Dr. Ford's testimony could be considered "evidence" in the weakest sense of the word. The witnesses she named to corroborate her flimsy account of the night in question have no memory of ever attending such a gathering. Ford had no idea who invited her to the party, how she got there, where the party took place, or how she got home. Considering the fact that there did not appear to be any adults at the party, and there were only 5 or 6 people in attendance (all of whom she was eventually able to name) wouldn't the party have had to take place at the house of one of the attendees? Do people generally go to strangers' houses when they are not home and have a drinking party? Since all the people who were at the gathering were known, wouldn't it have made sense to go back to their former homes to find where the alleged attack took place? Why did that never happen?
How is it that the one insignificant detail that she COULD remember was the she had only had one beer? That was a VERY important ( and CONVENIENT) detail for her to remember because had she not remembered that she only had ONE BEER that night, her memory could have been called into question if she had been intoxicated. But THANK GOODNESS she was able to remember that ONE insignificant detail!!
She was also caught in several lies during the testimony. She clearly had no fear of flying, despite her claims. She flew numerous times all over the world, some very long flights, and even went island hopping in a small bi-plane while visiting Hawaii. So that was a lie.
The second door being included in the remodel of her home as a "means of escape" due to her fear caused by the attack also proved to be highly dubious. She claims that he anxiety began in 2012 and caused friction in her marriage resulting in the marriage counselor. Yet, the permit for the remodel that included the door was issued in 2008, and she did not reside in the part of the house where the second "escape" door was installed.
She stated in her testimony that she was unaware that the committee had offered to fly out to her if she so wished. Yet, this was common knowledge to her legal team who either kept the information from her as a delaying tactic, or (more likely) Ford was once again lying.
The special prosecutor who was brought in to question Ford said that ,based on Ford's testimony, no reasonable prosecutor would have brought charges against Kavanaugh, citing "inconsistencies" in Ford's testimony.
The fact that Ford's legal team asked one of the "witnesses" named by Ford to "revisit" her testimony, causing the witness to feel pressured, brings Ford's legal team's ethics into serious doubt.
The bottom line is that Justice Kavanaugh is NOT a rapist, as this thread's title declares, nor is he an "attempted rapist" as you claim, as there is no credible evidence that he has ever tried to sexually assault anyone.
.jpg?format=auto&width=300)
.png?format=auto&width=365)
