Quantcast
Home / Commentary / Ford, Ramirez and a Woman Named Broaddrick

Ford, Ramirez and a Woman Named Broaddrick

As with the first allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, his second accuser, Deborah Ramirez, levels a claim of sexual abuse supposedly witnessed by others.

As to why this accuser came forward, Ronan Farrow, co-author of the New Yorker piece that broke the story, said: “She came forward because Senate Democrats came looking for this claim. She did not flag this for those Democrats. This came to the attention of people on the Hill independently, and it’s really cornered her into an awkward position. That’s why she took the time to think about this carefully. She said, point-blank, ‘I don’t want to ruin anyone’s life,’ but she feels this is a serious claim. She considers her own memories credible, and she felt it was important that she tell her story before others did without her consent, because so many people on the Hill were looking at this story.”

Ramirez claims that Kavanaugh sexually confronted her at Yale. According to the New Yorker: “In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. ‘I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,’ she said.”

After six days of “assessing her memories”? What exactly does that mean?

She named witnesses. About her allegation and the supposed witnesses, The New York Times wrote dismissively: “The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.”

This brings us to the sexual assault allegation against Kavanaugh made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. She named three witnesses: Mark Judge, Patrick J. Smyth and Leland Keyser.

Judge, whom Ford claims was in the room during the alleged assault, put out this statement: “In fact, I have no memory of the alleged incident. Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford’s letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner that Dr. Ford describes.”

Smyth, through his attorney, issued the following statement: “I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post. I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”

Keyser’s attorney issued the following statement: “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

So, in summary, Ford and Ramirez claim they were sexually assaulted or abused by Kavanaugh, one in prep school, the other in college. As to the first allegation, Ford admits uncertainty about the year, the house where the attack supposedly took place and how she got to and from the party. She admits she told no one for decades and only recently talked about the attack while undergoing couples therapy a few years ago. The named witness to the attacks, as mentioned, has no recollection of this. As to the second allegation, Ramirez named witnesses, none of whom — so far — has corroborated her story. In court, these allegations would not survive a motion to dismiss, given the accuser’s burden of proof and the accused’s presumption of innocence. This, of course, is not a court of law.

But when Hillary Clinton calls for an FBI investigation into the Ford allegation, the word “shameless” is inadequate. Clinton, of course, failed to call for an FBI investigation into Juanita Broaddrick’s claim that she was raped by Bill Clinton. Broaddrick further claimed that, two weeks after the alleged rape, Hillary Clinton verbally threatened Broaddrick to ensure that whatever happened would remain private. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., says “there is no presumption of innocence” for Kavanaugh. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said, “Kavanaugh has a responsibility to come forward with evidence to rebut” the allegations. Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said Kavanaugh “bears the burden of disproving these allegations.” Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, said, “Not only do these women need to be heard, they need to be believed.”

Broaddrick was unavailable for comment.

COPYRIGHT 2018 LAURENCE A. ELDER

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

LarryElderLarry Elder is a bestselling author and radio talk-show host. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an “Elderado,” visit www.LarryElder.com. Follow Larry on Twitter @larryelder.

The views expressed in opinion articles are solely those of the author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by Black Community News.

Check Also

Acceptable Racism

How appropriate would it be for a major publicly held American company to hire a …

One comment

  1. Larry-
    Great dissection of the political hi-jinks being played by the Democrats. Thank you for your research and clarity. You are in my prayers.God bless you.