The Kavanaugh Accusation is not Credible Enough to Warrant a Hearing at This Point

** FILE ** Brett Kavanaugh appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill April 26, 2004, on his nomination to be U. S. circuit judge for the District of Columbia Circuit. Kavanaugh's nomination by President Bush to a federal appeals court judgeship is moving toward a vote in the Senate after being blocked for more than two years by Democrats. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook, File)

Promoted from the diaries by streiff. Promotion does not imply endorsement.

In the case of unproven allegations, facts are few and far between. With Christine Ford’s accusation against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, that he attempted to sexually assault her 35 years ago, facts are non-existent.

Making an accusation believable in the face of no evidence usually relies on two things.

One, you must show a proven pattern of behavior. This is why Bill Clinton assaulting women is believable. He had many accusations against him, the behavior continued throughout his life, and he ended up having to pay off women for his actions. Taking all that together allows us to say that it’s not proven, but probable that he did indeed assault the women who accused him. The same is true for Donald Trump and sleeping with porn stars. Did Trump sleep with Stormy Daniels? Given his history and the payoffs, I’d suggest it’s highly probable.

Two, you need hard evidence.

In the case of Kavanaugh though, we have none of that. Unfortunately, some conservatives are now calling for a hearing while attempting to stay above board on this. While I understand their position, they are making a mistake. This woman has simply not provided enough to warrant a hearing. In fact, what we do know actually undermines her credibility.


Mrs. Ford’s lack of detail in almost every aspect of this story undermines the idea that she deserves a hearing.

She can’t tell us when. Not the day, not the month, not even the year. She can’t even tell us what decade this supposedly happened in (giving a range from the late 70’s to early 80’s). She can not tell us what house it happened in. She can not tell us who else was at the party except Mr. Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge.

Why do I call this convenient? Because by being so vague, her accusation allows for no rebuttal. Can we pinpoint the time of the party to investigate further? Nope. Can we know what house it was in so we can look up the owner? Nope. Can we ask others at the party? Nope.

Since she can’t name anyone else and Kavanuagh/Judge have vehemently denied this, that makes this a single sourced allegation with no corroboration. At the very least, we need someone who can place Mrs. Ford at this party. That person doesn’t exist.

Past that, some of the details she has given are actually contradicted by her therapist’s notes from 2012.


Sen. Feinstein had this letter for months. Why is it just now being revealed?

The answer is clear. This was politically timed to blow up Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination. Nothing more, nothing less. Even the assertions from Mrs. Ford that she wanted to not push this and remain anonymous don’t add up. It’s now been revealed that she originally called a tip line at the Washington Post, attempting to push her story. That’s odd behavior for someone who supposedly didn’t want this to get out.

That leaves us with political timing on two fronts. Democrats in the Senate clearly planned this, held onto the letter until after the hearings were over, and then sought to use it to blow up or at least delay the vote until after the midterms. To deny that is to be naive.

The timing of Mrs. Ford deciding to “speak out” is also suspect. After claiming she didn’t want to go public, she just so happens to go public less than a week before the vote on Kavanaugh is to take place. Furthermore, she’s got a high powered Democrat activist lawyer and polygraph results ready to go. That timing, coupled with the fact that she also has a history of Democrat activism, further undermines her.

By waiting until now to go public with her allegation, she has all but assured the vote will now be delayed by weak kneed Republicans. Had she come forward a week ago or two months ago, it would not of had the same effect. Again, if you think this wasn’t purposeful, you are naive.

Right on cue, here’s Dick Durbin calling for a delay of the vote by asserting that it’s “too soon” for Mrs. Ford to testify.

This all reeks of a setup. Democrats have played this to perfection, knowing that Senators such as Jeff Flake and Lisa Murkowski will play right along with them. The timing has been used to maximize the possibility of a delay in the vote. That’s why this didn’t come out in July and why the accuser claimed she wanted to remain silent until the best possible time for Democrats.


With what we know now, this does not warrant a hearing. It would be an incredibly bad precedent to set by giving this woman a platform to repeat a single sourced, vague accusation which the other party has no hope of rebutting. If Republicans cave on this, there will never be another man seeking the Presidency or Supreme Court who won’t be hit with such an accusation at the 11th hour. You can not reward Democrats for doing this and if you do, they will never stop.

Aside from the very serious political factors at play, Mrs. Ford’s story simply is not credible enough (at this point at least) to be given a hearing. To do so would turn the hearing process into a circus, whereby anyone who makes an accusation must then be afforded standing before the Senate. That should not happen.

Conservatives who are now saying she should go before the Judiciary committee are making a mistake. If she wants to be heard without providing further evidence or corroborating details, then she can go on CNN or give another interview to The Washington Post.

There is a game being played and Republicans should simply refuse to participate. If this woman has actual, smoking gun evidence of her allegation, she is welcome to share that with a media source. Until then, this accusation does not live up to the standard by which it should be legitimized with a Senate hearing.


Erick Erickson has a similar but slightly different take.

A single accusation with no corroboration does not deserve a public hearing. It would set a dangerous precedent.

A man faces accusations from a woman that he did something indecent in high school once. Democrats are playing a high stakes game on this single accusation from a woman whose financial giving, though small, suggests Democrat ties and more likely than not hostilities to the perceived positions of the nominee.

I do not think Republicans should give a single accuser of a three decades old claim from high school a public viewing. But they also cannot afford politically to absolutely dismiss her claims. Instead, they should be willing to meet privately with the accuser and with Kavanaugh and make a judgment as to credibility.

I think Erickson is right about what should happen IF you give Ford a hearing. It must be behind closed doors and it must be done this week, before the vote. This can not be allowed to delay the vote or the precedent it sets will be extremely harmful going forward. With that said, I stand by my assertion that she does not warrant a hearing at this point.