|
@SethAbramson | |||||
|
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.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
(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. pic.twitter.com/2vvOo3ELtZ
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
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.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
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."
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
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."
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
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.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
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.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
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.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
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.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
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.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
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.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
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.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
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.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
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.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
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").
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
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.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
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.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
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.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
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.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
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.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
20/ But it goes way beyond that. Dr. Ford's allegation that the event happened in early July 1982 is CORROBORATED by Kavanaugh's own calendar, which *specifically notes* him partying with the guy Ford was going out with (Garrett, or "Squi") and Smyth and Judge on July 1, 1982.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
21/ Here we have more CORROBORATION via a Kavanaugh *deception*. Ed Whelan, working apparently with the White House and Kavanaugh—indirectly, if not directly—tried to convince America that Chris Garrett assaulted Ford *without revealing that Garrett was going out with Ford then*.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
22/ Specifically, Whelan claimed—without telling America that Ford was going out with Garrett ("Squi") at the time—that perhaps Dr. Ford didn't know Garrett or Kavanaugh very well in 1982, and therefore might not have been able to tell them apart. A lie. Thus, more CORROBORATION.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
23/ But wait, you might say: Dr. Ford didn't say *Garrett* was at the house, though Kavanaugh wrote that on July 1, 1982 he was planning to party with Garrett (along with others who *were* at the house, according to Dr. Ford). How is this possible? Actually, very, *very* easily.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
24/ Dr. Ford's testimony was that this was a pre-party gathering that was not itself a party—that is, a "pre-loading" opportunity (a chance for Judge and Ford to start drinking in preparation for the real party). Is that consistent with the social milieu of that area at the time?
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
25/ Yes—CORROBORATED. The Washington Post reported in early '90 on a letter written by 7 local-area private-school headmasters—including the headmaster at Kavanaugh's school—at the end of the 80s. They described parties with hundreds of students, "fighting," and "sexual license."
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
26/ So Dr. Ford's description of the intimate, early-evening gathering as a "pre-party"—with the older students, like Kavanaugh, planning on attending a far larger party later on (where perhaps Garrett would've been)—was consistent with the party culture in the area at that time.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
27/ Dr. Ford gave a *layout* for the house in question, which means if the FBI interviews several witnesses who partied with Kavanaugh at the time (including Judge and Smyth) they might be able to confirm the house. Plus, Kavanaugh's calendar *says* where he went on July 1, 1982.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
28/ But Kavanaugh also describes Kavanaugh and Judge acting in a very *specific* way toward women: sexual assault while drunk. Is there CORROBORATION for that very serious claim? Yes, there is CORROBORATION. Judge's girlfriend confirms he *spoke of being engaged in such conduct*.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
29/ Is Trump letting the FBI speak to Judge's girlfriend? Are GOP senators? Is right-wing media *urging* it? Given that all three—Trump and GOP senators/media—are crowing about "no corroboration," surely they *want* the FBI to talk to Judge's girlfriend? No—they're forbidding it.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
30/ OK—but maybe that's because it's too attenuated? That is, Dr. Ford *does* allege Judge as a co-assailant, but perhaps Trump, GOP senators and right-wing media only want to know if *Kavanaugh* acted aggressively toward women? Is there CORROBORATION of *that* claim by Dr. Ford?
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
31/ Yes—there's CORROBORATION. Not only have *at least* five high school and Yale classmates of Kavanaugh's (including *friends* of his) publicly confirmed Dr. Ford correctly stated his drinking habits, *two* women—Ramirez and Swetnick—say he was sexually aggressive toward women.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
32/ The GOP is permitting the FBI to speak to *one* of the two women—Deborah Ramirez—who says Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her by hitting her with his penis. Moreover, she has a *list of witnesses* who will *confirm* Kavanaugh acted in this sexually aggressive—and illegal—manner.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
33/ Is Trump allowing the FBI to speak to those witnesses who confirm what Ramirez says? *No*—he's forbidding it. And in hearing that, please *remember* that if Ramirez's account is true not *only* is it a new criminal allegation against Kavanaugh, it's CORROBORATION of Dr. Ford.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
34/ The second witness who CORROBORATES Dr. Ford's claim Kavanaugh was sexually aggressive to women a) at parties, b) at a very particular time in his life, and c) not in the form of rape or other sex crimes but sexual assault-by-groping, is Julie Swetnick. She CORROBORATES Ford.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
35/ Swetnick—who Trump is *forbidding* the FBI from speaking to—does *not* allege that Kavanaugh "raped" anyone, and that *lie* about her *sworn affidavit* has been spread by Republicans, including Republican senators, in an effort to "pre-discredit" what she *actually* alleges.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
36/ In fact, Swetnick's allegations are CORROBORATED by Kavanaugh's claims of virginity in high school—as Swetnick *explicitly* says that Kavanaugh's actions did *not* involve sex even when he was surrounded by people who *were* looking to have sex. She *agrees* with him on that.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
37/ Were Swetnick lying, she might've said Kavanaugh had sex in high school—not expecting he'd say under oath he was a virgin then. But *no*, her allegations were of (a) heavy drinking, (b) carelessness about women's safety, and (c) groping—*identical to Dr. Ford's allegations*.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
38/ Swetnick—who's had *multiple security clearances in her life* and *gave an affidavit under penalty of perjury*—has seen her claims of sexual assault dismissed by the GOP because they don't like her attorney.
Read that sentence again. That's *not* how American justice works.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
39/ Swetnick—I have to clarify this because the GOP has repeatedly lied about it on TV (including *senators* lying about it)—says Kavanaugh would get really drunk and grope women at parties. He also put alcohol in communal party drinks. That's the sum and substance of her claims.
|
||
|
|
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
|
30 Sep 18 |
|
40/ Swetnick is *perfectly clear* that Kavanaugh *didn't* have sex at any party, *didn't* rape anyone, and *wasn't* present as anyone was raped. What she *said* is at the parties Kavanaugh attended, was drunk at, and *groped women* at—*elsewhere* at those parties—women got raped.
|
||