Dr. Ford vs. Hon. Kavanaugh and the problem with "Truth"

Anyone who remembers the masterpiece "Rashomon" of famous Japanese film-maker Kurosawa (1950), will understand better the issue at stake here: "human truth".

Given the massive media coverage, the facts are known to the public, but, more importantly we know that, as in Rashomon, some critical facts are left undetermined, and therefore we should be aware that our determination of the "truth" is almost entirely depending on our political opinions.

In the present instance, we have a victim who strangely does not remember where the assault took place, let apart when, nor does she remember how she got to the party and how she left it. None of the witnesses that she cited confirmed her facts.

We also have a defendant who states that he never sexually assaulted the victim and was not at the party described; furthermore he states that he was a "virgin" during his years of studentship. However, he was a friend of Mark Judge who describes wild parties, black-outs and sexual misconducts in his "memoirs" of student, and Kavannaugh's own diary is annotated with expressions that are not typically those of a "virgin", and rather those of a "party boy".

Dr Ford's inconsistencies

I find it almost impossible to believe Dr Ford's testimony under oath that she was not aware of the Senate Committee's offer to come to her place to examine her complaint. See details here:

https://townhall.com/columnists/loriebyrd/2018/09/30/an-important-revelation-from-dr-fords-testimony-n2524000 Assuming that her lawyers committed a major breach of loyalty againt her by withholding the Senate Committee's proposal, with the kind of media coverage around the event, Dr Ford and her family, friends and co-workers MUST have heard about it, like many of us. As for me, I have listen to it repeatedly on the news, and I doubt the possibility that none of the persons above would have been unaware of the proposal.

"False in one thing, false in everything" declared Sen. Blumenthal at the hearing.

However, this is not only a matter of right or false, it's a matter of credibility of the witness who practically has no other evidence than her own words. Therefore, I would say reasonably that if only one witnessed fact is false, then the rest is tainted too, because Dr Ford is smart and educated enough to know that, under the circumstances of lack of evidence, she has to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

Under the circumstances, she is well aware that she has zero tolerance to "manipulate" her answers, less he whole testimony is worthless, with all the dire consequences she knows about.

Reviewing the very moments where the question was asked to her by Rachel Mitchell, and thereafter by Sen. Grassley, Head of The Committee:

1. Dr Ford withheld her answer to that question

2. Michael Bromwich took over immediately to block the answer, using a fallacious argument of attorney-client privilege that does not apply here. On the contrary, Michael Bromwich was obligated to answer for his client.

Much less was he entitled to bring this argument up to stop her from answering a purely procedural question, without any relation with confidential attorney communications of any kind.

The transcript of the testimony is the following: Mitchell: Was it communicated to you by your counsel or someone else that the committee had asked to interview you, and that they offered to come out to California to do so?

Ford Attorney: I’m going to object, Mr. Chairman, to any call for privileged conversation between counsel and Dr. Ford.

Mitchell: Could you validate that the offer was made, without saying a word? Is it possible for that question to be answered without violating any counsel relationships?

Ford: Can I say something to you? Do you mind if I say something to you directly? I just appreciate that you did offer that. I wasn’t clear on what the offer was. If you were going to come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and been happy to speak with you out there. I just did not – it was not clear to me that that was the case.

Rachel Mitchell had pinpointed a first major discrepancy here.

The video hereafter is even more indicative of a major "glitch"...

Clearly, Dr Ford has been caught red-handed here with an unacceptable answer, and clearly she is covering up something at the cost of losing her credibility.

Comming up with a pathetic explanation "it was not clear to me" makes the case even worse, when she could have asked for clarification anytime.

3. Sen. Grassley addressed the issue during the hearing, by reading the Committee's Sept. 19 email to Ford's counsel (nothing "privileged" here!).

“My staff would still welcome the opportunity to speak with Dr. Ford at any time, at any place convenient to her. Come to us, or we to you. I’m willing to have my staff travel to California, or anywhere else, to obtain her testimony.”

Under oath, Dr Ford had only one logical answer, which would have been the truth:

"My counsels advised me not to answer positively to the proposal."