Let’s debunk this whole “no corroboration” straw man once and for all.
1) you don’t need corroboration. Ford’s compelling and credible testimony, partic in the case of Kav’s less-than-credible response, is sufficient in court and thus certainly for these purposes.
1/
1) you don’t need corroboration. Ford’s compelling and credible testimony, partic in the case of Kav’s less-than-credible response, is sufficient in court and thus certainly for these purposes.
1/
2) corroboration is NOT narrowly defined as “someone else who witnessed the same event.” Corrob comes in all forms, incl docs (Safeway records, calendars), prior consistent statements, design of the house, etc. Unlikely anyone not in the room wld remember party 36 yrs ago.
2/
2/
3) There IS corrob here for Dr Ford. She remembers the people Kav hung out with, there is a July 1 calendar entry about a small party that included the people she said were there (and others, who could have come later or she didn’t know), and prior consistent statements.
3)
3)
4) FBI might find more corrob if permitted to look. Interview Judge’s college gf, all of the ppl who heard about the Ramirez incident in real time, try to identify house and floor plan, Safeway records (if still exist), etc.
4/
4/
5) And none of this even addresses Kav’s lies (or the fact that he wasn’t interviewed by FBI, which is baffling). These lies do matter (not just bc under oath) because they relate to his defense: if he had memory loss while drinking, he cannot be certain he never did it.
5/
5/
6) Do not be fooled by the “no corroboration” rationale. Corrob isn’t necessary and it exists in any event. And the FBI investigation appears to have been specifically limited to protect Kavanaugh and prevent discovery of additional corroboration.
END
END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
