The Moment: Ford’s ‘indelible’ memory is Kavanaugh laughing |

The Moment: Ford’s ‘indelible’ memory is Kavanaugh laughing

The Associated Press
Christine Blasey Ford testifies to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 27, 2018. (Saul Loeb/Pool Photo via AP)

WASHINGTON (AP) — “Indelible.”

That’s the way Christine Blasey Ford described the details of what she says was a sexual assault by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on a summer evening three decades ago. Asked for the most vivid memory from that night, she did not name a physical violation. Rather, it was a specific sound she heard from Kavanaugh and the other boy she says was in the room, Mark Judge.

“Laughter — the uproarious laughter between the two,” Ford, her voice wavering, told the Senate Judiciary Committee at Thursday’s extraordinary hearing. “They were laughing with each other. … I was underneath one of them while the two laughed.”

The moment crystallized the national debate over gender, power and whom to believe in the #MeToo era under President Donald Trump. Thursday’s hearing in many ways turned on Ford’s credibility as a victim of and a witness to an event that Kavanaugh staunchly denies. Central to the proceedings was the quality of Ford’s memory and whether her account was believable, an unknown when she took her seat at the cramped witness table before the 21-member Senate Judiciary Committee.

With the hearing well underway, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., asked her what she remembered.

“What is the strongest memory you have, the strongest memory of the incident, something you cannot forget?” Leahy asked as Ford took a sip of coffee. “Take whatever time you need.”

Ford, a 51-year-old psychology professor, looked down and took a breath.

“Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter,” said Ford, referring to the area of the brain where traumatic memories are stored. “The uproarious laughter between the two and they’re having fun at my expense.” She looked down again.

“You’ve never forgotten that laughter, you’ve never forgotten them laughing at you?” Leahy asked.

“They were laughing with each other,” Ford replied.

“And you were the object of the laughter?” Leahy pressed.

“I was, you know, underneath one of them while the two laughed,” she said.

The spectacle riveted Washington and much of the nation. The U.S. Capitol was hushed, as senators and aides huddled in offices, watching. The hearing, played on televisions, rang through the West Wing of the White House as Trump flew back from New York — with the televisions on Air Force One tuned to the proceedings. Back in Washington, the president canceled a meeting with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and was expected to continue watching, aides said.

Kavanaugh himself has explicitly said he is not questioning whether Ford had been attacked “by someone, at some point.” But he says he’s not the one who attacked her. He told at least one senator that it may have been a case of mistaken identity. Republicans on the Judiciary Committee released a document detailing their investigative work that showed they had interviewed two men who said they believed that they, not Judge Kavanaugh, assaulted Ford.

Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah told CNN, “Somebody’s mixed up.”

But with an eager-to-please demeanor and zero show of anger during the questioning, Ford stuck by her account. It was true, she said, that there were gaps in her memory of that night in the early 1980s — she could not recall which boy pushed her into the room, or how she got home.

But the laughter, and the identity of her attacker, Ford said, remained crystal clear.

“Absolutely,” Ford said, later adding, “100 percent.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.