During the Senate confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh, it became clear that the allegations of sexual assault by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford had been originally made in some form all the way back in 2012. In light of this, Senator Booker asserted that it would be impossible to characterize the allegations as a coordinated political effort:

BOOKER: … Your family has gone through hell. Her family has gone through hell. She sat here, she told her truth. And — and you made the allegation that she was coordinating it. I do not think she was coordinating with her therapist…

KAVANAUGH: I — I did not say that — that’s…

BOOKER: … You said — I’m sorry. So you said that others were making a coordinated…

KAVANAUGH: … Coordinated by people in this room.

BOOKER: … Forgive me. You were talking about us and not her. So she was not — she was not doing this for a political effort in 2012 when talked to her therapist about this attack. She was not coordinating about this painful — when she made — painful experience when she made revelations to her husband.

She did coordinate in 2013, ’16, 2017, before you were even nominated when she revealed that it was you — with three different people — that had sexually assaulted her. That wasn’t coordination.


How could Judge Brett Kavanaugh have been so wrong about this?

closed as off-topic by PoloHoleSet, MichaelK, Paul Johnson, DJClayworth, Giter Sep 28 '18 at 15:47

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Skeptics Stack Exchange is for challenging notable claims, such as pseudoscience and biased results. This question might not challenge a claim, or the claim identified might not be notable." – PoloHoleSet, MichaelK, DJClayworth, Giter
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 4
    While interesting, this really, really does not fit as a topic for this stack exchange. It's entirely opinion-based and completely speculative. I'm voting to close. – PoloHoleSet Sep 28 '18 at 15:15
  • @PoloHoleSet, that would be fine. I would try to move it to politics.SE. – elliot svensson Sep 28 '18 at 15:18
  • 1
    @PoloHoleSet, I believe it's on-topic because it's a meaningful, notable claim by a US senator... true that the subject is "intent", a terrifically tricky thing to pin down, but there are facts at play that enable a fact-checking process (like skeptics.SE) to provide some good work. – elliot svensson Sep 28 '18 at 15:20
  • 1
    @elliotsvensson Skeptics SE is not your personal fact-checker for these hearings. This is the third question in less than two hours you have posted about this. This is an ongoing issue so it is not suitable you keep machine-gunning out questions about it. Take it in chat please. – MichaelK Sep 28 '18 at 15:25
  • 1
    @MichaelK, I appreciate your concern. Unfortunately, in US politics the next 72-96 hours are exactly when this kind of fact-checking work needs to be done in overdrive. I would kindly request that any "close" actions be done as "transfers" over to Politics. – elliot svensson Sep 28 '18 at 16:07

During Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's testimony, in which she talked about the time in 2012 when she first made these allegations during therapy, this is what she said:

Over the years, I told very, very few friends that I had this traumatic experience. I told my husband before we were married that I had experienced a sexual assault. I had never told the details to anyone — the specific details — until May 2012, during a couples counseling session.

The reason this came up in counseling is that my husband and I had completed a very extensive, very long remodel of our home and I insisted on a second front door, an idea that he and others disagreed with and could not understand.

In explaining why I wanted a second front door, I began to describe the assault in detail. I recall saying that the boy who assaulted me could someday be on the U.S. Supreme Court, and spoke a bit about his background at an elitist all-boys school in Bethesda, Maryland. My husband recalls that I named my attacker as Brett Kavanaugh.

After that May 2012 therapy session, I did my best to ignore the memories of the assault, because recounting them caused me to relive the experience, and caused panic and anxiety.


  • Presumably the context for "could someday be on the U.S. Supreme Court" was that Kavanaugh was regarded as a possible SCOTUS nominee if Romney won the election. – Tgr Sep 28 '18 at 14:59

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .