she was abused by someone else but is twisting the story to implicate Kavanaugh. However, since his name was brought up
Now let's look at the other side, is there some explanation as to why Kavanaugh wouldn't remember this event but she did?
1) Kavanaugh could have blacked-out from alcohol that night.
2) Kavanaugh and his buddy considered what they were doing as goofing around - the girl was never in danger raped, and since they knew they weren't actually trying to rape her, it wasn't a significant memory to stick in their minds. Essentially, Kavanaugh doesn't remember the event as "that time he sexually assaulted a girl." To him, it could be just one of those times he tried to hook up with some girl at a party.
Both of the above are plausible reasons Kavanaugh wouldn't remember the event and don't require him to be lying in an attempt to cover-up a past crime.
There is another possibility. This could be a case of mistaken identity. It's possible Ford's memory focused on the details and emotion of the event and not the individuals. Thus, it's possible the event happened but Kavanaugh was one of the boys at the event, not one of the boys that assaulted and that her mind decided to set on his name later in life when she ran into his name again as an important federal judge.
All in all, I would say there is certainly enough evidence to meet the threshold of "not a good candidate for supreme court justice," which is absolutely a lower standard than "guilty of a crime."
Last edited: