The Kavanaugh scandal continues.
Kavanaugh's accuser has now come forward. These are some updates to my thoughts from yesterday. I am about to get on a plane, so these may be rendered obsolete by new revelations by the time you read them.
Her account strikes me as plausible, and it is backed by some supporting evidence (most notably the 2012 therapist's notes), which indicates she did NOT just make this up now, just to derail Kavanaugh's nomination. The fact that it's plausible does not, of course, by itself prove that the accusation is true.
He does not strike me as the sort of person who would do this, and he has a very good social reputation (unlike J. Kozinski, for whom Kavanaugh clerked and in whose case I was not surprised by the revelations of misconduct that came out last December). That said, appearances don't reveal the full truth about a person. And the way he behaves as an adult could be very different from how he conducted himself as a teenage boy.
It may be very difficult, perhaps impossible, to determine who is telling the truth here. The obvious potential defence for Kavanaugh is to argue that this was just a case of drunken fooling around that one party afterwards regretted.That would not be inconsistent with his earlier flat denial of the accusation, since at that time all that was known was that an anonymous accuser claimed he assaulted her (which, in this scenario, he did not do).
The situation will change radically if other women come forward with similar accusations. If that happens, Kavanaugh would end up in Roy Moore\Harvey Weinstein territory, and his nomination would go up in flames.
There is a significant chance this will end up derailing the nomination, even aside from 4. Both Susan Collins/Lisa Murkowski and various moderate Democratic senators now have a plausible reason to oppose the nomination that is unrelated to judicial philosophy. At the very least, they can demand additional hearings to consider the accusation.
I think there is a good chance some sort of additional hearing will in fact occur.
As already noted at the outset, any or all of the above thoughts could easily be invalidated by new revelations over the next few hours/days.
Hey, you are getting on a plane and posting; that's so funny. So where are you flying to? I am guessing London. Where are you flying from? I am guessing San Francisco. When are you going to share photos of your wife and kid? I am guessing never.
So all this fuss about something that happened in the 80s. What's the point unless someone has a time machine.
Flying domestic. And you guessed right.
Indeed, it's hard to vet the situation, more so decades after the supposed incident. It's also very convenient timing. There is no corroborating evidence and even the accuser doesn't remember the details. It's going to be very hard to scrutinise the story.
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.
Wow, similar circumstances to 1991 with Justice Thomas. Feinstein had the letter since July, Never asked anything, even in private meetings. Dems are playing games