AFTER the hearing - who do you find more credible?

[EuTuCroquet?]

Kavanaugh lied under oath, Sen. Patrick Leahy says

When asked if he thought Kavanaugh lied under oath, Leahy responded, "I want the rest of the records. I wonder why they are hiding 90 percent of his records because they would show whether he has or not. I feel he has."

​

 

[CARIIS]

Politics, 2.

Personally, it seems more likely to motivate the repub base if K is "forced" to withdraw his nomination than to confirm him, but then, I never have understood the mindset of the less than 40% of voters trump base.

The only R calculation to toss in is that holding the Senate is priority one, and that R's hoped/hope to force red state Dems to vote on a right-wing nominee BEFORE the midterms.

For Dems? The K disaster has given red state Dems cover to vote against K & to perhaps survive.

Dems are best off now if Kavanaugh IS confirmed, not if he is defeated. Confirming K would energize Dems still further. There is little upside for Dems if K goes down in flames before the midterms. Nothing will stop a right-wing nominee from being confirmed to the Court after the election. Nada.

I think the core need here is his verbilzed beliefs that the executive branch is above the law.

 

[BingoBongo]

bbm

Interesting. I had no idea!

"APD (Antisocial Personality Disorder) is a DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition), diagnosis assigned to individuals who habitually and pervasively disregard or violate the rights and considerations of others without remorse. People with Antisocial Personality Disorder may be habitual criminals, or engage in behavior which would be grounds for criminal arrest and prosecution, or they may engage in behaviors which skirt the edges of the law, or manipulate *and hurt others in non-criminal ways* which are widely regarded as unethical, immoral, irresponsible, or in violation of social norms and expectations. Those with APD often possess an impaired moral conscience and make decisions driven purely by their own desires without considering the needs or negative effects of their actions on others. Impulsive and criminal behavior is common. The terms psychopathy or sociopathy are also used, in some contexts synonymously, in others, sociopath is differentiated from a psychopath, in that a sociopathy is rooted in environmental causes, while psychopathy is genetically based."

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

True. Dr. Ford accused him of sexual assault, not rape. There's a difference. I think the option should be changed.

OK, let’s say attempted rape and sexual assault. Still crimes. Corroborated by piles of evidence, especially Kavanaugh’s half-baked untruths.

 

[Inthedetails]

Not everyone who disregards another's rights is prone to criminal behavior.

Snipped & bolded by me.

I don't understand what you're saying, but it appears as if you're saying you're okay with a SC justice who disregards another's rights as long as he didn't actually commit a crime.

That appears what you're saying, but I'm hoping that is not true. Please clarify. Thanks.

jmo

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

It’s well-known that Kavanaugh has no qualms about lying under oath. He should withdraw is nomination immediately, imo. He’s unfit to serve.

Maybe Kavanaugh leaked the Blasey Ford docs to the media??

bbm

How Kavanaugh Likely Violated DOJ Policies While Working for Ken Starr

There are still substantial questions, for instance, regarding Kavanaugh’s tenure as a White House staffer in the George W. Bush administration. Most notable among them is whether he knowingly misused materials stolen from Democratic senators’ offices to further efforts to confirm several controversial Bush judicial nominees andwhether he lied about the matter under oath during multiple hearings. Other questions regarding Kavanaugh’s White House tenure could not even be meaningfully explored during the confirmation hearings because so many relevant documents were withheld (or not even requested), including materials relating to Kavanaugh’s possible role in reviewing the CIA’s use of “enhanced interrogation” techniques against certain detainees.

But the least-examined portion of Kavanaugh’s career concerns his role as an associate counsel under Ken Starr during the multiple investigations of President Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and others. Among the most important unanswered questions about Kavanaugh’s years as a prosecutor is whether he provided selective leaks to favored journalists in contravention of Justice Department policies respecting the confidentiality of criminal investigations.​

 

[Inthedetails]

<modsnip: quoted post was removed>...he is the person being examined for the position of Supreme Court Justice. The whole point of the hearing is to examine him. He should be closely examined after allegations surface. She is not seeking to be on the highest court in the nation. She is providing information that the committee should know about the candidate. Yes, her story should be examined for truthfulness, but he absolutely should be closely examined whether it's actually "10 times" more or not.

jmo

 

[Hope4More]

No point in responding point by point to Mitchell's actual report (much less the interpretation of her report previously posted).

The one & only point Mitchell notes that has given me any pause- and it's been thoroughly discussed here --is Ford saying she doesn't remember how she got home/what she did after fleeing the get together.

That's not to say I think the gap is inexplicable or hinky or not credible.....but, being a sleuther I have thought about another (completely speculative) possibility.

Leland might not have remembered the gathering in any case, no matter what, but one possibility makes it more likely why she would not: she & Ford did not go to or leave the gathering together. If they had gone together, Ford would likely have signalled to Leland she needed to leave, asap, either because she needed Leland to drive her, or because she wanted to make sure Leland had her own way home.

A distraught Ford leaving suddenly wouldn't have captured the attention of the drinking teenage boy PJ. There is no way Ford would have accepted a ride home from Justice or K, even if they managed to stumble out the house to offer.

That leaves her walking to somewhere else, or.....getting a ride from the unidentified boy #4.

Speculatively- could boy #4 be Squi? Her BF? The gathering wasn't at Timmy's (wrong guest list, if accurate), but I'm thinking the assault took place on July 1, after heavy drinking by K at Timmy's house at a FU party about the drinking age going to 19 that very day.

PJ & Judge & K were there, as was Squi. Squi & K were set to spend the July 4 weekend away together.

Drink drink drink at Timmy's, Judge & K & Squi & PJ leave. Judge & K go to Judge's grandparents' house, Squi & PJ go to the Country Club. Squi drives Ford to the gathering, PJ drives Leland.

The boy Ford was hoping would hear her was Squi, not PJ. She fled downstairs, signalled Squi or he saw her running out, he walked out, gave her a ride home.

No one has spoken to Squi.

What makes me wonder if Squi was there & her driver is how far she has gone to protect him these past days. Her refusal to name him in the hearing was the ONLY time she refused to cooperate 100% with what was being asked of her. She twice refused to use his name. I think that's interesting.

 

[Datchery]

I think there are two issues here.

I do not believe that, taken in itself - or even with Ramirez and Swetnick's claims -- Ford's allegations should have been enough to derail the nomination. This is not because I think she was lying; I believe something that could be classified as sexual assault happened to her, that Kavanaugh was involved, and that she is being truthful as she remembers the incident. However, memory is a tricky thing, and in a case like this, details make a big difference. If Kavanaugh behaved precisely as Ford describes - in other words, if he attempted to rape her -- that is disqualifying, no matter how long ago it was. If he rather did something that would be closer to groping, that's still bad, and still, a form of assault, but is not, in my opinion, something that means he is unqualified to service as a SC Justice 35 years later.

So, which was it? I don't know - and I don't think it is wildly implausible that, over the years, a person's memory could magnify what was already an upsetting incident into something even worse. There seems to me a difference, too, between not going to the police -- very, very common, and not something that says anything about Ford's credibility -- and not telling anyone that anything had happened for a full thirty years. Again, I'm not saying Ford is lying, but I tend to think the average fifteen year old who had experienced a violent assault that had stopped short of rape would have been visibly upset right after the fact, or mentioned something to a close friend, if not right away than a lot sooner than thirty years later. Which leaves me wondering if this isn't something that may not have loomed quite as large to Ford until it came out in therapy, possibly as part of the context of a larger conversation, and in a climate in which sexual assault was taken a lot more seriously than it was in 1982. Not a "recovered memory," precisely, but something bad that became something worse in retrospect, without any conscious attempt at deception.

Ramirez and Swetnick are less credible; I don't think Ramirez is lying either, but she admits to not having been positive that it was Kavanaugh before thinking about it for some time, which makes her claim very shaky. Swetnick isn't really making a specific charge at all; she's describing a culture, and saying Kavanaugh took part, but it frankly sounds like a sensationalistic extrapolation from her knowledge of the party scene.

However, all this being said: what I think is disqualifying are the transparent lies Kavanaugh told under oath. Whether or not you agree with every aspect of the article posted earlier in the thread, Kavanaugh's depiction of himself as a teenager was wildly disingenuous under any reasonable standard, and many of his attempts to discredit Ford were manipulative and logically suspect. It defies credulity to believe that "ralph club president" refers to vomiting after eating spicy foods. It defies credulity to believe that "Renate alumus" meant "I really respect this woman who I went on a couple of dates with." Multiple people have indicated that Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker, not just a guy who liked beer.

More than that, it is deceptive for Kavanaugh to claim that he couldn't have been at this party because he was away for weekends, as there is no reason that the party had to be on a weekend. Having a summer job does not mean you couldn't possibly have been drinking beers with some friends on a Thursday night. Even worse, Kavanaugh uses his calendar to "prove" that no such party occurred - but ignores the fact that the July 1st entry does include a reference to drinking beers with a few friends, including two of the people Ford places at the party. That goes beyond defend yourself; that's gaslighting.

I understand that Kavanaugh was in a tough position, as once you admit to being drunk enough that your own memories may not be reliable, it is very hard to then say "but I still think Ford is exaggerating," even though that may well be the case. But the fact remains, he was untruthful, and that, to me, means he shouldn't be on the SC.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

What’s good for the gander is good for the, uh, gander, yeah?

https://www.google.com/amp/www.lati...bstruction-20180823-story.html?outputType=amp

The young attorney decided the president deserved to be forced from office for “his pattern of revolting behavior” and the “sheer number of his wrongful acts.”

“The president has disgraced his office.… He has lied to his aides. He has lied to the American people,” Brett Kavanaughwrote in a 1998 memo to his colleagues. “I’m strongly opposed to giving [him] any ‘break’ … unless he either resigns or … issues a public apology.”
...

It was 20 years ago this month that Kavanaugh, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, set out his broad view of obstruction of justice and of what constitutes an impeachable offense, arguing the president could be removed from office even for a rarely charged crime — in this case, lying under oath in a civil deposition, to deny a sexual affair with a 22-year-old White House intern. By repeating false stories for months, lying to the public and his aides, trying to cover up the affair with Monica Lewinsky and helping her find a job in New York, the president, Kavanaugh argued, engaged in “a conspiracy to obstruct justice.”
...

“The Kavanaugh argument in the Starr Report is highly relevant now,” says New York lawyer David R. Lurie, because it portrayed a president’s false statements and public denials as reflecting a pattern of obstructing justice. If investigators “wanted a template for charging the president with acts of obstruction meriting impeachment, they could do worse than using sections of the Starr Report drafted by Kavanaugh,” Lurie said.​

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Her memory seemed pretty detailed to me. Of course she doesn't remember all details. But she remembers a lot more than Kavanaugh and as far as I can tell, her memory hasn't been refuted. She has also has been very precise in her statements, and how confident she was of each of the details. Some she wasn't 100% sure of, but she was 100% it was Kavanaugh.

She is also just as sure her close friend..LK... was there. I am sure she 100 percent believes that was also true as well or she wouldn't have ever dragged her close dear friend into this.

Yet her very close friend who has no motive to lie said it never happened. Not only that but she stated she was never at any party with or without DF where BK.. was present.

So it does make some pause.. whether some like it or not ...that is a major memory flaw. If she is incorrect about LK..being there then has she misrembered other pertinent events?

I do firmly believe if LK..had actually been present she would definitely remember the time when her close friend Chrissy went upstairs at a party (Any party)..when she never saw Chrissy come back down stairs again at all that night and totally disappeared without any explanation.

Jmo

 

[Hope4More]

I think the core need here is his verbilzed beliefs that the executive branch is above the law.

What is best for Trump isn't necessarily what is best for Congressional Republicans, and vice versa. I suspect this is one of those times.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Corroboration doesn’t require eyewitness testimony of the assault by bystanders.

Corroboration can be “I remember being at this party with Kavanaugh when he was drinking in 1982” or his history of lying about his behavior, or even lying about what “boof” means. It’s all corroboration.

Mountains of corroboration. All of it. His perjuries alone are enough to disqualify him. They also, an a legal sense, corroborate the victim testimony.

All of it, collectively, is evidence and meets the “probable cause” standard. He’s a liar. None of his testimony is to be believed. He is not credible.

And he should be disqualified.

I think there are two issues here.

I do not believe that, taken in itself - or even with Ramirez and Swetnick's claims -- Ford's allegations should have been enough to derail the nomination. This is not because I think she was lying; I believe something that could be classified as sexual assault happened to her, that Kavanaugh was involved, and that she is being truthful as she remembers the incident. However, memory is a tricky thing, and in a case like this, details make a big difference. If Kavanaugh behaved precisely as Ford describes - in other words, if he attempted to rape her -- that is disqualifying, no matter how long ago it was. If he rather did something that would be closer to groping, that's still bad, and still, a form of assault, but is not, in my opinion, something that means he is unqualified to service as a SC Justice 35 years later.

So, which was it? I don't know - and I don't think it is wildly implausible that, over the years, a person's memory could magnify what was already an upsetting incident into something even worse. There seems to me a difference, too, between not going to the police -- very, very common, and not something that says anything about Ford's credibility -- and not telling anyone that anything had happened for a full thirty years. Again, I'm not saying Ford is lying, but I tend to think the average fifteen year old who had experienced a violent assault that had stopped short of rape would have been visibly upset right after the fact, or mentioned something to a close friend, if not right away than a lot sooner than thirty years later. Which leaves me wondering if this isn't something that may not have loomed quite as large to Ford until it came out in therapy, possibly as part of the context of a larger conversation, and in a climate in which sexual assault was taken a lot more seriously than it was in 1982. Not a "recovered memory," precisely, but something bad that became something worse in retrospect, without any conscious attempt at deception.

Ramirez and Swetnick are less credible; I don't think Ramirez is lying either, but she admits to not having been positive that it was Kavanaugh before thinking about it for some time, which makes her claim very shaky. Swetnick isn't really making a specific charge at all; she's describing a culture, and saying Kavanaugh took part, but it frankly sounds like a sensationalistic extrapolation from her knowledge of the party scene.

However, all this being said: what I think is disqualifying are the transparent lies Kavanaugh told under oath. Whether or not you agree with every aspect of the article posted earlier in the thread, Kavanaugh's depiction of himself as a teenager was wildly disingenuous under any reasonable standard, and many of his attempts to discredit Ford were manipulative and logically suspect. It defies credulity to believe that "ralph club president" refers to vomiting after eating spicy foods. It defies credulity to believe that "Renate alumus" meant "I really respect this woman who I went on a couple of dates with." Multiple people have indicated that Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker, not just a guy who liked beer.

More than that, it is deceptive for Kavanaugh to claim that he couldn't have been at this party because he was away for weekends, as there is no reason that the party had to be on a weekend. Having a summer job does not mean you couldn't possibly have been drinking beers with some friends on a Thursday night. Even worse, Kavanaugh uses his calendar to "prove" that no such party occurred - but ignores the fact that the July 1st entry does include a reference to drinking beers with a few friends, including two of the people Ford places at the party. That goes beyond defend yourself; that's gaslighting.

I understand that Kavanaugh was in a tough position, as once you admit to being drunk enough that your own memories may not be reliable, it is very hard to then say "but I still think Ford is exaggerating," even though that may well be the case. But the fact remains, he was untruthful, and that, to me, means he shouldn't be on the SC.

 

[kimlynn]

No point in responding point by point to Mitchell's actual report (much less the interpretation of her report previously posted).

The one & only point Mitchell notes that has given me any pause- and it's been thoroughly discussed here --is Ford saying she doesn't remember how she got home/what she did after fleeing the get together.

That's not to say I think the gap is inexplicable or hinky or not credible.....but, being a sleuther I have thought about another (completely speculative) possibility.

Leland might not have remembered the gathering in any case, no matter what, but one possibility makes it more likely why she would not: she & Ford did not go to or leave the gathering together. If they had gone together, Ford would likely have signalled to Leland she needed to leave, asap, either because she needed Leland to drive her, or because she wanted to make sure Leland had her own way home.

A distraught Ford leaving suddenly wouldn't have captured the attention of the drinking teenage boy PJ. There is no way Ford would have accepted a ride home from Justice or K, even if they managed to stumble out the house to offer.

That leaves her walking to somewhere else, or.....getting a ride from the unidentified boy #4.

Speculatively- could boy #4 be Squi? Her BF? The gathering wasn't at Timmy's (wrong guest list, if accurate), but I'm thinking the assault took place on July 1, after heavy drinking by K at Timmy's house at a FU party about the drinking age going to 19 that very day.

PJ & Judge & K were there, as was Squi. Squi & K were set to spend the July 4 weekend away together.

Drink drink drink at Timmy's, Judge & K & Squi & PJ leave. Judge & K go to Judge's grandparents' house, Squi & PJ go to the Country Club. Squi drives Ford to the gathering, PJ drives Leland.

The boy Ford was hoping would hear her was Squi, not PJ. She fled downstairs, signalled Squi or he saw her running out, he walked out, gave her a ride home.

No one has spoken to Squi.

What makes me wonder if Squi was there & her driver is how far she has gone to protect him these past days. Her refusal to name him in the hearing was the ONLY time she refused to cooperate 100% with what was being asked of her. She twice refused to use his name. I think that's interesting.

Just guessing, but I think Squi may have been the person named as the possible culprit in the attack. I recall Ford saying he had been through enough or something to that effect.
Ed Whelan taking 'leave of absence' after posting Kavanaugh theory

Whelan became the target of swift bipartisan criticism on Thursday evening after offering an unsubstantiated alternative explanation for Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation that Kavanaugh forced himself on her at a drunken high school party more than three decades ago.

His conjectures, laid out in a series of tweets, included floor plans of the house in which Whelan said the alleged assault may have taken place. It also featured the name and photo of a high school classmate of Kavanaugh’s whom Whelan identified as a potential suspect and posited that Ford may have misremembered as the federal judge.

 

[Hope4More]

She is also just as sure her close friend..LK... was there. I am sure she 100 percent believes that was also true as well or she wouldn't have ever dragged her close dear friend into this.

Yet her very close friend who has no motive to lie said it never happened. Not only that but she stated she was never at any party with or without DF where BK.. was present.

So it does make some pause.. whether some like it or not ...that is a major memory flaw. If she is incorrect about LK..being there then has she misrembered other pertinent facts?

I do firmly believe if LK..had actually been present she would definitely remember the time when her close friend Chrissy went upstairs at a party (Any party)..when she never saw Chrissy come back down stairs again at all that night and totally disappeared without any explanation.

Jmo

Non snarky question, & I don't know how old you are, but...

Could you possibly, even given the stakes & trying hard, remember a routine casual get together of friends, close or not, that happened 20 years ago? 30? 36? When you were 15 or 16? And remembered who left when and why or for reasons never told?

At that age, girls are often way deep in DRAMA. Boy- girl drama, girl-girl drama, girl-parents drama, OMG I have a zit drama. What would be memorable about what to Leland would have looked like......another drama?

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

rsff

That’s incorrect.

Her friend believes her and has clearly said so. Kavanaugh lied under oath when he claimed Keyser “refuted” Ford’s allegations.

An important witness in the Ford-Kavanaugh standoff says she believes Ford and will 'cooperate fully' with the FBI

Christine Blasey Ford's friend clarifies statement about alleged assault by Brett Kavanaugh

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s friend does not deny assault claim, lawyer says

Yet her very close friend who has no motive to lie said it never happened. Not only that but she stated she was never at any party with or without DF where BK.. was present.

 

[Hope4More]

Just guessing, but I think Squi may have been the person named as the possible culprit in the attack. I recall Ford saying he had been through enough or something to that effect.
Ed Whelan taking 'leave of absence' after posting Kavanaugh theory

Whelan became the target of swift bipartisan criticism on Thursday evening after offering an unsubstantiated alternative explanation for Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation that Kavanaugh forced himself on her at a drunken high school party more than three decades ago.

His conjectures, laid out in a series of tweets, included floor plans of the house in which Whelan said the alleged assault may have taken place. It also featured the name and photo of a high school classmate of Kavanaugh’s whom Whelan identified as a potential suspect and posited that Ford may have misremembered as the federal judge.

Yes, that was Squi. And, for the only time before appearing at the hearing, Ford "spoke" publically, contacting the WaPo within an hour-literally- of Whelan's tweeting, to state her attacker was NOT Squi, and that she would never have mistaken one for the other. Interesting.

Tin-foil hat time: imo it is impossible for K to have been unaware that Whelan was planning to accuse Squi. Whelan coordinated that message with Grassley's staff, the Federalist Society, and the Swift -Boating PR firm.

Why would K agree to /suggest Whelan dragging Squi into the mess, much less accusing him of assault?

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Welp.

Kavanaugh's Yale classmates who dispute his statements on drinking and sexual misconduct want to talk to the FBI but are reportedly being ignored

An attorney for Elizabeth Rasor, a college girlfriend of Judge's who has alleged he once told her that he and other boys took turns having sex with a drunk woman during high school, told The New Yorker that she had "received no substantive response" from the FBI after making Rasor's desire to speak with the FBI clear to both the bureau and the Senate Judiciary Committee.
...

The FBI reportedly plans to interview four witnesses. In addition to Judge and Ramirez, it is likely to speak with two people Ford says were at the 1982 party: Leland Keyser, a friend of Ford's, and P.J. Smyth, a friend of Kavanaugh's. The bureau is not speaking with Swetnick directly about her allegations.
...

A former Yale classmate of Kavanaugh's who told The New Yorker he was "100% certain" he heard about an incident nearly identical to Ramirez's allegation described being essentially ignored when he asked to provide his account to the FBI in recent days. The classmate said he ultimately submitted a tip to the agency through an online portal after being told to call an 800-number tip line.

A few other former Yale classmates have come forward since Thursday's hearing to contradict Kavanaugh's characterization of his college drinking habits.​

 

[Boodles]

Mose falsehoods: appears he lied about being a Yale legacy. He drank when he was 17 so he was underage.

To me, this is really shocking, about no Yale connections. A bald faced lie. And so easily substantiated. I almost wonder if the reporting about his grandfather attending Yale is true, because who would be so audacious as to lie about something so black and white?

Although his boofing and Devil’s Triangle definitions were lies, too, and widely known to be so, there’s always someone who could say “oh no, in our clique it meant what Brett said.”

 

[rosemadderlake]

No point in responding point by point to Mitchell's actual report (much less the interpretation of her report previously posted).

The one & only point Mitchell notes that has given me any pause- and it's been thoroughly discussed here --is Ford saying she doesn't remember how she got home/what she did after fleeing the get together.

That's not to say I think the gap is inexplicable or hinky or not credible.....but, being a sleuther I have thought about another (completely speculative) possibility.

Leland might not have remembered the gathering in any case, no matter what, but one possibility makes it more likely why she would not: she & Ford did not go to or leave the gathering together. If they had gone together, Ford would likely have signalled to Leland she needed to leave, asap, either because she needed Leland to drive her, or because she wanted to make sure Leland had her own way home.

A distraught Ford leaving suddenly wouldn't have captured the attention of the drinking teenage boy PJ. There is no way Ford would have accepted a ride home from Justice or K, even if they managed to stumble out the house to offer.

That leaves her walking to somewhere else, or.....getting a ride from the unidentified boy #4.

Speculatively- could boy #4 be Squi? Her BF? The gathering wasn't at Timmy's (wrong guest list, if accurate), but I'm thinking the assault took place on July 1, after heavy drinking by K at Timmy's house at a FU party about the drinking age going to 19 that very day.

PJ & Judge & K were there, as was Squi. Squi & K were set to spend the July 4 weekend away together.

Drink drink drink at Timmy's, Judge & K & Squi & PJ leave. Judge & K go to Judge's grandparents' house, Squi & PJ go to the Country Club. Squi drives Ford to the gathering, PJ drives Leland.

The boy Ford was hoping would hear her was Squi, not PJ. She fled downstairs, signalled Squi or he saw her running out, he walked out, gave her a ride home.

No one has spoken to Squi.

What makes me wonder if Squi was there & her driver is how far she has gone to protect him these past days. Her refusal to name him in the hearing was the ONLY time she refused to cooperate 100% with what was being asked of her. She twice refused to use his name. I think that's interesting.

That's a working theory, IMO.

I felt the professor was holding something back when she didn't want to expose her boyfriend's name. He was the one who introduced her to BK? Right? She wanted to protect that person's identity. It might also explain the vagueness of what happened next?

She wanted the FBI to look into it. From the beginning. I think she felt ok, I'm dragging myself through hell but don't want to unnecessarily drag other innocent individuals through it, too.

This means she has contacted no one except her GF from this group over the years? But in the hope that the FBI would investigate the truth would come out, or at least the missing part?

Also, where was her life at after this event? That kind of terrifying attack changes you, as she said. Did she go back to the club, and continue her diving that summer? Who were her friends going forward?

Her visceral reaction to terms of not testifying with Kavanaugh in the room and visa versa, not watching his testimony (misc news report next day), kind of speaks to the, I don't know, terror and the disappointment she must have felt that summer. You are having a fun time with friends and someone in your peer group does something like that. It messes with your whole dynamic circle of friends. It messes with your life.