News


Palo Alto University professor accuses Kavanaugh of sexual assault

Christine Blasey Ford is identified by the Washington Post as author of confidential letter alleging Supreme Court nominee assaulted her in the early 1980s

Christine Blasey Ford, a psychology professor at Palo Alto University, identified herself Sunday to the Washington Post as the author of the confidential letter that accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her in the early 1980s, when they were both high school students in suburban Maryland.

Ford's letter made national headlines last week after U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo provided it to Sen. Diane Feinstein, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which last week held three hearings on the Kavanaugh nomination. After the Washington Post story came out Sunday, Senate Republicans initially indicated that they remain committed to moving ahead with Kavanaugh's nomination vote, which was scheduled for next Thursday, according to The Post.

That changed on Monday, when both Kavanaugh and Ford had agreed to testify about the allegations in front of the Senate committee. That hearing is now scheduled for Sept. 24.

Several community organizations plan to hold a rally at the corner of El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road on Sunday, Sept. 23, from 8-9 p.m. to support Ford ahead of the Sept. 24 hearing. Anyone who plans to attend is asked to bring their own candle or another light source, according to organizers.

Some details of the alleged incident were publicized Friday in a New Yorker story, which did not name Ford as the author of the letter. Her identity wasn't made public until Sunday afternoon, when The Post reported on its interview with Ford, who reportedly also read portions of the letter and notes from her therapist to the newspaper.

In a statement Friday, Kavanaugh said, "I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or any time."

Ford teaches in a Palo Alto University consortium with Stanford University, training graduate students in clinical psychology. She goes by Christine Blasey professionally.

Ford's lawyer, Debra Katz, a Washington D.C. attorney known for her work on sexual harassment, told media outlets Monday morning that her client is willing to testify before Congress. Kavanaugh also said he is willing to testify about the allegations.

Ford reportedly contacted The Post through its tip line in early July, around the same time that Kavanaugh became a candidate for the Supreme Court nomination. It was also around that time that she had penned the letter and sent it to Eshoo, The Post reported. Feinstein reportedly passed the letter on to the FBI.

According to both published reports, the incident allegedly occurred during a summer in the early 1980s at a house party in Montgomery County. She was 15 years old at the time, finishing her sophomore year at the all-girls Holton-Arms School in Bethesda. Kavanaugh would have been 17 years old.

Ford, now 51, said that Kavanaugh and a friend, Mark Judge, were both "stumbling drunk" when they pushed her into an upstairs bedroom, The Post reported. Kavanaugh allegedly pinned her to a bed on her back, groped her and began to grind his body against hers, she told The Post. He allegedly tried to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she had over it, The Post reported. She tried to scream but Kavanaugh put his hand over her mouth, she said.

"I thought he might inadvertently kill me," Ford told The Post. "He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing."

Ford reportedly escaped after Judge jumped on top of Kavanaugh and Ford, sending all of them tumbling. She ran from the room, locked herself in a bathroom and then left the house, The Post reported.

Ford told the Post that she didn't tell anyone about the incident until 2012, when she and her husband were in couples therapy. She provided the Post with portions of the therapist's notes, which do not name Kavanaugh but state that Ford was attacked by students "from an elitist boys' school" (both Kavanaugh and Judge were students at Georgetown Preparatory School) who had since become "highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington." The Post noted that the therapist notes said four boys were involved in the incident; Ford told the newspaper that was the therapist's error and that there were four boys at the party, but only two in the bedroom.

The following year, when she was seeking therapy for what she told The Post have been long-term emotional and psychological effects from the incident, she described a "rape attempt" that occurred in her late teens, the therapist's notes show.

The Post also interviewed her husband, Russell Ford, who said that in the 2012 therapy sessions, his wife recounted being trapped in a room with two drunken boys, one of whom pinned her to a bed, molested her and prevented her from screaming.

"He said he recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh's last name and voiced concern that Kavanaugh — then a federal judge — might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court," The Post reported.

In late August, Ford's attorney Katz advised her to take a polygraph test, administered by a former FBI agent, as a defense against the inevitable attacks on the credibility of her allegations. Katz provided the results, which concluded she was being truthful, to The Post. The retired FBI agent who conducted the test, Jerry Hanafin, told The New York Times on Sunday that the results showed "no deception indicated" — that "she was being truthful."

CNN released on Sunday evening a redacted version of her July 30 letter to Feinstein that a source who had the letter reportedly read to CNN.

"It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything," the letter states.

The Washington Post describes Ford as a "registered Democrat who has made small contributions to political organizations." From 2013 to 2017, she made campaign contributions to ActBlue, an online platform for Democratic fundraising, that totaled less than $100, according to Federal Election Commission data.

She was one of more than 5,000 health care professionals who signed a letter this summer urging the Trump administration to immediately stop the separation of migrant and asylum-seeking children from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Ford has taught in the Palo Alto University-Stanford consortium since 2012, according to her LinkedIn. She has also worked as a research psychologist and biostatistician for Stanford since 1998 and holds a master's degree in epidemiology and biostatistics from Stanford. She was a psychologist at the Children's Health Council in Palo Alto for four years, from 1998 to 2002, according to her LinkedIn profile.

The Post's revelations quickly renewed calls from Senate Democrats to delay the Judiciary Committee's vote on Kavanaugh's nomination. In a tweet Sunday, Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, urged the committee chair, Sen. Chuck Grassley, to "postpone the vote until, at the very minimum, these serious & credible allegations are thoroughly investigated."

"For too long, when women have made serious allegation of abuse, they have been ignored. That cannot happen in this case," Schumer tweeted.

Feinstein concurred that the nomination should be delayed until the FBI investigates the allegations. She said in a statement Sunday that she "support(s) Mrs. Ford's decision to share her story, and now that she has, it is in the hands of the FBI to conduct an investigation."

"This should happen before the Senate moves forward on this nominee," Feinstein said.

For any woman, Feinstein said, "sharing an experience involving sexual assault — particularly when it involves a politically connected man with influence, authority and power — is extraordinarily difficult."

"From the outset, I have believed these allegations were extremely serious and bear heavily on Judge Kavanaugh's character," Feinstein said in the statement. "However, as we have seen over the past few days, they also come at a price for the victim. I hope the attacks and shaming of her will stop and this will be treated with the seriousness it deserves."

It's far from certain whether the accusations, which came after last week's three-day hearings, will derail Kavanaugh's nomination. On Monday, however, it became clear that they would -- at the very least -- delay his path toward the nation's highest court.

Immediately after the Post story came out Sunday, Republican sources told CNN and Roll Call that the plan remains to move ahead with the vote on Thursday. On Monday, however, Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, both said they would need to get more information about the accusations before moving ahead with the votes. If all the Democrats vote against Kavanaugh, Collins' and Murkowski's votes would be crucial for his nomination to move ahead.

Collins told CNN on Monday that to be fair to both Ford and Kavanaugh, the Senate will "need to know what happened." Senate staff was following up with questions for both parties on Monday.

"Obviously, if Judge Kavanaugh has lied about what happened, that would be disqualifying," Collins said.

Murkowski told CNN that given that there are more questions that need to be asked and answered, she thinks "it would be appropriate to allow for that time."

Grassley on Sunday called the timing of the revelations "disturbing" and said it "raises a lot of questions about Democrats' tactics and motives to bring this to the rest of the committee's attention only now rather than during these many steps along the way," according to CNN.

On Friday, Grassley released a letter from 65 women who knew Kavanaugh during high school, defending him as someone who "has always treated women with decency and respect."

Eshoo said in a statement Sunday that she is proud of her constituent for "the courage she has displayed to come forward to tell her full story to the American people."

"In weighing her privacy and the consequences to herself and her family, she has demonstrated her willingness to risk these factors to present the truth," Eshoo said. "I am grateful to her for weighing these equities and choosing to speak out on one of the most consequential decisions in our country, an appointment to the highest Court in the land.

"In a democracy we always seek the truth and honor it."

---

Follow the Palo Alto Weekly/Palo Alto Online on Twitter @PaloAltoWeekly and Facebook for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

20 people like this
Posted by Sea Reddy
a resident of College Terrace
on Sep 16, 2018 at 2:20 pm

Sea Reddy is a registered user.

It’s sad to see this incident. Very sorry this happened at a very young age.

Judge Kavanaugh needs to apologize for this youthful indiscretion and ask for Ms Ford’s forgiveness.

It’s senates call then.

Let’s not ruin both parties lives.


173 people like this
Posted by It's a crime
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 16, 2018 at 2:26 pm

Please don't call attempted [portion removed] rape a "youthful indiscretion." A youthful indiscretion is mooning someone or crashing your parents' car. This is violent attempted rape - it's criminal, not "indiscreet."


11 people like this
Posted by Bunyip
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 16, 2018 at 2:38 pm

[Post removed.]


51 people like this
Posted by The Burden of Proof...
a resident of Professorville
on Sep 16, 2018 at 2:45 pm

I don't know who/what to believe...

A cheap Democratic smear campaign based on allegation OR a real incident (that should have been reported at the time of its occurrence)?

POTUS selection + SCOTUS nominee = another ET segment.


107 people like this
Posted by Sea Reddy
a resident of College Terrace
on Sep 16, 2018 at 2:47 pm

Sea Reddy is a registered user.

Agreed.
It’s attempted rape.
Judge should apologize to Ms Ford and ask for her forgiveness.


111 people like this
Posted by Sarah1000
a resident of Los Altos
on Sep 16, 2018 at 2:56 pm

Sarah1000 is a registered user.

Thank you to Ms. Ford for coming forward and speaking your truth when it would have been much easier for you to remain silent. The above comments are concerning. If Ms. Ford had been older, I believe the commenters would be more apt to see the incident as a sexual assault but, because she was younger (and more vulnerable), it is easier to classify the incident as a “youthful indiscretion”?? That doesn’t make any sense to me.


124 people like this
Posted by VS
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Sep 16, 2018 at 3:19 pm

VS is a registered user.

Ms. Ford is very brave to come forward. We cannot have a repeat of the Clarence Thomas nomination. The FBI needs to take this seriously and investigate it, before any vote takes place.


159 people like this
Posted by Lisa
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2018 at 3:41 pm

I believe her. Anyone (man or woman) who has been through such an experience knows she's telling the truth. The emotions she details are unmistakable: shame, fear, reluctance to speak because of the inevitable consequences, the attempt to quash the memory, how you're never the same afterwards...very familiar.

She clearly wrestled with coming forward --hers is not the voice of someone who seeks the limelight or notoriety. She's battling the knowledge that what upended her life then, may very well do so now.

Back in the '80's, I was attacked by a supervisor in a district attorney's office (he wasn't drunk). I reported it, my accusation was found true, and yet my career was derailed. No one in the office was surprised by this outcome.

I believe Anita Hill too. These are different days, I hope.

Thank you.


33 people like this
Posted by m2grs
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 16, 2018 at 5:06 pm

[Portion removed.] Even if the accusation is true, which I don't think can be proven, it is clearly youthful discretion, completely different from Thomas or Clinton, who were adults and (repeatedly) attempted to use their professional/political power to coerce women.

[Portion removed.]


83 people like this
Posted by Susan
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 16, 2018 at 5:21 pm

The Duke Lacrosse players and the UVA frat males were falsely accused, and so many American women automatically believed the female liars. As a woman, I am particularly bothered by these last minute smears. Time to vote.


139 people like this
Posted by Menlogal
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 16, 2018 at 5:30 pm

Youthful indiscretion??Imagine the guts it took for her to come forward using her own name, well -known in the community, a professor, with her own graduate students who now know her story, as will the entire nation. Any young man who thinks it is an " indiscretion" to pin someone down on a bed and try to take her clothes off by force shows a serious character defect. Anita Hill was years ago - surely we have made progress? Perhaps not. Let us hope the sacrifice of this woman's privacy is not lost to partisan politics. Surely the Republicans can come up with a better candidate?


12 people like this
Posted by Holly W.
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Sep 16, 2018 at 5:45 pm

[Post removed.]


70 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 16, 2018 at 5:49 pm

[Portion removed.]

>> Even if the accusation is true, which I don't think can be proven, it is clearly youthful discretion

The Senate is under no obligation to confirm Kavanaugh. It seems to me that if Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault by today's standard, that is plenty enough to not confirm him, even if he is not guilty of a crime by the standards of the time when this happened. Supreme Court justices should be held to a very high standard.


72 people like this
Posted by Tired
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Sep 16, 2018 at 6:08 pm

There are three issues here: 1) Did it really happen? 2)Has it happened again? 3)Why did this woman wait so long to speak up and why did DiFi bring this up so late in the nomination process? [Portion removed.] Kavanaugh has already been investigated 9 ways til Sunday and this comes up now at the end of the most contentious supreme court nomination hearings to date? It just reeks of desperation. Did any of you do something when you were 17 that was stupid and/or criminal? If you've lived an exemplary life since then do you think it affects your current moral compass or ability to do a job? All of a sudden the character of a 17-year-old version of this man matters? [Portion removed.]


2 people like this
Posted by Former CA Resident
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 16, 2018 at 6:11 pm

[Post removed.]


36 people like this
Posted by Aspen99
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2018 at 8:36 pm

Aspen99 is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


39 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 16, 2018 at 8:54 pm

Online Name is a registered user.

[Post removed due to deletion of referenced comment.]


80 people like this
Posted by FYI
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 16, 2018 at 11:30 pm

FYI is a registered user.

Remember the acronym WWJD, or, What Would Jesus Do? Republicans need to start asking themselves that. It could also stand for, What Would We Do if the Judge were a Democrat? They should start applying that standard to everything, because while Jesus of Nazareth said nothing at all about homosexuality, not one word (though he did say don't get divorced), he did have some pretty damning things to say about hypocrites and was only ever moved to anger by people using the church for their own selfish monetary gain. (The phrase "For the love of money is the root of all evil" in fact comes from the Bible.)

If someone were going to make up a false allegation, wouldn’t they make up a more damning one, and maybe one that didn’t involve actual people who might not remember something that old the same way?

I'm not an intensely partisan person -- my allegiance is to Democracy -- but Republicans may lose me forever because of their gross hypocrisy with virtually every word out of their mouths having to do with this hearing. There ought to be someone there to say "Merrick Garland" every few words in reply.

The ends do not justify the means. WWWJD.


117 people like this
Posted by BalancedCarefulConsideration
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Sep 17, 2018 at 9:00 am

BalancedCarefulConsideration is a registered user.

I know of Christine through my extended community. I think she is a total rock star as a person and as a professional and coming forward with her name when this seemed the most responsible thing to do is consistent with how she does business. One can only imagine the duress she has experienced figuring out what to do. Let's hope she has more impact than Anita Hill did so many years ago. Bravo Christine.


337 people like this
Posted by frompaloalto
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Sep 17, 2018 at 9:45 am

frompaloalto is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


75 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 17, 2018 at 9:54 am

Nayeli is a registered user.

@ Online Name - Shouldn't you say "alleged assault?" While I think that the #MeToo movement is liberating, there is also the danger of trials of public opinions (and the very loud demands from those individuals' mental verdicts).

Using the outcry among some Democrats over this allegation of Kavanaugh as a primer: At any point, I could blame any man of any sexual indiscretion from any time in the past -- and would they have to step down from their jobs or withdraw their applications?

Consider Gavin Newsome. I probably would never vote for Mr. Newsome. However, I still think that he deserves the benefit of the doubt if he was suddenly accused of something like this.

Imagine that someone accused Mr. Newsome about a sexual indiscretion that they claim occurred more than three decades ago when he was a teenager. Should Gavin Newsome be forced to withdraw from the gubernatorial race over a mere unproven and untried accusation? Of course not.

Sadly, some deeply political minds are hoping that this accusation becomes little more than a political weapon.

They are publicly stating the desire for an accusation of high school groping at a teenage party 36 years ago can be used to "Anita Hill" a judicial nominee. This sort of vile politicization cheapens the terrors that women and girls who have truly experienced sexual assaults feel.

Why would someone come up with a false accusation about sexual crimes? I don't know. While some believe her and others have suggested that this woman is politically motivated, the truth is that I just don't know.

However, I once sat on a jury where a teenage girl accused a 50+ year old gardener of sexually assaulting her. From the beginning, I believed her. The jury questions (before the trial) actually made me somewhat prejudicial to think that the man was guilty. The man's demeanor and the girl's believable manner and story had me convinced. I couldn't reason why someone would lie.

Yet, that trial ended suddenly when the girl admitted (under oath) that she was lying. I'm glad that we didn't have a chance to go to the jury -- because I suspect that we would all have convicted the man!

Either way, I think that politicizing this is wrong.


195 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 17, 2018 at 10:16 am

Online Name is a registered user.

"@ Online Name - Shouldn't you say "alleged assault?" While I think that the #MeToo movement is liberating, there is also the danger of trials of public opinions (and the very loud demands from those individuals' mental verdicts)."

Ok. Aspen99, maybe I'm misunderstanding your post, but what does that have to do with the alleged assault?

I agree about the #MeToo movement. Maybe those who selectively jump on the #MeToo bandwagon condemning Franken but not Trump could try being consistent in their outrage. How many years did we hear the GOP -- including known adulterers -- demanding to know why Hillary didn't leave Bill but did we ever hear the same directed to Melania? Nope. Instead, we spent 4 times as much "investigating" him and Lewinsky as we did investigating 9/11.



53 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 17, 2018 at 10:47 am

Nayeli is a registered user.

@ Online Name - In the case of Al Franken, I think that the #MeToo backlash was UNIVERSAL (non-partisan) and a response to photographs of the man groping a woman who was asleep. In that case (and his own apology and admission to it), I think that his resignation from the U.S. Senate was merited.

In the case of people like Bill Clinton or others, I think that it is merely an accusation. My issue isn't that Hillary Clinton stayed with Bill Clinton. I do think that it is cringe-inducing when she blamed a "vast right-wing conspiracy" though for allegations of infidelity with Monica Lewinsky (particularly since, in hindsight, some Clinton White House insiders have stated that she was already well aware of the Lewinsky affair).

Of course, the #MeToo issue with Bill Clinton wasn't about Monica Lewinsky anyway but involved other women who claimed to have been assaulted. After all, Monica Lewinsky was "of age" and was involved in a consensual affair with the president. For all of the other accusations (involving alleged criminal lasciviousness), the president deserved the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not sure that you mean about the cost of the 9/11 investigation. I agree that the Starr investigation -- like the Mueller investigation -- should have caps to prevent open-ended white-glove searches for impropriety.

My point in such instances is not to be critical of the accusation or the accuser. Rather, my point is that people should not render a judgment before the facts or pieces of evidence are clear and/or the allegation is proven. Otherwise, claims of sexual assault or other types of vile behavior could potentially become hideous weapons in society to bring down elective politicians, judicial nominees, high school or college educators, Silicon Valley business leaders or celebrities.

#MeToo has the opportunity to be a "enough's enough" statement to society. However, I fear that it is meandering to a "Kardashian/Jenner" level of public consciousness that makes it difficult to divide credible examples of assault from mere weaponized allegations or the notoriety that sadly comes from being a "victim" in some circles.


55 people like this
Posted by What Will They Do Next
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 17, 2018 at 11:55 am

What Will They Do Next is a registered user.

[Portion removed; cite sources)

I also read that Ford has been a vocal critic of President Trump on immigration policy, his presidency and the Republican Party in general over the years.

For Sen. Feinstein to spring this at the last hour when she had the information back in June or July stinks to high heaven. Her "Spartacus" moment? She is up for re-election and many in the California democrat party don't think she's progressive enough. Her opponent,Kevin De Leon, a far left progressive liberal is gaining a lot of traction.

I don't think the majority of Americans are going to buy into this and look at it as another DNC tactic to do whatever they can to damage the presidency of Donald Trump.


53 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 17, 2018 at 12:07 pm

Online Name is a registered user.

Nayeli, you brought up the #MeToo movement, not me. All I ask is that people play by the same rules and not show such blatant hypocrisy. Look at how they crucified Anita Hill -- "a little bit nutty, a little bit slutty" so many years ago while giving Mr. Have A Coke And A Smile Clarence Thomas a free pass. Look at how leading VCs think it's ok to get away with harassing female partners and for others to lie that birth control is abortion and hence should be banned.

How far we've fallen.

What Will They Do Next, if you look at the incredibly well-organized "instant outrage" smear campaign against Blasey, anyone would have to think repeatedly before coming forward and exposing herself to that kind of venom.

If anyone hears about demonstrations etc. to support her, please let us know.


40 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 17, 2018 at 12:57 pm

Nayeli is a registered user.

@ Online Name - I'm not sure what you're getting at. Of course it should be applied on a level playing field!

Unfortunately, even from some of the comments here, people are looking to politicize anything and everything for their own sociopolitical agenda. They're trying to weaponize allegations of sexual assault -- not for the sake of women or children who have been truly victimized but for political reasons.

No one gave Clarence Thomas a "free pass." If anything, the media forever tainted his name on the basis of "she said, he said." As Thomas so eloquently put, the entire debacle was a "high-tech lynching." This is even truer today in this era where people are saturated with media, social media and op-ed nearly every day.

I can sympathize with a person who makes an accusation. In fact, it is sometimes difficult to sympathize with the accused. Unfortunately, there are some accusations that can never be proven. This woman's accusation of having her breasts groped -- 36 years after the alcohol-fueled teenage party that she said where it took place -- is muddied by time, memory and, of course, the fact that she never told anyone until recently.

I think that her accusation is also problematic by other things (e.g., the fact that she can't remember the exact year/time/place of the party and how she got to it; the fact that she cannot say with 100% certainty that it was, in fact, Kavanaugh who she thinks groped her; and, the fact that Kavanaugh's mother was the judge overseeing the foreclosure proceedings of this woman's family home more than two decades ago, etc.).


83 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 17, 2018 at 1:12 pm

Online Name is a registered user.

They certainly DID give Clarence Thomas a free pass; it was an organized attack on Hill which David Brock admitted. Read the New York Times article for an idea of the type of organized smear Blasey can expect.

Web Link

Archives | 2001
Book Author Says He Lied in His Attacks on Anita Hill in Bid to Aid Justice Thomas

By ALEX KUCZYNSKI and WILLIAM GLABERSON

The author of a best-selling book that attacked the credibility of Anita F. Hill has disavowed its premise, and now says that he lied in print to protect the reputation of Justice Clarence Thomas.

David Brock, the author of the book, ''The Real Anita Hill'' (Free Press, 1993), has also suggested, in a magazine article to be published this week, that Justice Thomas used an intermediary to provide Mr. Brock with damaging information about a woman who had come forward to provide support for Ms. Hill's accusations of harassment by Justice Thomas. Ms. Hill's accusations became the focus of Senate hearings into Justice Thomas's nomination to the Supreme Court in 1991...

Describing an article he wrote for The American Spectator, a conservative magazine, in 1992, which became the basis for his book on Ms. Hill, he said he did everything he could to ''ruin Hill's credibility,'' using ''virtually every derogatory and often contradictory allegation I had collected on Hill into the vituperative mix.''

''I demonized Democratic senators, their staffs, and Hill's feminist supporters without ever interviewing any of them,'' he continued.

In the last few years, Mr. Brock has disavowed his conservative activism, and criticized his own and his former colleagues' attacks on their main targets, Bill and Hillary Clinton....

He said Mark Paoletta, a Washington lawyer whom Mr. Brock identifies as a close friend of Justice Thomas's, gave Mr. Brock damaging information about Kaye Savage, another friend of Mr. Thomas's, who had told the ''Strange Justice'' authors that Justice Thomas had an obsessive interest in pornography. The information, which according to Mr. Brock's account, Mr. Paoletta said came from Justice Thomas, involved personal details about Ms. Savage's divorce.

Mr. Brock wrote that he used the information to intimidate her into recanting her account, threatening that he would ''blacken her name, just as I had done to every other woman who had impugned Thomas's reputation...''

Read the whole article.


47 people like this
Posted by Why now?
a resident of Community Center
on Sep 17, 2018 at 3:19 pm

Why now? is a registered user.

So if Kavanaugh had NOT been nominated these charges would not have been made public? Why weren't these charges brought up years ago?

PS, I am a Democrat, do not support Trump, any of his policies or nominees.


31 people like this
Posted by What Will They Do Next
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 17, 2018 at 3:37 pm

What Will They Do Next is a registered user.

@ Online Name....What Will They Do Next, if you look at the incredibly well-organized "instant outrage" smear campaign against Blasey, anyone would have to think repeatedly before coming forward and exposing herself to that kind of venom.

This organized "instant outrage" you speak of....sounds like what most media, democrat politicians and the DNC does every day to President Trump, wouldn't you agree? Or is targeting him on a daily basis okay with you......


38 people like this
Posted by Response to Why now?
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Sep 17, 2018 at 4:11 pm

Response to Why now? is a registered user.

I don't really understand your question. It is a huge deal to release information like this. Christine's privacy, and that of her family, is now endangered. She tried very hard to protect them. The highly personal story of her assault is only public now because of leaks, and her desire to tell her own story, rather than have it told for her.


53 people like this
Posted by Why Did She Wait
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 17, 2018 at 4:12 pm

Why Did She Wait is a registered user.

I would venture to guess given Ms. Ford's connection to Stanford Univ, and the high powered sexual assault lawyer she hired, that Stanford Professor Michele Dauber is behind the effort to bring this accusation forward at this specific time.

Ms. Ford had over 30 years to bring this accusation to light. So why did she wait until now, 2018, instead of when Mr. Kavanaugh was nominated by President Bush in 2003 to the US Circuit Court of Appeals, and was confirmed as a US Circut Judge by the Senate in 2006 after three years of hearings? Repeat, three years of hearings! A US Circuit Judge is a position that requires the same ethical standards as a US Supreme Court Justice. Hence, I'm baffled why Mr. Kavanaugh's appointment as a US Circuit Judge in 2006 did not merit Ms. Ford speaking out.


39 people like this
Posted by What Will They Do Next
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 17, 2018 at 4:15 pm

What Will They Do Next is a registered user.

@ Online Name.....if she had come forward 35 years ago, would she have been "exposed to that kind of venom" then? Would there have been a smear
campaign then ?

The big red herring here is why now ? And like an old red herring, this stinks, plain and simple.


37 people like this
Posted by What Will They Do Next
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 17, 2018 at 4:25 pm

What Will They Do Next is a registered user.

@ Response to Why Now......it's a simple question. Why now? She and her family have had 35 years of privacy that would have been extended to eternity had she not released this information. And for her to do so at a point when there is so much polarization in politics was intentional and purposely timed to disrupt the appointment of Judge Kavanaugh. It is naive to think otherwise.


37 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 17, 2018 at 4:32 pm

Online Name is a registered user.

Why Now and Why Did She Wait, according to several reports today, her story had already started to leak based on the info she provided to the offices of Eshoo and Feinstein. So she decided she should be the one to tell her tale before it got even more distorted. Simple enough.

Did you see the PA Post's front page photo today of all the news trucks outside her house?

Re why now, if every woman decided to make a big deal about every time we/she was assaulted, raped, attacked, smeared, discriminated against, threatened with retribution if she reported the abuses, underpaid, etc etc., those stories would dominate the news cycle for all eternity.

So all of you blaming the victim. why no comment on how the attack machine victimized Anita Hill while hiding Clarence Thomas' porn addiction?


30 people like this
Posted by What Will They Do Next
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 17, 2018 at 4:56 pm

What Will They Do Next is a registered user.

@ Online Name...the question still remains, why did she release the information at a critical time knowing full well that it might affect the outcome of a Supreme Court appointment? She had 35 years to reveal her allegations and all of a sudden,lo and behold, she wants to unburden herself ? Was she naive enough to think the accusations would somehow not be leaked, if in fact they were by someone other than Feinstein or Eshoo ? Smells pretty fishy.....but nothing democrats do to besmirch the reputation of anyone from the opposing party surprises me anymore. Standard operating procedure for the DNC.


37 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 17, 2018 at 5:13 pm

Online Name is a registered user.

Of curse she came forward once he was nominated since she had knowledge of the sort of person he is/was. Yes, she was probably naive about the media reactions but at least she did the right thing in a timely fashion.

Unlike David Brock who waited years to admit that he wrote an intentionally false book to damage Anita Hill's credibility to protect Clarence Thomas and his disgusting porn habits and ensure his confirmation. "Have a coke and a XXX"?

"Standard operating procedure for the DNC."

What about for the RNC? I hear Garland's still available for the Supreme Court seat. Remember when McConnell refused to even allow hearings Obama's nominee??


44 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 17, 2018 at 5:30 pm

Curmudgeon is a registered user.

"No one gave Clarence Thomas a "free pass." If anything, the media forever tainted his name on the basis of "she said, he said." As Thomas so eloquently put, the entire debacle was a "high-tech lynching."

But eloquence does not prove innocence, right? Else you would be logically compelled to regard Donald Trumps very, very inelegant Access Hollywood braggadocio as ironclad proof of his guilt. Or maybe you do.

But have you ever wondered why Thomas and Kavanaugh got the rap for harassing women, but not, say, Roberts or Gorsuch? Like, could it be they weren't fingered because they actually were innocent? Hmmm? And, then, conversely, ... .


33 people like this
Posted by R.Davis
a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 17, 2018 at 5:56 pm

R.Davis is a registered user.

QUOTE: Remember the acronym WWJD, or, What Would Jesus Do?

I don't think he would have gotten himself into this situation.


26 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 17, 2018 at 8:51 pm

Nayeli is a registered user.

@ Curmudgeon: This is because people are using quite a bit of "whataboutisms." This isn't about Clarence Thomas. However, there is a correlation between how Anita Hill was suddenly found only after his nomination.

This accuser waited 36 YEARS to step forward. She isn't sure of the time, place or even year of the party. She's not sure which year it took place. [Portion deleted; cite source for statement.]

Kavanaugh's high school friend -- implicated by this same accuser -- says that he is completely shocked by her accusation. He said that he literally has no idea what she is talking about (and wondered if she is confusing them for someone else).

As someone who has faced something similar in my life, I can attest that you will remember that moment as if it was frozen in time. You'll remember where you were, who you were with, what day it happened on, etc. You'll remember how you felt at school. You'll remember with dread that particular year of your school experience and hope that each subsequent year will be better.

To be clear: I don't know Kavanaugh. Even if I did, I could not state emphatically whether he did or did not do this. Similarly, I don't know this accuser. Even if I did, I could not state emphatically that she is telling the truth, lying or simply mistaken.

This is the issue.

There are people responding here who are convicting Kavanaugh. There are people elsewhere convicting the accuser. Yet, no one here knows if anyone is telling the truth. I think that some people WANT to believe the accuser. I think that some people WANT to believe Kavanaugh.

Those are the very worst types of political ideologues. They are so dedicated to their cause or ideology that they pretend to know the truth from the little that they've read or heard -- with the sole purpose of advancing their ideology or political persuasion out of some sort of zealous loyalty.

If the truth cannot be undoubtedly ascertained, then let the Senate vote. If Kavanaugh is confirmed and, by chance, evidence points to the notion that he is guilty of this, then he could be removed from his position later.


18 people like this
Posted by Revenge is a motive12
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 17, 2018 at 9:43 pm

Revenge is a motive12 is a registered user.

[Post removed; please cite source for your statements.]


6 people like this
Posted by FYI
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 17, 2018 at 10:25 pm

FYI is a registered user.

@R. Davis,

I wrote "Remember the acronym WWJD, or, What Would Jesus Do? Republicans need to start asking themselves that. It could also stand for, What Would We Do if the Judge were a Democrat? They should start applying that standard to everything, because while Jesus of Nazareth said nothing at all about homosexuality... he did have some pretty damning things to say about hypocrites..."

To which you replied that you didn't think Jesus would have gotten himself into this situation.

My gentle reply is that the purpose of the phrase is to remind people of the tenets that Jesus lived by and implored his followers to live by. Since so many Republicans and their followers claim to be Christians, but seem so oblivious to how Unchristian they have been acting in politics, it probably doesn't hurt to bring this up. See this article for baby steps in Rightwing "Christian" self awareness: Web Link

Jesus of Nazareth was not so gentle about it. Jesus spoke many times to condemn hypocrisy, and was only ever moved to physical violence in anger by people who were exploiting the church for profit. Many Republicans claim to act from Christian faith but mostly through politics broadcast their hypocrisy and prioritizing of power and money, which Jesus condemned.

Jesus would most certainly have gotten himself into situations in which he condemned religious hypocrites who loudly proclaim their faith but have ulterior motives or misapply it (ignoring the maxims such as to love others as themselves, to turn the other cheek, etc), because he did frequently. Because his statements condemning hypocrites came from just such situations in which he had to remind the self-righteous that they were being hypocritical jerks. But he would not have become one himself, so you are right there.


33 people like this
Posted by FYI
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 17, 2018 at 10:40 pm

FYI is a registered user.

@Nayeli,
"She even stated that she isn't 100% certain that the offender was, indeed, Judge Kavanaugh. "

The newshour on PBS tonight directly contradicts that contention, saying that Dr. Ford has been certain and consistent all along. Apparently Kavanaugh was not a total stranger.

The way you are attacking her as if there is something unusual about trying to move on after something like that where coming forward would only cause further vulnerability and damage/retaliation, only underscores why she did not come forward.

I have tried to come forward because of sexual assault in medical situations (NOT locally), one clearly being perpetrated on many patients, and was essentially ridiculed by the police when they could have collected hard proof if they'd taken it seriously. For all I know, the abuse continued, including on vulnerable cancer patients. Would you condemn the girls in the USA gymnastics team the same way? What can a girl in a situation like Ford was in do but ruin her reputation and create lasting retribution? I had a friend in high school who reported an actual rape by a friend of her own brother when she was 9. She was only able to even talk about it for the first time in high school.

I know you can be a thoughtful person and I hope you will reconsider that line of thinking. There is enough evidence in this case that Ford really wasn't sure she wanted to come forward even now, but felt it was her duty.


34 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 18, 2018 at 12:15 am

Nayeli is a registered user.

@ FYI - First of all, please don't think that I am "attacking" her. There is a difference between an "attack," "scrutiny," "critical thinking" and cautioning others about jumping to a conclusion without knowing something as a certainty (particularly when it seems motivated by politics or ideology).

There are some people who will want it to be true. There are others who will want it to not be true. Neither group should be crafting a narrative -- especially if they weren't there when the alleged event did or did not take place.

I didn't watch NewsHour tonight. Do you have a link to that particular claim? I am only going by articles that I have read in which she admitted to friends that her memory has lacked the specific details.

For instance, according to an article in the East Bay Times, Blasey Ford is reported to have told her friend, "I’ve been trying to forget this all my life, and now I’m supposed to remember every little detail.”

For many of us who experienced such terrible things, I can very well remember every little detail. The day, time, smells, individual, touch, things that were said, the days and weeks after -- those things are unforgettable.

According to the article, Blasey Ford debated whether to come forward....worried that because the attack wasn’t an “actual rape it’s not going to do any good."

Web Link

Now, I am NOT saying that I don't believe her. I do think that it would be wrong to either believe her or decide that she is lying. We don't know the facts.

The problem, unfortunately, is when people who weren't there who are now asserting that they "know" that this accuser's story is a fact. Some people are calling this man a "rapist" and someone guilty of "sexual assault" -- when I'm not sure that Blasey Ford's accusations even go that far.

The sad thing is we should be a bit slower to believe anything. We should never form opinions on the base of an allegation. In this nation, a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Unfortunately, in some people's minds, Kavanaugh is "guilty" because he is (probably) a conservative judge nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court by Donald Trump. In other minds, Kavanaugh is "innocent" because they see this as little more than a last-ditch politically-motivated accusation brought by woman accused of being a deeply liberal, anti-Trump activist.

I just wish that there weren't such political motivations by people raging over an incident that possibly happened even before I was born.


7 people like this
Posted by Sea Reddy
a resident of College Terrace
on Sep 18, 2018 at 9:06 am

Sea Reddy is a registered user.

The root of the problem stems from drinking culture at an young age. Once one is drunk, they do atrocious things like Rape and other.
Look at what happened to Stanford victim and Judge Persky recall.

We parents need to spend more energy to discourage drinking culture.

Ms. King at age 15 is victim of this drinking culture.
We should eliminate drinking culture in high schools and universities.


22 people like this
Posted by Eila Hughes
a resident of University South
on Sep 18, 2018 at 9:45 am

Eila Hughes is a registered user.

[Portion removed; please cite source for statement.]

It's time we lay down some common sense ground rules. Accusations at this stage in the signing in process and based on nothing but [portion removed] memory should never see the light of day. I'm afraid Senator Feinstein knew this was the equivalent of biological warfare but pulled it out as a last gasp attempt to thwart due process. No, Feinstein, it was not worth it and could never be.


8 people like this
Posted by @why did she wait
a resident of Community Center
on Sep 18, 2018 at 11:21 am

@why did she wait is a registered user.

@Why did she wait - Well said, speaking as a liberal Democrat I hope he is NOT confirmed but why didn't she speak out prior to this? Late in the game IMO. Should we have Kavanagh be declared a sex offender for life, like Brock Turner?


69 people like this
Posted by Pat Burt
a resident of Community Center
on Sep 18, 2018 at 11:48 am

Pat Burt is a registered user.

@Elia Hughes
Your posting got me to bite so I checked on your claim that Dr Ford has connections to Fusion GPS. It turns out that the "connection" is that her brother once worked for (14 years ago) the large law firm that hired Fusion GPS. I bet there is a Kevin Bacon connection as well.
Spreading that kind of three degrees of separation conspiracy nonsense is not responsible.


15 people like this
Posted by Eila Hughes
a resident of University South
on Sep 18, 2018 at 12:18 pm

Eila Hughes is a registered user.

@Pat Burt


So you're concerned that I wasn't being 'responsible' in mentioning Fusion GPS? 'Responsible.'

Given the context of these comments, the utterly unsupported claims of this last minute accuser, your cautioning as to a responsible critique is pretty funny.

Why are we not uniformly chastising this doctor, professor, in other words this middle aged adult, who should know better than to drop unsubstantiated bombs.

Ok so Fusion GPS was 14 years ago. Blasey's claim goes back over three decades and she has no corroboration whatsoever. NADA.

She is far and away from behaving 'responsible.' [Portion removed.]


29 people like this
Posted by TresTrue
a resident of Barron Park
on Sep 18, 2018 at 1:22 pm

TresTrue is a registered user.

What we have is an allegation of aggressive impropriety by a teen over 30 years ago. Many comments, here and elsewhere, jump to the conclusion that, not only are these allegations true, but they are actually ‘rape’ or attempted ‘rape.’

Personally I cannot give any credibility to Ms.Ford’s allegations. Without hard evidence like witnesses, DNA, pics, etc her allegation means nothing. I do know that decades old memories are subject to distortion and reconfiguration. Police and those in legal fields know all too well that old memory is extremely unreliable.

Obviously her claims are tenuous at best but I find it hair raising that many wish to run with her allegation, make it more sinister and damning, by referring to it as ‘rape.’ She doesn’t claim to have been raped. That was never on the table.

Would like to see commenters use ‘allegedly’ more consistently and refrain from redefining the allegation.

Our courts of law would throw out such a case ...never mind that the statute of limitations has long passed. Not sure I agree with the entertaining of Ms. Ford’s old account of a brief incident ages ago. Time to move on and stop allowing our processes be manipulated by nonsense.

If there were multiple claims, several witnesses, hard evidence etc then we would be talking something worth a re-evaluation of a SC candidate.

What we have is an allegation that is decades old, without evidence, and impossible to disprove. Time to move on.


23 people like this
Posted by Abitarian
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 18, 2018 at 2:32 pm

Abitarian is a registered user.

Nayeli wrote:

"As someone who has faced something similar in my life, I can attest that you will remember that moment as if it was frozen in time. You'll remember where you were, who you were with, what day it happened on, etc."

Actually, this sort of "perfect" memory would be highly unusual. Often, people believe their memory is as accurate as a video recording when this is seldom the case. Human memory simply does not work this way.

Of course, some people have better recall than other people, and all of us remember some events better than other events. Still, it is common for someone to remember some aspects of a situation clearly while other aspects remain fuzzy. This is perfectly normal.

Failing to recall every moment of an incident in vivid detail does not mean someone is lying.

----------

Sea Reddy wrote:

"The root of the problem stems from drinking culture at an young age. Once one is drunk, they do atrocious things like Rape and other."

Of course, teenage drinking is a serious problem which can lead to terrible consequences. And while drinking can contribute to sexual violence, it is not, however, the root cause.

Every day, there are drunk people who do not assault others. Every day, there are assaults committed that do not involve alcohol or drugs.

Everyone, please, try to avoid spreading misinformation!


Like this comment
Posted by TresTrue
a resident of Barron Park
on Sep 18, 2018 at 2:55 pm

TresTrue is a registered user.

[Post removed; please cite source for statement.]


43 people like this
Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 18, 2018 at 3:42 pm

mauricio is a registered user.

"Why didn't she speak out earlier.." , because the treatment of Anita Hill and others like her has been such an encouragement for survivors to speak out and be traumatized again.

As a matter of fact, apparently she had spoken out about it in couples therapy years before she knew this guy would be nominated to the SC. She also passed a polygraph test. Would Cavanaugh be willing to have a polygraph test? You can bet everything you own that he will not.

Actually, no SC candidate president* trump nominates should be approved after the republicans, spearheaded by that constitutional vandal Mitch Mcconnell refused to allow a vote on President Obama's SC nominee. After all, we are only a couple of months before an election.


7 people like this
Posted by TresTrue
a resident of Barron Park
on Sep 18, 2018 at 3:49 pm

TresTrue is a registered user.

According to The National Law Journal, judge Brett Kavanaugh retained a Washington DC trial attorney who is experienced in dealing with defamation cases.

I’m glad that Kavanaugh will be working to fully exonerate himself from this scurrilous claim.

We are a nation of laws and our freedom and values are intrinsically tied to these precious laws. Should we allow unsubstantiated hearsay to dictate our most important decisions then it is no exaggeration to say that the America we know and love will fall.


22 people like this
Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 18, 2018 at 3:57 pm

mauricio is a registered user.

Quote: 'Should we allow unsubstantiated hearsay to dictate our most important decisions then it is no exaggeration to say that the America we know and love will fall.'

This coming from a supporter of president* trump, who was the birther-in-chief and never apologized for it.


25 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 18, 2018 at 4:31 pm

Curmudgeon is a registered user.

"@ Curmudgeon: This is because people are using quite a bit of "whataboutisms." This isn't about Clarence Thomas. However, there is a correlation between how Anita Hill was suddenly found only after his nomination."

You brought up Clarence Thomas, not me. Remember? And Anita Hill was not "found", she spoke up. You are confusing that with how things are done on your side of the fence.


"This accuser waited 36 YEARS to step forward. She isn't sure of the time, place or even year of the party. She's not sure which year it took place."

So what? Many victims wait a long time to speak up, if they ever do. Like, Catholic boys for example. But why not ask Ms Ford about that?

[Portion removed due to factual inaccuracy.]


"Either way, I think that politicizing this is wrong."

Tell that to Senator Mitch, and to yourself.


5 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 18, 2018 at 4:36 pm

Curmudgeon is a registered user.

[Post removed; please cite source for statement.]


30 people like this
Posted by Abitarian
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 18, 2018 at 4:42 pm

Abitarian is a registered user.

Nayeli wrote:

"If the truth cannot be undoubtedly ascertained, then let the Senate vote. If Kavanaugh is confirmed and, by chance, evidence points to the notion that he is guilty of this, then he could be removed from his position later."

----------

This suggests serving on the US Supreme Court is like an ordinary job where the employee can be fired at will. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Supreme Court justices serve a lifetime tenure. Technically, they can be removed from office via impeachment, but this has never happened in the history of our nation.* All have left office following their death or resignation.

In 1804, Justice Samuel Chase was impeached by the House but acquitted by the Senate. In 1969, Justice Abe Fortas resigned under threat of impeachment.

There is no deadline for confirming a new justice. The proper procedure is to fully vet a candidate prior to the Senate vote.

It would make no sense for the Senate to confirm a candidate as Justice, have that Justice participate in decisions, then vet the Justice, and finally impeach the Justice.


38 people like this
Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 18, 2018 at 4:46 pm

mauricio is a registered user.

It looks like Kavanaugh is a copy of the president* who nominated him. He tells a lie each time his lips are moving. Again, how about taking a polygraph test? His accuser has passed one with flying colors. Besides, there shouldn't be any votes on judicial nominees less than a year before an elections, in the words of that constitutional vandal Mitch Mcconnell.


Like this comment
Posted by TresTrue
a resident of Barron Park
on Sep 18, 2018 at 4:57 pm

TresTrue is a registered user.

[Post removed; please cite source for statements.]


16 people like this
Posted by TresTrue
a resident of Barron Park
on Sep 18, 2018 at 5:06 pm

TresTrue is a registered user.

@Mauricio.

How dare you!

I am an independent and did not vote for President Trump. You are have no right to make any assumptions about me based on my opinion on this bizarre allegation.

Just so happens My opinion is based on fairness, reason, and an objective view point. Judging from your other comments you have turned these completely unsubstantiated claims of an unknown woman into a basis on which to throw mud at an obviously innocent man. You are using her and you are using other assault victims indirectly in your irrational attacks.

I am so disgusted with the apparent disrespect for our American institutions and laws, that I have seen demonstrated by many Democrats, that I may find myself voting for president Trump in 2020 after all.


23 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 18, 2018 at 7:34 pm

Online Name is a registered user.

THIS SUNDAY, SEPT. 23rd, 8-9pm TO STAND WITH CHRISTINE IN SUPPORT OF HER TESTIMONY AT THE SENATE JUDICIARY HEARING ON MONDAY THE 24th:

September 23rd, 8:00 - 9:00pm,
#IBelieveChristine

Christine Blasey Ford will be testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a public hearing on Monday, 9/24, after bravely coming forward with sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh.

Please join us Sunday evening at the corner of El Camino Real and Galvez/Embarcadero Road (adjacent to Stanford Stadium and Town & Country Village) to stand with Christine. Please bring your own candle or other light source. #BelieveWomen #IBelieveChristine #StandWithChristine

Hosted by Orchard City Indivisible, Enough Is Enough Voter Project, Santa Clara County Democratic Club Women's Caucus, Together We Will - Palo Alto, Mountain View & Surrounding Areas, Families Belong Together San Jose, Women's March San Jose


41 people like this
Posted by Nonresident
a resident of another community
on Sep 18, 2018 at 10:12 pm

Nonresident is a registered user.

To everyone who questions why now? If you have never experienced a rape or near rape, you will never understand. I understand why those who have never experienced that would question why someone would wait so long to tell their story. There is a lot of fear in coming forward, not just from the smearing you will take as the victim (as Ms. Ford has from a lot of you), but more from the stronger fear of what the person who did this to you then might do to you if you come forward. Believe me - I know - first hand. I have never met Ms. Ford, but I admire her strength and courage to come forward now because she recognized the long-term implications of the decisions that Justice Kavanaugh could make that he should not even be allowed to be involved in. Yes, this happened many years ago and people change, but his much more recent comment about what happens at Georgetown Tech stays at Georgetown Tech and that the saying has served well is a strong indication that he does not belong on the Supreme Court. He is not a man of integrity, and the citizens of our nation deserve Supreme Court justices of only the highest integrity. So the reason Ms. Ford came forward now is because she realized that he was likely to be approved as a Supreme Court justice and that the citizens of the United States deserve better than that.


27 people like this
Posted by m2grs
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 18, 2018 at 11:24 pm

m2grs is a registered user.

Many people have voiced their doubts about the allegations. I agree with them.

I'd also like to point out that from political strategies point of view this allegation is going to be a disaster for the Democrats.

First of all, this will energize the conservatives. It will be viewed as the ultimate and egregious smear tactic, which in some sense is true. Republicans will be much more actively coming out to vote. It will become a huge rally point for the conservatives. It may very well dash the hope of Democrats to take over the House or win Senate seats.

Secondly Judge Kavanaugh is, by far, the most moderate judge in the pool of judges Donald Trump selects from. I'd like to ask Senator Feinstein what exactly does Democrats want for the supreme court? Trump won't go away. He is not going to nominate Garland. You have to make the best of the situation. Kavanaugh *is* the best choice you can have. Others on his list are true nightmares.

I think it would be wise for the Democrats to quickly get over this drama and move on. Otherwise it will backfire on them very badly in November.



22 people like this
Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 19, 2018 at 7:01 am

mauricio is a registered user.

The strategy is now pretty plain to see, at least through the eyes of Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, Try to make Monday's scheduled hearing of the committee so pre-emptively terrifying that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford will decline to come to Washington, and then the Republicans can dismiss the whole matter and get on with the business of confirming Brett Kavanaugh.

To that end, Grassley has refused to allow any other witnesses except Ford and Kavanaugh, thus setting up a he said/she said bit of Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas cosplay. (Grassley was a member of the same committee for that episode, from which he apparently learned all the wrong lessons.) This prevents the committee from examining, among others, Mark Judge, who has been identified as the other person in the room when Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted Ford, and this in turn prevents us all from hearing even more of Judge's unique views on male-female relationships.

Meanwhile, the president* opposes the notion of having the FBI investigate the matter and, during a press availability with the president of Poland Tuesday afternoon, the president* expressed considerable distress at the terrible ordeal that his nominee is undergoing.


18 people like this
Posted by Eila Hughes
a resident of University South
on Sep 19, 2018 at 8:12 am

Eila Hughes is a registered user.

@Nonresident

Dr. Blasey Ford's allegation, which as decades old is beyond the SOL, is neither 'rape' nor 'near rape.'

Clearly Dr. Blasey Ford described an incident in her letter that (if it actually occurred) caused her fear.

However, Even if her allegation were true (I suspect either a distorted memory or a compulsive need to affect the SC outcome), her account does not determine her attacker's intent and it fails to meet the legal guidelines for 'attempted rape' and certainly is nowhere near rape. Rape is so far away from her account.

It's quite offensive to rape victims that people continue to characterize Ford's skirmish with a boy on a bed decades ago as a RAPE.

Truly assault victims are the losers in all this. I feel that many in SV are losing sight of core values and laws. We cannot allow ancient, unverifiable accusations destroy good families.

How low politics has stooped. How so low.




17 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 19, 2018 at 8:40 am

Online Name is a registered user.

Why didn't she come forward sooner? (From today's New York Times)

"In the letter to the Judiciary Committee, Dr. Blasey’s lawyers said that she has been the target of “vicious harassment and even death threats” since her name was made public on Sunday in an interview published in The Washington Post. Her email has been hacked, she has been impersonated online and she and her family have been forced to relocate out of their home, according to the lawyers, Ms. Banks and her partner, Debra S. Katz."

Web Link


12 people like this
Posted by m2grs
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 19, 2018 at 9:35 am

m2grs is a registered user.

This is not only going to backfire on the Democrats badly in November it is also going to push the future justice to the right.

Judge Kavanaugh is a moderate. He is a protege of Bush, not among the hardball right wing nuts. If Democrats had let him pass without too much fight there is a chance that he will continue to rule as a conservative but moderate justice in court, like Anthony Kennedy he replaces.

However this incident will push him further to the right. He will forever be in debt to those who come out and help him. Democrats are self-destructing their own rights and causes. It is so unbelievable that Democrats in the senate have done such a thing for venting their vendetta on Garland nomination.



17 people like this
Posted by Jonathan Brown
a resident of Ventura
on Sep 19, 2018 at 11:26 am

Jonathan Brown is a registered user.

The committee is treating the information as credible. I believe they should. Even if you do not, ask yourself (perhaps hypothetically depending on your state of mind) whether these criteria should impact your vote whether to confirm a Supreme Court Justice nominee or not:

- Is teenage drunken sexual assault disqualifying?
- Is lying (e.g., about your past) disqualifying?
- Is a demonstrated lack of empathy, respect, or due process disqualifying?

Put the question in context of the oath the Justice must take:
“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”


6 people like this
Posted by LF
a resident of another community
on Sep 19, 2018 at 12:12 pm

LF is a registered user.

Some earlier posters queried "why now?" One possibility is that the #MeToo movement gave Ford the impetus to bring the dark past to light.


9 people like this
Posted by m2grs
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 19, 2018 at 12:36 pm

m2grs is a registered user.

@Jonathan Brown,

- Is teenage drunken sexual assault disqualifying?

Based on what has been described the incident is not "sexual assault" in legal terms. So it is no disqualifying even if it is true.

- Is lying (e.g., about your past) disqualifying?

How do you know he lied? You presume he is guilty simply because he is a Republican and nominated by Donald Trump. If he were nominated by Obama you and many on the left would have completely different opinions.

- Is a demonstrated lack of empathy, respect, or due process disqualifying?

What is this about? How do you come to such severe accusations? It is completely baseless.

Don't fall into the trap of senate hearings. The Republicans are enjoying it and are setting up a huge trap. The longer this issue goes on the worse it will be for the Democrats. It provides no positive energy for Democrat voters. It only excites the conservatives and disenfranchise many in the middle.

Democrats have to stop this before it is too late, unless they have some other cards in the sleeves, such as more women coming out accusing Kavanaugh, to establish a pattern. But I don't think this is likely what they have in their plan. The part is being carried away by the extreme and disillusioned left.




6 people like this
Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 19, 2018 at 4:58 pm

mauricio is a registered user.

Quote: Democrats have to stop this before it is too late, unless they have some other cards in the sleeves, such as more women coming out accusing Kavanaugh, to establish a pattern. But I don't think this is likely what they have in their plan. The part is being carried away by the extreme and disillusioned left.

Nonsense.


22 people like this
Posted by Greenmeadow Resident
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Sep 19, 2018 at 7:26 pm

Greenmeadow Resident is a registered user.

So many are skeptical of Dr. Ford's account because she waited decades to share her experience. I'm not taking sides. It is important, however, for the community to understand that decades-long delays, or even a lifetime of not sharing, is very common for those experiencing assault or abuse. This is true for boys, girls, men, and women. We have many examples of this in the hundreds of cases coming out about catholic priests (both boys and girls) that happened long ago, and in well-regarded research studying trauma in children and adults from all walks of life. Yes, it's possible that some details can be lost regarding specific dates, even location if the person has been in similar locations a number of times, but the details that stick are those that caused the the trauma -- being held against their will, being molested or worse, having someone try to remove their clothes, being unable to scream, feeling petrified, and then being ashamed and afraid to tell. Please keep this common reaction in mind, not just in this situation, but in recognizing that your son or daughter, brother or sister, husband or wife, or best friend may be holding onto a trauma because of the criticisms they've seen victims suffer -- that they should have spoken up at the time and not waited regardless of their fear and trauma (one more thing to feel guilty about), that they must be "confused" or "misguided" because their memory is playing tricks on them, or that it could only be true if others also come forward (the list goes on). Trust me, these criticisms are registering with dozens of young people and adults in our community and they will hold onto their trauma even longer because of it. It happened after Anita Hill and it is happening now. Please choose your words wisely, regardless of where you stand.


4 people like this
Posted by Why Now?
a resident of Community Center
on Sep 20, 2018 at 10:57 am

Why Now? is a registered user.

To add to my previous 'unpopular' comment. I understand why a young girl might not come forward at the time of the alleged incident, but why didn't Ms Ford speak up when President Bush nominated Kavanaugh to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on July 25, 2003? She was not a vulnerable child in 2003, if her claim prevents Kavanaugh from being nominated to Supreme Court it's fine by me, but her motivation for speaking out now seems obvious.


2 people like this
Posted by LynneM
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 20, 2018 at 11:44 am

LynneM is a registered user.

I assume she is telling the truth and Kavanaugh is lying. However, if she continues to refuse to testify this has been all for naught. Why would she unleash this fury and then back out? It makes no sense. It will not affect his nomination. In fact, it will look like a republican victory. Very weird.


13 people like this
Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 20, 2018 at 4:52 pm

mauricio is a registered user.

Because the republicans have refused to let a witness who was present during the attack and could corroborate her version. By doing that, it would become a 'she said/he said' exercise, which is exactly what the republicans want. Additionally, the republicans, naturally, refuse to allow the FBI to investigate the matter. The republicans would pull an Anita Hill on her, confirm her attacker regardless, and she would become a target the right wing nut jobs, which have already threatened her and her family's lives. I hope she refuses to testify under those conditions. If they want her to testify, it should be after a thorough FBI investigation and a testimony by the witness the republicans are refusing to summon.


13 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 20, 2018 at 10:05 pm

Curmudgeon is a registered user.

"[Post removed; please cite source for statement.]"

New York Times, 9/14/2017
Washington post, 9/14/2017
NPR, 9/14/2017

Now kindly put my posting back.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

After 39 years of cakes and pastries, Palo Alto institution Prolific Oven to close
By Elena Kadvany | 58 comments | 18,472 views

Local Transit to the Rescue?
By Sherry Listgarten | 21 comments | 2,850 views

The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Process Explained
By Steve Levy | 18 comments | 1,764 views

"You Gotta Have Balls [to do counseling] . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,580 views

Eating Green on the Green – August 25
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 675 views

 

Register now!

​On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

More Info