Home | About | Donate

I'm a Lawyer. I've Been to Trial. And I Believe Christine Blasey Ford.


I'm a Lawyer. I've Been to Trial. And I Believe Christine Blasey Ford.

Mitchell Zimmerman

I’ve been an attorney for nearly 40 years. Good lawyers identify with their clients, but they also have be able to step back and say: How would my client’s claims look to an ordinary person without an ax to grind — say a juror?

"When testimony conflicts, what’s more useful is considering the surrounding circumstances. In this case, the circumstances all favor Ford’s account."


Bill Maher hit on something last night that I’ve been yelling about for a day: this entirely disingenuous line of crap from Republicans and other idiots who say, “She was credible, but so was he.” NO! If she was indeed credible (and she was), then, by definition, you must believe that Kavanaugh attempted to rape her. If she’s credible, then it’s done, and he’s out. On the other hand, if he was credible (and he was not), then you must believe that she is lying. They can’t both be credible, if the word credible means anything at all. Saying “both were credible,” then voting for the alleged rapist, isn’t fooling anyone except perhaps yourself.


I wonder what real lawyers think about this SCOTUS wannabe’s lying. Attorneys have been disciplined, disbarred, fined and/or jailed for suborning perjury…encouraging or allowing others to lie. What then of an attorney who seeks to be the ultimate of other attorneys arguments proven to be a liar himself?


The more pertinent question would be “is it enough” since as others have mentioned on CD and I saw in one official Maryland document online (but IANAL), there is no statute of limitations for attempted rape in this state. Seeing a sitting judge (whether where he is or on the Supreme Court) be brought to trial in MD would be quite a feat - probably impossible, but I’d still love to see it.

Mark Judge says he will talk to the FBI - this is getting more interesting every day (and so to a certain extent, I understand why CD has so many stories, though in my opinion, they need to figure out a grouping of stories about the same thing so comments stay together and the page is easier to navigate for those who don’t want to follow it so closely).

1 Like

I hate to put words in pro-Kavanaugh people’s mouths, but I’m guessing what most of them mean is she was credible in that the event happened to her, but not credible as to the true identity of the perpetrator. The alternative that she was credible but she misinterpreted their “boys will be boys” action which was just horsing around is frankly completely disgusting (@KC2669 - I read that piece by Kevin Drum and I have much less respect for him now), but that view (and staying with them both being credible) isn’t possible now given Kavanaugh’s vehement denial.

By the way, David Doel has a superb as ususal takedown of Kavanaugh at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSCYDQ4bwOI - I now know way more about boofing than I ever wanted to.


I don’t remember the Drum piece. Which one?

1 Like

I am not a lawyer (but a parent and uni. teacher), and very easily have reached the same conclusion as this article. First, their motivations, as the article emphasizes, leads one to the truth. Second, the simple fact that when she was asked about an FBI investigation, quite naturally she said yes, while he was obviously consistently very nervous when asked that question and in addition to not agreeing to one, gave silly arguments against one, including polygraph - while you would have expected the opposite. Especially as a lawyer, you would have expected him not to ask, but to demand a formal investigation. Thirdly, their demeanor/performance did matter. She was a person who had never been in a courtroom and her authenticity could not be mistaken. While he, is a creature of a courtroom, and came across extremely unauthentic. I believe anyone with basic critical thinking functions could see through all this.

As far as reasonable doubt goes - this is not (yet) a criminal trial. The issue is simple, there are a ton of other people who are similarly qualified as him. And, in fact, he also has come across as quite average and incompetent for the role of a “supreme.”


Yeah, that’s how they try to wiggle, but it still doesn’t cut it. It amounts to saying, “I find her credible in every detail except the one that matters most. In that instance, she’s not credible.” How convenient! The one, vital detail about which she was absolutely certain; that is, that Brett Kavanaugh was the perpetrator, is where all the supposed credibility breaks down. As I said, one can’t say, “I find her credible,” and then blow off the clincher. That’s just hypocritical obfuscation.


From a link you posted: https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/09/going-beyond-metoo-brett-kavanaughs-affected-outrage-explained/

Like a lot of people, I refer to his actions as “attempted rape,” but there’s a pretty good chance that this wasn’t his intent at all. At the time, he may well have thought of it as nothing more than horseplay, just a bit of fun and games with no intention of ever taking it past that. And intent matters. Being an infantile 17-year-old lout is way different than being a 17-year-old rapist.

Sorry, this is bullshit. And this is coming from a person who agrees with Bill Maher and Matt Damon - not all offenses are equal, I don’t think anything Al Franken was accused of goes as deep as what this 17 year old is accused of. But Drum is minimizing here and I don’t like it.


I did not pay as much attention to that point, but I see what you are saying.

1 Like

Very good and very relevant.


The great number of young men who who were sexual molested by pedophile priests of the Catholic Church told their stories and have in some instances sued the Catholic Church and won hefty sums of money from the coffers of the very rich church. They deserve compensation for their trauma as does any victim. What happens to women who speak out? The men are believed without question compared to women. Even there, the gender gap. How gross.

1 Like