Commentary: Christine Blasey Ford's possible testimony reminds me of Anita Hill, although the allegations and the times are very different.
When Hill testified that Clarence Thomas sexually harassed her, our law firm felt like two worlds. The other lawyers, mostly male, thought Hill's complaints insignificant or invented. The secretaries (mostly female) believed Ms. Hill (as did I), and understood why her testimony mattered.
Ford says that Brett Kavanaugh (then 17, to her 15) tried to rape her, but was too drunk. His failure doesn't erase his mind-set. Or her trauma.
Her account of being strongly affected for years rings true. I've known many women who were permanently traumatized by bad conduct the man responsible might easily have forgotten. (My blog discusses examples.)
Her story is a credible mix of vividly recalled details (of what frightened her) and lost circumstances (whose house this happened at). She told it, identifying Kavanaugh, long before Trump nominated Kavanaugh, and she passed a polygraph test.
We haven't yet heard them testify under oath.
The third person in the room, Mark Judge, alternately denies the incident and denies recalling it, and has already fatally undermined his credibility. He said such behavior would be wildly out of character for the nice Catholic boys who attended Georgetown Prep then. However, Judge's two memoirs portray the school as a hotbed of debauchery where boys “lusted after girls” from nearby schools and drank themselves into stupors at parties. Further, he's written of “the wonderful beauty of uncontrollable male passion.” Jeez but it'd be fun to cross-examine that fool. (In Judge's 1997 memoir, he references a “Bart O'Kavanaugh” who passes out drunk and throws up in a car. He's also complained of “social justice warriors” who confuse rape with innocent demonstrations of masculinity.)
I recognize Judge's “ambiguous middle ground” where a woman feels tempted but hesitates, and a man's energetic encouragement “helps” her decide. Sometimes what a man considers seduction feels like force to a woman. But that has nothing to do with Kavanaugh and Ford. Ford was 15 and had shown no interest in lovemaking. She says she was clearly fighting him. He was allegedly too drunk to care about her wishes – or enjoyed her fear.
It's unfortunate that politics delayed bringing her claim to public attention, and to the FBI's attention. It's tragic that her allegation has evoked threats on her life so serious that she and her family have had to move out of their home. But she should speak, and should be heard. Whether or not his youthful conduct should be decisive here, this is an important public discussion.
If Ford testifies, the Senate Judiciary Committee will have powerful evidence against Kavanaugh: the sworn testimony of a sane and careful woman who has passed a polygraph. Judge's writings implicitly support her, by describing an atmosphere in which such conduct wouldn't have seemed unusual. Kavanaugh will say either that he never did such a thing (and never was so drunk he doesn't recall his conduct), or that he recalls no such thing and can't imagine that he'd have done it. Unless something in her words or manner strongly undermines her credibility, Ford's testimony will be the stronger evidence.
The FBI might then investigate. Someone might invite Kavanaugh to take a polygraph test.
Meanwhile, a fair observer might conclude that if his conduct at 17 didn't disqualify him from the Court, committing perjury at 53 should.