Blog 8D Table of Contents

Return to Blog #8B: Proof Ford at 07/01/92 party decimates Kavanaugh defense

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

• How did we get to this point in the discussion?
• 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 Dr. Ford should remember more (“Type II” arguments”)
  • Arguments about what others recall, or don’t recall (“Type III” arguments”)
  • Arguments based on Dr. Ford and Ms. Keyser not being included in Kavanaugh’s July 1, 1982 calendar entry (“Type IV” arguments”)
  • Arguments about other alleged discrepancies between Ford’s and Kavanaugh’s descriptions of the two events (“Type V” arguments”)
  • Arguments based on purported experts (“Type VI” arguments)
• 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 IV: Dr. Ford’s absence from Kavanaugh’s July 1, 1982 calendar entry is incriminating, not exculpatory
  • Type V arguments are the one category where a discrepancy might appear to be material
  • Type VI arguments get analyzed on the merits
• David French was among three journalists wrote articles defending Kavanaugh against Ford’s accusation
• Mr. French began by deceptively referencing Ms. Mitchell’s report
• Mr. French’s October 1 article makes the following Category I, II, and III arguments, based on Ms. Mitchell’s report
• Mr. French’s October 1 article also makes the following Category II and IV arguments
• Mr. French’s October 5 article makes the following arguments
  • Type I and III arguments
  • Type I argument with a deceptive twist
  • Uncategorized argument
  • Type IV  and II arguments
  • Type VI argument
• Mr. French used the two alleged Type V discrepancies as a core argument in his defense of Kavanaugh
  • Mr. McCormack clearly described the alleged discrepancies
  • There are three critical flaws in the journalists’ arguments based on the alleged discrepancies
  • The alleged discrepancy concerning the characterization “not far” from the country club
    • The three journalists didn’t offer any rationale why the distance reflects a discrepancy
  • The alleged discrepancy that a “townhouse” is not a “house.”
    • The three journalists didn’t offer any rationale why the distinction between a townhouse and a house manifests a discrepancy
  • The arguments the three journalists relied upon don’t support the conclusions they reached
    • Mr. McCormack
    • Mr. Benson
    • Mr. French
• Competent professionals would have known their arguments are irrelevant
• Looking forward