Thread by @DrDannielle

1) Starting a thread to analyze the letter from Dr. Ford to Senator Grassley released yesterday.

Again all opinions are my own.

Praying for everyone’s safety and healing. And our Nation’s recovery from this terrible time.
#ConfirmKavanaghNow

2) It won’t be an extensive thread. Just want to highlight the stuff that jumps out at me. Would like to know what you all think as we seem to have done well crowdsourcing the analysis of the first one.

3) Letter is available online. Grabbed this one from a Tweet.

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1044301752659578880?s=21

4) Let’s start with the overall first impression.

5) @NonsenseEnd noted to me that it didn’t quite seem like the first letter and I agree. We are dealing with 2 different authors.

6) And clearly the 2nd author is more educated.

7) It would be helpful to compare these 2 letters with a sample that is definitely Dr. Ford’s own work, to compare the writing style. Can’t do that unfortunately.

8) The fact that 2 different people appear to have written letters by Dr. Ford is not in and of itself a huge problem.

People frequently get help with official communication.

But the 1st letter is so badly written, it’s hard to imagine that’s the “improved” version.

9) I am not sure what the impetus was for writing this letter. Was it the furor over the first one’s authenticity? (Doesn’t help.)

Wouldn’t you think Dr. Ford would have submitted an official statement for the record instead of wasting her time on this?

10) She has said in both letters that she’s just trying to do the right thing. But doesn’t this letter seem kind of like overkill?

11) We really can’t know the truth from a letter and it will be helpful to see her testify.

12) A couple of things jump out from the beginning. She isn’t working without help.

—Missing proper form of address:
The Honorable Chuck Grassley
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee

—Usually you would write down the street address, then say “by email” or “by fax,” etc.

13) Oddly contradictory request: “I kindly ask you to use your best discretion regarding this personal letter.”

Is it confidential or not?
She knows it’s going to leak.
Seems disingenuous.

14) “appreciate the chance to communicate with you directly”

....about what?

Usually you would state the concern right up front.

15) The use of hyphens here is incorrect. The phrase “short list” doesn’t need one.

Re: “similarly-qualified,” the sentence is awkward: “what seemed to me as similarly-qualified candidates.”

Reads like someone trying too hard.

16) “Congressperson’s office” — this sounds like someone who went to an elite, politically correct school and isn’t skilled enough to use gender-neutral language smoothly.

For example, you could say: “I contacted Representative Eshoo.”

17) “couldn’t NOT do”

This sounds like a twentysomething talking casually. Where is the lawyer?

And what is the point of this missive again? To restate the first letter? We just don’t know.

18) It’s “selection from a list” not “selection among a list.”

19) I am not trying to be a jerk by deconstructing this letter.

I am sorry for the pain Dr. Ford is experiencing.

20) “agony yet urgency”

I continue to feel that a twentysomething wrote this.

Older folks would probably look at those words on the page, think of “The Agony & The Ecstasy,” and choose other worFLzP

21) “a civic duty”

I sort of feel like this statement is disingenuous again.

Is she saying she felt a duty to stop him, because he is morally compromised?

Or is the duty to warn, then let the Committee decide?

If the latter, why the circus?

22) She says she felt a mixture of strong emotions but the letter leaves me cold.

23) It’s Judge Kavanaugh, not “Mr. Kavanaugh.” Or is this a passive-aggressive expression of disrespect?

If you’re trying to get the empathy of a Senator, why would you be disrespectful to the candidate?

Again, where is the lawyer? Or are we bypassing the lawyer?

24) Being deliberately disrespectful in a passive-aggressive way using narrative is what twentysomething Leftists do.

25) In saying this, my goal is to try and help figure out, again, who wrote the letter or substantively edited it with an eye toward deducing whether we are dealing with an anti-@POTUS political operative.

26) “Mr. X’s actions, while many years ago, were serious and have had a lasting impact on my life.”

— this reads like something a lawyer would write. It’s a formal statement of impact.

27) So maybe this was written/edited by multiple people.

28) “minimize collateral damage” - that is an odd way to say it

“to all families and friends involved” — also odd. Just very strange.

Typically you’d say “minimize any further trauma to all concerned.” (She is after all a trauma-focused psychology professor and researcher.)

29) Maybe the point of this letter is to prove she isn’t lying.

30) Just noting an inconsistency with respect to referring to Grassley vs. Feinstein. Grassley’s title (Chairman) is omitted in favor of the more generic “Senator,” but Feinstein is called “Ranking Member.”

Could reveal political bias.

31) “sending” -

Sending how? By email? Fax? Postal mail? Hand delivery?

I would be curious to establish proof of the delivery method.

32) “I have one motivation...to tell the truth”

In my opinion, people who go out of their way to claim to have “one motivation” (and especially “to tell the truth”) are hiding their real motivation, it isn’t just one, and it isn’t exactly the truth.

33) “My sincere desire is to be helpful”

Similar comment as above. People who promote their “sincere desire” overtly and repetitively are typically not telling the truth.

34) “media TV show”

Never heard of this term. Does she mean a “spectacle?”

35) Death threats are terrifying, but why mention them adjacent to non-deadly requests to appear on TV?

36) “person to person” should be “in person”; at the bottom there is the use of the term “persons” —stiff and overly formal.

Could be a political strategy to convince people one at a time, before the testimony.

37) (End.)

38) @threadreaderapp unroll