Twitter | Search | |
Seth Abramson Sep 30
(THREAD) The GOP claim that there's no corroboration of Dr. Ford's allegation that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her is a lie. Corroborating evidence—evidence that tends to support a proposition—already exists. I'll detail as much of it as I can. I hope you'll read on and RETWEET.
Reply Retweet Like
Seth Abramson Sep 30
Replying to @SethAbramson
1/ The GOP falsely claims "corroborating evidence" only exists when you have an innocent bystander at the scene of the crime who can later tell law enforcement, "I saw it all." You almost *never* have that sort of evidence in a sex crime—and that's *not* what corroboration means.
Reply Retweet Like
Seth Abramson Sep 30
Replying to @SethAbramson
2/ Corroboration is any fact that is "probative" with respect to a given proposition—meaning, it tends to *support* a given proposition. Any fact known to law enforcement that tends to support the proposition that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Dr. Ford is "corroborating evidence."
Reply Retweet Like
Seth Abramson Sep 30
Replying to @SethAbramson
3/ This thread is intended to underscore that (a) there is a veritable *mountain* of corroborating evidence that "tends to support the proposition" that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Dr. Ford, and (b) the GOP needs to *stop lying* about the definition of "corroborating evidence."
Reply Retweet Like
Seth Abramson Sep 30
Replying to @SethAbramson
4/ Please remember that, with an allegation of a serious sex crime, the "standard of proof" for Kavanaugh being denied a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court is *not* "beyond a reasonable doubt." At *most*, it is "probable cause"—because this is a job interview, not a trial.
Reply Retweet Like
Seth Abramson Sep 30
Replying to @SethAbramson
5/ "Probable cause" means, broadly, "reasonable grounds." In other words, at *most* Senators would need to have "reasonable grounds" to believe Dr. Ford was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh in order to vote against his nomination to the Supreme Court. That's a *very* low standard.
Reply Retweet Like
Seth Abramson Sep 30
Replying to @SethAbramson
6/ So let's start there: if any Senator says "I believe Dr. Ford," even in the absence of any other evidence—and there's *lots* of corroborating evidence—they'd *have* to vote *against* Kavanaugh's nomination, because if you *believe* Dr. Ford you think probable cause is present.
Reply Retweet Like
Seth Abramson Sep 30
Replying to @SethAbramson
7/ So given that this is a job interview, and given that probable cause is the *minimum* standard (for a sex crime) any good-faith employer would employ—as it means the job candidate *could* be arrested for the offense—no one can say "I believe Dr. Ford" and vote *for* Kavanaugh.
Reply Retweet Like
Seth Abramson Sep 30
Replying to @SethAbramson
8/ But let's move on from that, and remember that when a sexual assault allegation is made law enforcement can't presume anything about the allegation in looking for corroborating evidence—evidence that tends to support the allegation—including whether the people know each other.
Reply Retweet Like
Seth Abramson Sep 30
Replying to @SethAbramson
9/ So that's where we begin. Did Dr. Ford know Kavanaugh in 1982? Yes, CORROBORATED. Kavanaugh admits he may have met her, as he admits he went to parties girls from Dr. Ford's school attended. The schools were near one another and the social milieu of the area encompassed both.
Reply Retweet Like
Seth Abramson
10/ But it goes beyond that. Dr. Ford knowing Kavanaugh is also CORROBORATED because in 1982 Ford was *dating Kavanaugh's friend*, a fact Kavanaugh failed to mention in his testimony—and as we'll see, Kavanaugh *omissions* can corroborate Dr. Ford's claims if they are suspicious.
Reply Retweet Like More
Seth Abramson Sep 30
Replying to @SethAbramson
11/ But it goes beyond that. Dr. Ford was even able to say, beyond that Kavanaugh knew Chris Garrett—the guy she was going out with—that she *also* knew *other* people who Kavanaugh confirmed under oath he was friends with, like P.J. Smyth and Mark Judge. So, more CORROBORATION.
Reply Retweet Like
Seth Abramson Sep 30
Replying to @SethAbramson
12/ But it goes beyond that. Dr. Ford was able to confirm—even more specifically than who Kavanaugh was *friends* with—who his *1982 drinking buddies* were, as her claim that Smyth and Judge were Kavanaugh's drinking buddies was CORROBORATED by Kavanaugh's own personal calendars.
Reply Retweet Like
Seth Abramson Sep 30
Replying to @SethAbramson
13/ But it goes beyond that. What if Dr. Ford had been in Kavanaugh's social milieu, knew who his friends were, and knew who his 1982 drinking buddies were, but had *no* idea about his drinking *habits*? Well, fortunately she *does*: her knowledge of those habits is CORROBORATED.
Reply Retweet Like
Seth Abramson Sep 30
Replying to @SethAbramson
14/ Dr. Ford's testimony on Kavanaugh's summer 1982 drinking habits is CORROBORATED due to Mark Judge's memoir, Wasted, which describes the drinking habits of Judge's high school friends, including Kavanaugh (styled in the book as "Bart O'Kavanaugh" instead of "Brett Kavanaugh").
Reply Retweet Like
Seth Abramson Sep 30
Replying to @SethAbramson
15/ Here too we get additional CORROBORATION by Kavanaugh's testimonial omissions or evasions. Kavanaugh *falsely claimed* that Mark Judge's memoir of his drinking was a "fiction" (i.e. a novel, not a memoir) and that he used variations of his friends' names as a literary device.
Reply Retweet Like
Seth Abramson Sep 30
Replying to @SethAbramson
16/ How about the general location where Dr. Ford said the event happened? Given that law enforcement can't assume two people even knew one another, they'd want to know if Kavanaugh lived in and/or frequented the area and spaces Dr. Ford claimed in 1982. Did he? Yes—CORROBORATED.
Reply Retweet Like
Seth Abramson Sep 30
Replying to @SethAbramson
17/ In his calendar, Kavanaugh admitted to frequenting the *same country club* as Dr. Ford in 1982—Columbia—and the location she described was a *very* easy traveling distance from the houses of the people Dr. Ford said were present on the day of the assault, including Kavanaugh.
Reply Retweet Like
Seth Abramson Sep 30
Replying to @SethAbramson
18/ But how does law enforcement know that the *month* she implies this happened (July 1982) is plausible? What if Kavanaugh *wasn't in the area* that month? Well, CORROBORATED, the month is plausible on *many* grounds and Kavanaugh was *absolutely* in the area during that month.
Reply Retweet Like
Seth Abramson Sep 30
Replying to @SethAbramson
19/ Dr. Ford says "6 to 8 weeks" after the sexual assault she saw Mark Judge working at Safeway. Judge's memoir says he was working at Safeway in August 1982—6 to 8 weeks after early July, a month in which Kavanaugh's calendar says he was partying with those Dr. Ford said he was.
Reply Retweet Like