As I just told you, I bet she knew exactly what would happen. However, that doesn't make it right. It's one of the oldest tactics in the book. Smear the victim of sexual violence. Rules of Evidence (both state and federal) have actually put protections in place to prevent it in court (ex. Rule 412. Sex-Offense Cases: The Victim). But it doesn't stop it in the court of public opinion.
I suspect that’s right, at least on the second. On the other, interviewing the same person twice and then receiving a written statement from him - particularly if they requested the written statement - at least has the potential to be a bit more intriguing. To the degree that’s what one or both of them are, that’s a whole different level of crazy to come out and say “I’m pretty sure I’m the person that lady thinks was trying to rape her.”
Disagree. If properly prepared, a person could have ready made responses to all of this and facts/talking points to back it up. Not being ready for it looks like lack of preparedness.
Is there going to be a Sparticus moment in the Senate tomorrow? This whole thing is crazy. I have a hard time believing Dr. Ford got the detail who was in the room during b the assault incorrect.
The problem with any mistaken identity claim is that she's already made it clear that she knew and had socialized with Kavanaugh before the alleged attempted rape. It's worth pointing out that the fourth and fifth allegations (I think I might have saw a sixth allegation in there too) as well as the two guys who each claimed they were the one to attempt to rape Dr. Blasey are coming from a bunch of documents the Judiciary Committee just released. None of the anonymous allegations seem credible. And the timing is a bit suspect. It smells to me like an information dump (full of red herrings) right before the hearing to try to create doubt.
They were ready. They pointed out that she satisfied the IRS and Maryland tax liens, and Avenatti claimed that the ex mischaracterized the dispute, which arose out of him apparently using her resume to try and get jobs. They seemed prepared for it. But there's not much you can do to stop the ex from saying whatever he wants.
FBI background investigations are very , very thorough. It's not as simple as they go interview three names they get from the one being investigated. If they checked Kavanaugh out six times, they did not go to the same people each time. Based on my experiences they would have talked to dozens of people over the course of 6 background checks. Unless Comey and McCabe were running the investigations, I would be highly surprised that none of these allegations would have been uncovered during six different checks.
They haven’t released any indication of names, they’re just noted in a summary of the investigative activities engaged in by Committee staff relating to the allegations.
One thing for sure about tomorrow that we can all agree on: We will all lose a little more faith in the people we send to Washington.
Saw one hilarious comment on Twitter: “It was probably Ed Whelan in two different fake mustaches that they interviewed.”
So the Democrats are throwing out fake accusers and the GOP counters with fake rapists. This is entertaining. Does the side with the most perps/victims win?
The other thing it does is make her have to be real damn careful talking about the incident tomorrow to avoid endorsing a description given by a “Not Brett Kavanaugh.”
Her story is already out there. And it appears they called after it was out there. Not really sure what the "Not Brett Kavanaughs" could add.
