My son, (a prosecutor in Brooklyn) has this to say about Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh on Facebook today..
In my experience, liars tend not to invite the FBI to investigate their claims.
I'm waiting to hear all the evidence before making up my mind. At this point all I care about is that the process is fair. In our system, both the accused and the accuser are entitled to fair process.
But on the face of it there are several reasons Prof. Ford's story appears credible:
1. She places Kavanagh's friend, Mark Judge, at the scene. Why would she make a witness out of someone who'd be expected to testify favorably for the accused?
2. She says she told her therapist about the assault in 2012. He agrees that the story she told him was basically the same, and he has notes. They don't include Kavanagh's name, but if it was a frame job, wouldn't they?
3. Through work I've gotten to know a few people who falsely accused others of crimes. People who do this tend to be reckless and live very troubled, unstable lives. Ford is a professional, and it doesn't make sense that she'd risk everything she's worked for all her life by lying just to block Kavanagh's appointment.
4. If she was lying she wouldn't demand that the FBI investigate her claims. Instead, she would run to the hearing on Monday so she could make her claims without the Senate Republicans having any idea of what questions they should be asking her.
5. Her story is entirely plausible. These kinds of assault happen all the time, and they happened even more frequently 35 years ago. It's not like she's claiming she was abducted by aliens.
6. If this is a frame, the scenario of how it came about is completely implausible: the Democrats recruited a credible, professional woman who knew Kavanagh in high school, to slander him just to keep him off the court. Even though Trump still gets to pick his replacement. Fortunately for the evil Dems, she just happened to tell the story to her therapist 5 years earlier, and he has notes to prove it. Unless you think he's in on it, too, and the notes were fabricated. Part of this conspiracy is that when the senate invites her to testify, she *refuses* until the FBI investigates the veracity of her claims. Sorry--the conspiracy theory here is ludicrous.
7. She passed a polygraph.
In 1991, the Bush White House asked the FBI to investigate Anita Hill's claims, which they did for almost two weeks before the hearing. That's how it works. You don't have the trial first and the investigation second. And if they do have the hearing, they should follow Anita Hill's advice and the questions should be asked by neutral professionals, not the senators who have no idea how to properly examine witnesses. Take the partisanship out of it, so the public can have more confidence in the outcome.
If the Republicans were smart they'd reject Kavanagh right now and persuade the president to nominate someone else from the short list: Judge Joan Larsen from the Sixth Circuit. In one fell swoop it would get them out of this Kavanagh mess and go a long way towards mending fences with women voters.
= new reply since forum marked as read
“My son, the prosecutor”!!! 
Hug that smart child 
Thanks CTyankee for this great post!
This is advice that no right minded person could say as not helpful to the situation. If the Senators on the confirmation committee were they would follow these actions outlined in this post. When have you ever seen a smart Repukelican?
Thank you sooooooooooooo much for posting....
