I’ve read the Post story & am writing on it for @Townhall tomorrow. Overall: Direct allegations of serious misconduct from an on-the-record accuser are more credible than indirect characterizations of an anonymous source’s account...
Ford’s therapist’s notes from a session 30 yrs after the alleged incident — which Ford says represent the 1st time she discussed her claims in depth w/ anyone (& that also didn’t mention BK’s name, and contained what she Ford concedes is a mistaken detail — aren’t *nothing*...
But they’re also not even close to dispositive contemporaneous evidence. So we’re still looking at unsubstantiated (and probably *unsubstantiatable*) allegations from a lone accuser that have been strongly denied by both people she implicates...
Absent additional evidence, I don’t know how it would be remotely just to derail the nomination of someone who’s spent an adult lifetime building a personal & professional reputation based on this exceptionally thin standard...
Proving a negative is impossible, esp ~4 decades later & the timing of all of this is highly suspect. I’d add that even those who want to defeat Kavanaugh due to politics should be careful about embracing a precedent under which this approach is ‘rewarded’ as effective...
Last point: It appears the accuser is a liberal activist and Democratic donor. This does NOT “prove” anything about her veracity. It is simply one piece of context to be considered alongside the emerging timeline & its v questionable handling by Sen. Feinstein...
In other words, she may be telling the truth—or she could be making it up/misremembering key details. We don’t know. But IF you wanted to detonate an 11th-hr, unfalsifiable smear & strategically leak it for max impact, this is how you’d do it.
