The Kavanaugh attempted rape story

The reported sexual assault accusation against far-right Judge Brett Kavanaugh, currently nominated by President Trump for a seat on the Supreme Court, was known publicly only as an anonymous allegation until this report yesterday from Emma Brown, California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault Washington Post 09/16/2018.

The way the claim emerged raises some important questions about journalistic and political ethics. Both may sound like quaint considerations these days, and maybe in this case they are.

Irin Carmon

Much as I want to believe in the power of reporting, it was reporters theoretically doing their jobs who told her story without her consent or participation and came into her space. As a reporter, I'm ambivalent about that.

— Irin Carmon (@irin) September 16, 2018

Sam Seder has a helpful report on the state of play of the issue in the public sphere as of Sunday (yesterday), Breaking: Kavanaugh Accuser Goes Public- Nomination in Jeopardy? 09/16/2018:

For Republicans these days, it's easy to process accusations of sexual harassment or sexual assault. Deny the accusations against Republicans, try to discredit the accusers, and carry on as if it doesn't matter even if it's true. When the accusations are against Democrats, promote them all over the place, make up some more, call the Dems big ole hypocrites.

For Democrats, it's more complicated. The party is more committed to women's rights generally than the Republicans. They also have more concern for procedural and legal protections when it comes to allegations of misconduct. Which is not to say they are scrupulous about avoiding dubious or exaggerated accusations derived from "oppo" research. And in general, they are more committed to seeking evidence-based grounds for action.

I expressed my own concerns here last year about the haste with which Democratic Senators pushed Al Franken to resign from the Senate based on numerous but vague accusations which were far less serious than what the attempted rape Christine Blasey Ford is alleging against Kavanaugh. Franken had requested a review by the Senate ethics committee and was restrained in public about his pushback on the allegations, which is the kind of response I would hope the Democrats would encourage. I didn't find the Franken episode an encouraging example of how political parties should handle such accusations.

In the Ford case, here's how I'm understanding the accusation as of this point. These are some of the reasons that to me argue for Ford's credibility.

• Her account of the assault is detailed.
• She is telling her story publicly and in her own name, knowing that there are real, practical risks for her in doing so.
• Ford is an experienced therapist who presumably understands the various practical and ethical issues with going public with such accusations.
• She had discussed it with her husband and her own therapist in 2012, well before Kavanaugh had been nominated for the Supreme Court and long before most people would have imagined Donald Trump as a credibile Presidential candidate.
• She provided some of her therapist's notes from the 2012 session.

One thing about the therapist's notes is that they partially contradict Ford's own current account. "The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room," Brown reports.

This is a reason to question the credibility of the account. But it certainly isn't disqualifying. The fact that Ford agreed to the release of the notes with that discrepancy included could also be taken as a sign of Ford's credibility.

Two further elements of the story argue circumstantially to some extent for Ford's credibility.

• The autobiographical writing of the other man she says was involved is at least broadly consistent with the kind of incident she describes.
• The Republicans produced a statement virtually immediately after the story emerged signed by 65 women claiming they knew him in high school and attesting to his fine character. They wouldn't have had such a document ready to release if they weren't expecting that something scandalous about his high school years might come out.

Is it relevant that Kavanaugh in his later life embraced far-right, anti-women's-rights political positions? I'll admit that the fact that he did adds a bit more circumstantial credibility to Ford's accusation to me. But, as we've seen over the last year, Democrats and supporters Democratic candidates have also engaged in sexual harassment or assault. And Bob Packwood, Republican Senator from Oregon 1969-1995, was one of the last arguably moderate Republicans in Congress and a supporter of women's rights issue. He resigned from the Senate in 1995 facing likely expulsion because numerous credible reports came to light of sexual misconduct on his part. (See: Tomothy Egan, Packwood Is Leaving As a Pariah In His State New York Times 09/09/1995)

So it's anything but a strictly partisan problem.

The follwing are considerations that could argue against the credibility of Ford's story.

• There is so far no evidence of Ford having made a contemporary report or record of the attack. The Washington Post story quotes her as saying 2012 was the first time she had told anyone about it.
• The incident was decades ago. One reason that the law has statutes of limitation on criminal prosecutions is the fact that eyewitness and victim accounts become less reliable over time.
• Kavanaugh has "categorically and unequivocally" denied the charge.

Even before this attempted rape charge emerged, Kavanaugh had shown himself in various ways seriously disqualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.

And Congress can and should look seriously at Ford's accusations and of Kavanaugh's handling of it in the present. If, for incident, he can be shown to have lied under oath or lied to Congress or the FBI about Ford or this incident in some way, that could be an actual crime in itself.