[wpseo_breadcrumb]

By George H Butcher III

Table of Contents for Blog #8D

The proof Ford was at the 7/1/92 party make the arguments used to undermine her allegation irrelevant, leaving Kavanaugh with no defense

The proofs that Dr. Ford attended the July 1, 1982 house-party are based solely on facts which are verified by Kavanaugh’s calendar and which she knew as of September 16, 2018. She could only have known those facts by having been present at the July 1 house-party.

The proofs described in Blog #8C provide certainty that Dr. Ford was at the July 1 event. Thus, the arguments for Kavanaugh listed below are individually and collectively irrelevant to the certainty that she was there. All that she mattes is what she provably knew based on the correspondence between the following “two events”:

  • The July 1, 1982 house-party described in his related calendar entry, and
  • The house-party were she was sexually assaulted, as described on September 16, 2018 and September 27, 2018.

How did we get to this point in the discussion?

Blog #8C demonstrated that the conclusion stated in the FBI Supplemental Investigation Executive Summary is false. That conclusion is that there is “no corroboration” of Dr. Ford’s allegation against Justice Kavanaugh.

That demonstration was accomplished by proving that Dr. Ford was present at the July 1, 1982 house-party. Thus, virtually all her memories of the event where she was sexually assaulted are corroborated by his calendar entry.

This Blog #8D starts with the predicate that Dr. Ford was provably at the July 1, 1982 house-party. It then shows that all the defenses used by Kavanaugh and his supporters to undermine Ford’s allegation are rendered ineffective.

The collection of arguments used by Kavanaugh and his supporters and their categories

Arguments about Dr. Ford’s prior recollections or non-recollections (“Type I” arguments”)

  • Arguments that Ford previously reported facts differently or that people recorded what she said differently.  Whether there were four people or two present is an example. Another example is Ford having used “sexual assault” and “physical abuse” at different times to describe the incident.
  • Arguments that she didn’t initially recall or report specific facts. The year of the assault and Kavanaugh’s name are examples.

Arguments that Dr. Ford should remember more (“Type II” arguments”)

  • The nonsensical argument that if only Dr. Ford recalled more details, it would have corroborated her story. Examples cited were who invited her, how she got there, and how she went home.
  • Arguments that are based on Ford’s inability to remember other details related to the house-party. Examples are her not recalling that Squi (whom she briefly dated) and two other boys were there.
  • Arguments that are based on Ford’s inability to remember recent events. Examples are whether she showed a full or partial set of her therapy notes to a reporter.

Arguments about what others recall, or don’t recall (“Type III” arguments”)

  • Arguments that other alleged or possible witnesses don’t recall various things. Examples of items not remembered include the house-party Ford described; the July 1 house-party; her being at the July 1 party; having met Ford; and having met Kavanaugh.

Arguments based on Dr. Ford and Ms. Keyser not being included in Kavanaugh’s July 1, 1982 calendar entry (“Type IV” arguments”)

  • Arguments that the absence of Ford and Keyser from Kavanaugh’s calendar entry proves the event Ford described is not the July 1 party;

Arguments about other alleged discrepancies between Ford’s and Kavanaugh’s descriptions of the two events (“Type V” arguments”)

  • The argument that Timmy’s house being 11 miles from Ford’s country club is inconsistent with her description of the location of the assault.
  • The argument that because Timmy’s house was a townhouse and not a free-standing single-family home, Ford’s use of “house” is inconsistent with his townhouse.

Arguments based on purported experts (“Type VI” arguments)

  • Relying on the FBI’s purported conclusion that there is “no corroboration” of Ford’s allegation
  • Incorporating statements from Ms. Mitchell’s report

Analysis of the six categories of defense arguments given the proof Ford was at the July 1 house-party

Type I, Type II, and Type III arguments are irrelevant

Type I arguments about her recollections and non-recollections before September 16, 2018, are all irrelevant. The facts she described as of that date, which are verified by his calendar entry, represent her provably correct memories of the event she described.

The Type II arguments that she should have remembered more details are irrelevant. Her verifiably correct recollections prove the event she described is the July 1, 1982 house-party. Specifically, the argument that she should have remembered Squi is irrelevant. It would have been a baseless argument even in a he-said, she-said controversy.

Type III arguments about what others don’t recall is irrelevant. The verifiably correct things Dr. Ford recalled in September 2018 prove she was present on July 1, 1982. There is no need for other witnesses’ corroboration.

Even if one of the other witnesses had an inconsistent memory about her having been present, it wouldn’t overcome the proof that she was there. Instead, it would indicate that such person’s recollections were unreliable or dishonest.

Type IV: Dr. Ford’s absence from Kavanaugh’s July 1, 1982 calendar entry is incriminating, not exculpatory

The Type IV argument is that Dr. Ford’s absence from Justice Kavanaugh’s July 1, 1982 calendar entry indicates that she wasn’t present. Justice Kavanaugh made that argument during his testimony. Various journalists also made that argument in their defenses of Kavanaugh.

But given the proof that Dr. Ford was present, her absence from his calendar entry takes on a completely different meaning. As discussed in Blogs #8C and #4, her omission indicates that Kavanaugh falsified his calendar entry. Thus, her omission is incriminating, rather than exculpatory. It constitutes an admission of guilt by Justice Kavanaugh in July 1982.

Type V arguments are the one category where a discrepancy might appear to be material

The Type V arguments about other alleged discrepancies couldn’t rationally overcome the certainty that the event Ford described is the July 1 party. However, Type V arguments are the one category where its possible that an apparently material discrepancy could exist.

Type V arguments could be created by things Ford recalls about the event where she was assaulted. They might also be created by a memory someone else has about the July 1 house-party.  For example, Dr. Ford might have misremembered a detail about the house-party that creates an arguably material inconsistency. The two alleged discrepancies listed above in category V will be analyzed below to see if they rise to the level of an arguably material inconsistency.

In a he-said, she-said controversy, an arguably material inconsistency could be an important factor at trial. However, given the certainty of the proof that Ford was at the July 1 party, that proof would overcome such an inconsistency, if one existed.

Type VI arguments get analyzed on the merits

Given the proof that Ford was at the July 1 house-party, arguments adopted from experts get analyzed based on the substance of the argument, as though the expert didn’t exist. For example, specific views adopted from Ms. Mitchell get analyzed based on their category.

The assertion that there is “no corroboration” for Dr. Ford’s allegation – gets addressed with the proof that it is wrong. The purported FBI conclusion is treated in the same manner as the assertion by anyone else that there’s no corroboration.

David French was among three journalists wrote articles defending Kavanaugh against Ford’s accusation

Three journalists who wrote articles defending Justice Kavanaugh, and their respective articles, are listed below.

Blogs #7C and #7D contain an analysis of the articles written by Mr. McCormack and Mr. Benson. That analysis identifies fatal flaws in the defenses of Justice Kavanaugh that were offered by those two journalists. Those flaws include that they ignored the similarities between the event described by Dr. Ford and the July 1 house-party.

Mr. French’s two articles also contain a defense of Justice Kavanaugh against Dr. Ford’s allegation. His two articles include the most comprehensive defense of Justice Kavanaugh, in my view. However, Mr. French also failed to consider the seven similarities between the two events.

This blog post will analyze Mr. French’s defense of Kavanaugh, taking account of the proof the two events are one. The analysis will evaluate his arguments in relation to various categories of arguments discussed above.

Mr. French began by deceptively referencing Ms. Mitchell’s report

Mr. French made the following statement about Ms. Mitchell’s report (emphasis added):

“Which brings us to Christine Blasey Ford. Yesterday, Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell released a memorandum to all Republican senators summarizing Ford’s evidence against Kavanaugh. I’d urge you to read the entire thing. Democrats are describing it as a “partisan document,” but it refers to multiple, undisputed facts that should cause even Ford’s most zealous defenders to pause and reevaluate her claims.”

However, Ms. Mitchell’s report absolutely did not summarize Ford’s evidence against Kavanaugh. Instead, it ignored the evidence that is supportive of Ford’s allegation.

Mr. Kavanaugh was specifically aware of that fact because he addressed the critical July 1, 1982 house-party. And Ms. Mitchell’s report never mentions the July 1, 2018 calendar entry or house-party. Thus, Mr. Mitchell’s first sentence was a blatant lie.

The rest of his statement was also deceptive. He knew her report was a partisan document since he described her report as doing the opposite of what it did. And the characterization of the facts she cited as “undisputed” was just made up without any basis.

Mr. French’s October 1 article makes the following Category I, II, and III arguments, based on Ms. Mitchell’s report

Mr. French referenced multiple arguments that he attributed to Ms. Mitchell’s report (Category VI). The arguments are largely deceptive, in my view. But the list below takes his statements at face value and categorizes them.

  • Ford has no corroborating witnesses, and even the friend she says was at the party in question has denied being there or knowing Kavanaugh at all. (Type III)
  • She doesn’t know who invited her to the party, where it took place, how she got there, or how she got home after, by her account, Kavanaugh attacked her. (Type II)
  • She previously offered substantially different accounts about when the attack occurred (she’s previously said it happened in the “mid Eighties,” in her “late teens,” and in the “Eighties.” Now she’s saying it happened in 1982, when she was 15) and how it occurred (her therapist’s notes conflict with her story of the attack, and she has offered different accounts about who attended the party). (Type I)

As discussed above, Type I, II, and III arguments are all irrelevant given the corroboration of the details recalled by Dr. Ford as of September 16, 2018, and September 27, 2018.

Mr. French’s October 1 article also makes the following Category II and IV arguments

Mr. French offered the following arguments as his own. He couldn’t reference Ms. Mitchell’s report because she ignored the July 1, 1982 house-party.

  • The lineup of attendees on July 1, based on Kavanaugh’s calendar entry, does not mention a single female. (Type IV – because Dr. Ford and Ms. Keyser were omitted from Kavanaugh’s attendee list)
  • The lineup of attendees on July 1, based on Kavanaugh’s calendar, is substantially different from the one she has described (Type II –Dr. Ford indicated that four boys were present and seven were present based on Kavanaugh’s calendar. The implication is that she should have remembered more detail.)
  • Kavanaugh’s attendee list includes “Squi,” the nickname for Chris Garrett, a boy Ford was (according to her testimony) seeing at the time. It would be odd indeed to remember a party’s attendees and forget that one of them was your then-boyfriend. (Type II – The implication is that she should have remembered more detail.)

As discussed above, Type II arguments are irrelevant. The details Dr. Ford recalled as of September 16 and September 27, 2018, are corroborated by Kavanaugh’s July 1 calendar-entry.

The Type four argument is based on facts that are incriminating rather than exculpatory for Justice Kavanaugh. Moreover, Mr. French must have realized the event described by Ford is the July 1 party. So, he would have recognized that Ford was omitted because Kavanaugh falsified his calendar. He would also have recognized the calendar falsification as a contemporaneous admission of guilt in 1982.

Mr. French’s October 5 article makes the following arguments

Mr. French offered the following arguments. His arguments are mostly deceptive, in my view. But, the list below takes his statements at face value and categorizes them. A discussion follows each relevant grouping of arguments.

Type I and III arguments

  • Not one of the witnesses that she’s put forward have backed her version of events – not even her own friends. At best, they’ve said they have no recollection of the party. (Type III)
  • Her friend, Leyland Keyser, went further, declaring through her attorney that “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” (Type III)
  • Dr. Ford herself has provided conflicting accounts of her age at the time of the attack and the number of attendees at the party. Even the evidence of the details of the attack isn’t uniform. Her therapists’ notes allegedly indicate that four boys were present, not just Kavanaugh and Judge. (Type I)

As discussed above, Type I and III arguments are irrelevant. The details Dr. Ford recalled as of September 16 and September 27, 2018, are corroborated by Kavanaugh’s calendar.

Moreover, claims by witnesses that they recall nothing are evidence of nothing. And the so-called conflicting accounts are not real conflicts. In her earlier discussions, Ford provided an appropriate level of detail for those contexts. So, even in a he-said, she-said case, Mr. French’s arguments would not be as persuasive as he represents them to be.

Type I argument with a deceptive twist

  • She claims these notes are erroneous, but contemporaneous notes of a conversation are almost always far more reliable than a years-later recollection of that same conversation. (Type I with a deceptive twist)

The deceptive twist is that Ford’s relevant memory is of the events that she discussed with her therapist. It is not of the conversation with him. Her memory of the events is the relevant evidence, not his notes.

It is entirely plausible that he didn’t accurately reflect what she said. But in any case, the deceptive twist doesn’t make the Type I argument any less irrelevant.

Uncategorized argument

  • Dr. Ford’s conduct since coming forward has also been disturbing. When making a serious claim against another person, it is the obligation of the accuser to come forward with evidence. Instead, she has withheld evidence – including her complete therapists’ notes and the complete polygraph record. She has defied the Senate Judiciary Committee and refused to fully cooperate with its investigation. In a civil litigation context, the persistent refusal to hand over relevant evidence can lead to dismissal of a plaintiff’s claim. In this context, it should at the very least lead to a negative inference about the contents of the withheld evidence.

The argument is hyperbolic and irrelevant. Ford’s recollections of the event where she was assaulted are virtually all corroborated by Kavanaugh’s calendar. So, her therapist notes and polygraph are not needed to confirm her account.

Moreover, Mr. French’s argument is ironic, given his failure to acknowledge Kavanaugh’s 2018 and 1982 admissions of guilt. Those admissions – through Kavanaugh’s false testimony and his omission of Ford from his calendar entry – are truly disturbing.

Type IV  and II arguments

  • The attendee list in Kavanaugh’s July 1 calendar entry does not mention a single female. (Type IV – because Dr. Ford and Ms. Keyser were omitted from Kavanaugh’s attendee list)
  • The attendee list in Kavanaugh’s July 1 calendar entry is substantially different from the one she has described. (Type II –Dr. Ford indicated that four boys were present, and seven were present based on Kavanaugh’s calendar. The implication is that she should have remembered more.)
  • And finally, the lineup includes “Squi,” the nickname for Chris Garrett, a boy Ford was (according to her testimony) seeing at the time. It would be odd indeed to remember a party’s attendees and forget that one of them was your then-boyfriend. (Type II – The implication is that she should have remembered more.)

As discussed above, Type II arguments are all irrelevant. The details Ford recalled as of September 16 and September 27, 2018, are corroborated by Kavanaugh’s calendar. But even in a he-said, she-said case, the Type II arguments would be grossly exaggerated. Having an incomplete memory is normal and is evidence of nothing.

The Type four argument is based on facts that are incriminating rather than exculpatory. Moreover, Mr. French must have realized that the event described by Ford is the July 1 party. So, he almost certainly would have recognized that Ford was omitted because Kavanaugh falsified his calendar. He would also have recognized the calendar falsification as a contemporaneous admission of guilt in 1982.

Type VI argument

  • Moreover, the FBI interviewed most of the individuals listed on the calendar entry, including Garrett and Timothy Gaudette (“Timmy”), and still determined that there is “no corroboration” of Dr. Ford’s claims. (Type VI)

As a sophisticated observer, Mr. French must have realized that the event described by Ford is the July 1 party. Accordingly, even though the FBI is an authoritative source, he almost certainly knew that the stated conclusion is false, in my opinion.

Mr. French used the two alleged Type V discrepancies as a core argument in his defense of Kavanaugh

Both Mr. French and Mr. Benson used the two alleged discrepancies in the Type V category. They argued that the event described by Dr. Ford could not be the July 1, 1982 house-party. I will focus below on those two discrepancies to confirm they don’t rise to the level of arguably material.

Mr. McCormack’s and Mr. Benson’s articles have already been discussed in Blogs #7C and #7D. However, their arguments about the alleged Type V discrepancies reflect a pattern of conduct among the three journalists. The discussion below describes that pattern.

Mr. McCormack clearly described the alleged discrepancies

The following excerpts from Mr. McCormack’s article describe the purported discrepancies (emphasis added):

“Ford recalled that … the alleged attack occurred … ‘not far from the country club’.”

“But the house where [the July 1] gathering took place … does not appear to match the description offered by Ford in her recollection of events….”

“Tim Gaudette’s house was … 11 miles away from Columbia Country Club. And it wasn’t a single-family home. It was a townhouse.”

“[The] townhouse where Gaudette lived… is a 16-minute drive from the Columbia Country Club if one were to take the fastest route… without significant traffic.”

Mr. McCormack’s article contains a straightforward description of the facts and clearly identifies the purported discrepancies. However, none of the three journalists articulates a rationale of why the points he cites represent discrepancies.

There are three critical flaws in the journalists’ arguments based on the alleged discrepancies

There are three flaws in how the journalists attempt to use the purported discrepancies. The first flaw is that they describe as discrepancies things that are not discrepancies. The second flaw is that they treat those items as dispositive when they wouldn’t be even if they were actual discrepancies. They unjustifiably rely on those purported discrepancies to conclude that the event described by Dr. Ford didn’t occur.

A third critical flaw exacerbates the second flaw. The third flaw is that each of the three journalists ignored the seven similarities between the two events. As described in Blog #8C, the similarities they ignored are dispositive considerations in establishing the two events are the same. 

The alleged discrepancy concerning the characterization “not far” from the country club

Whether the distance between two points is viewed as “far” or “not far” is subjective. It might be influenced, for example, by the distances the person who is making the judgment regularly travels. Also, a person’s determination whether a distance is “not far” might be affected by how long the trip takes.

First, assume we have only that context and no other information about the person making the judgment. A distance of 11 miles couldn’t seriously be argued to be inconsistent with a characterization of “not far.” So, their argument – that Ford’s description of the distance she recalled as “not far” is inconsistent with Timmy’s house being the place where she was assaulted – is beyond being a weak argument.

It is an unserious argument which is much closer to laughable than to reasonable. Moreover, that’s before taking account of any specific knowledge about Dr. Ford.

Dr. Ford testified that her country club was a 20-minute drive from her home. And she made that journey frequently during that summer. So, a 16-minute drive from her country club to Tim Gaudette’s house would understandably be classified as “not far.” With that additional context, the argument is laughable, especially given that import Mr. Benson and Mr. French attached to it.

The three journalists didn’t offer any rationale why the distance reflects a discrepancy

As described above, Mr. McCormack simply observed that Tim Gaudette’s house was 11 miles from Ford’s country club. He offered no rationale for why that distance is inconsistent with Dr. Ford’s characterization of “not far.”

Mr. Benson simply quoted Mr. McCormack’s statement. He also provided no rationale why the distance represents a discrepancy with Dr. Ford’s characterization of “not far.”

In his October 1, 2018 article, Mr. French simply stated that Timmy’s house “was ten miles from the country club Ford has described as in proximity to the party.” He didn’t offer any rationale why the cited distance is a discrepancy relative to Dr. Ford’s characterization of “not far.”

In his October 5, 2018 article, Mr. French’s said:

“But the entry doesn’t support Ford’s claims. As I’ve explained before, “Timmy’s” house was ten miles from the country club Ford has described as in proximity to the party….”

So, his October 5 article repeated his same statement. But it also included the false implication that he had previously explained the rationale for his argument. He again did not explain why the distance reflects a discrepancy relative to Ford’s characterization of “not far.”

In my opinion, Mr. French’s failure even to offer a rationale for his pretend argument was deceptive. He wasn’t trying to create a persuasive argument in my view. He was creating propaganda.

The alleged discrepancy that a “townhouse” is not a “house.”

Mr. McCormack’s statement of the argument in his article is: “And it wasn’t a single-family home. It was a townhouse.” Mr. Benson’s article simply quotes Mr. McCormack’s article on this point.

In his October 1 article, Mr. French only stated that Timmy’s house “did not meet the description of the house that Ford offered in her testimony.” (Emphasis added.) He didn’t even identify the argument that he pretended to rely on to support his conclusion.

In his October 5 article, Mr. French said: “But the [July 1, 1982 calendar] entry doesn’t support Ford’s claims. As I’ve explained before, “Timmy’s” house … did not meet the description of the house that Ford offered in her testimony.” (Emphasis added.)

Again, Mr. French didn’t explain what his argument was (i.e., house versus townhouse) that he pretended to rely on. But the phrase “As I’ve explained before,” deceptively suggested that he had previously explained his argument.

The argument that “townhouse” is inconsistent with “house” is nonsensical on its face. Dr. Ford made no reference to the house where she was assaulted being a freestanding single-family unit. Her only statement was that it was a house.

The argument that a townhouse isn’t a “house” would be beyond weak even in a he-said, she-said matter. But there’s proof the two events are the same. So, the argument doesn’t register above zero on a scale of one to ten.

The three journalists didn’t offer any rationale why the distinction between a townhouse and a house manifests a discrepancy

Mr. McCormack offered no rationale why the distinction between a house and a townhouse represents a discrepancy. Mr. Benson also didn’t explain why the difference between a townhouse and a house represents a discrepancy.

In his October 1, 2018 article, Mr. French didn’t offer any rationale why the distinction that he didn’t even describe represents a discrepancy. Mr. French’s October 5 article contained the false implication that he had previously explained his argument. However, he once again didn’t offer any rationale why the unidentified supposed discrepancy supports his conclusion.

In my opinion, Mr. French’s failure even to offer a rationale for his pretend argument that he didn’t even identify was highly deceptive. He wasn’t trying to create a persuasive argument in my view. He was creating propaganda.

The arguments the three journalists relied upon don’t support the conclusions they reached 

Mr. McCormack, Mr. Benson, and Mr. French relied on arguments in each of the categories Type I to Type VI. However, none of those arguments has any impact relative to the proof that Ford attended the July 1 party.

All three journalists appeared to purposefully ignore the similarities between the two events described by Ford and Kavanaugh. That indicates that they were acting as advocates and not as journalists in writing their articles, in my view.

Mr. McCormack

Although his arguments were ineffective, for reasons discussed above, Mr. McCormack’s conclusion was more temperate than the other two. He said, “for now there is good reason to be skeptical of the theory being promoted … about that party.” The theory was that the event described by Dr. Ford is the July 1, 1982 house-party.

However, even Mr. McCormack’s conclusion was unsupportable given the proof the events described by Ford and Kavanaugh are the same. His article was also designed to undermine the conclusion that the July 1 party was the event Ford described.

Mr. Benson

Mr. Benson stated that Tim Gaudette’s house “does not in any way match her description of the home in which she was allegedly assaulted.” He said that “virtually none of the details match with Ford’s description, meaning that we can conclude with relatively strong certainty that Ford was not assaulted at Timmy’s party on July 1, 1982.”

Mr. Benson’s two statements statement would have been blatantly false, even if the “not far from” and “townhouse versus house” arguments were not baseless. Both views ignore Dr. Ford’s description of the general location in the list of seven similarities above.

However, the two discrepancies that he was relying on to support those statements were each frivolous. Moreover, any competent journalist would have known that the two events are the same. I assumed that Mr. Benson reached the obvious conclusion. Therefore I conclude that his two statements were knowingly dishonest. 

Mr. French

In his October 1, 2018 article, Mr. French concluded that “for the July 1 theory to be correct, Ford’s previous testimony would have to be substantially incorrect.” That conclusion was ridiculous, in my opinion. Nothing in his article supports it.

The discrepancies on which it was largely based are frivolous. And the absence of Dr. Ford and Ms. Keyser from his attendee list is incriminating, rather than exculpatory. Moreover, as a competent journalist, Mr. French had to be aware the two events are the same. Thus, his conclusion was both blatantly false and knowingly wrong, in my view.

In his October 5 article, Mr. French said: “Christine Blasey Ford’s claims aren’t credible.” He also stated that:

“the evidence simply doesn’t support [Dr. Ford’s sexual-assault] claim. In fact, her claim is worse than just “uncorroborated,” it’s contradicted – sometimes even by her own testimony and her own evidence. And her behavior since bringing the claim raises further doubts about its veracity.”

The discussion above analyzes the arguments made in Mr. French’s article. And none of his arguments provides substantive support for his conclusion. However, if his statement were to be taken seriously, without further analysis, it would create the false impression that Dr. Ford’s allegations are baseless. As previously noted, his article was intended to function as propaganda, in my view.  

Competent professionals would have known their arguments are irrelevant

Any competent professional like Ms. Mitchell, any FBI agent, and experienced journalists, should have recognized that the types of counterarguments discussed above are irrelevant given the proof that Dr. Ford was there on July 1, 1982.  Similar arguments would be potentially relevant if they involved real (as opposed to pretend) inconsistencies in a he-said, she-said controversy.

The three journalists’ focus on location, as if it were the only relevant attribute, was consciously dishonest in my view. The common characteristics of the two events, which they ignored, are far more probative viewed collectively. Consequently, their arguments are irrelevant due to the objective corroboration that Dr. Ford was at the July 1 house-party.

Moreover, the arguments advanced in defense of Kavanaugh by him, Senator Collins, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Benson, Mr. McCormack, Mr. Rothman, and Mr. French didn’t identify real inconsistencies or substantive reasons to question Dr. Ford’s story. They relied upon make-believe inconsistencies and exaggerated arguments which would not have been compelling even in a he-said, she-said matter.

Looking forward

Blog #9 will focus on the Republicans’ use of a purportedly independent expert to undermine Dr. Ford’s allegation. That expert is Rachel Mitchell, a prosecutor they supposedly hired “to present her independent assessment” of Dr. Ford’s allegation.

Leave a comment