(This is with a hat-tip to Santa Clarita Community Watchdog Group — a Facebook group) In a post on Facebook I came across this linked article to LAW ENFORCEMENT TODAY discussing a Democrat politician from Florida’s 18th Congressional district apparently putting out a “hit list” against Republicans. Here is a portion of that article:
Politics is hardly ever pretty when it comes for folks racing toward an election, and thus that means the election for Florida’s 18th congressional district is not immune from the likes of nasty rhetoric from people trying to get a seat at the table.
But when you have people calling for an “open season” for killing your political opponents, then that is where a line has been crossed.
The person who crafted a hypothetical call for murdering the likes of President Trump, Roger Stone and AG Bill Barr is Pam Keith. This Democrat is vying to land Florida’s congressional seat for the 18th district, but a Twitter post dating back to June 10th of this year puts her disturbing mindset on full display:
“GOP: Yeah he’s dead. But it’s not a big deal because he was a “bad guy.” Is that REALLY the new rule they want? Killing is OK if it’s a “bad guy?” Is it now open season on: Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Gates, Cohen, Trump, Barr, Kavanaugh, Lewandowski, Bolton, Pompeo, Papadopolous, Parscale.”
NATIONAL REVIEW is the original source for the LET article and notes the political struggle in that district, writing that “The race between Mast and Pam Keith for Florida’s 18th district is now considered a toss up by the Niskanen Center.” Continuing they note:
…The district has swung Republican since 2016, however Keith represents a first major challenge to Mast’s tenure.
Mast is a veteran of the Afghanistan War, where he lost both legs after a bomb exploded under him. Keith is herself a former judge in the Navy, and is an African American who has voiced support for the Black Lives Matter movement.
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairwoman Cheri Bustos has said of Keith, “Pam has never backed down from fighting for what’s right. She’s running for Congress to put an end to the petty partisanship that gets in the way of delivering results for Floridians.” However, Keith is not one of the candidates listed as part of the organization’s “Red to Blue” campaign to flip Republican-held districts.
With a competitive election on the horizon, focus has shifted to both candidates’ social media history. Keith was the subject of a profile in the Washington Post on Friday which did not mention her more controversial posts…..
Of course if this were a Republican, WaPo would have included those “controversial” posts. All this led to a humorous aside:
This made me think of a connection to the Democrat Party’s historical past. Here is my comment on that part of the group on Facebook:
You know, this reminds me of something from the Democrats past. What this is is a “hit card” that the violent arm [the KKK] of the Democrat Party use to carry around with them. They would use it as an identifier to kill or harass members of the “radical group” (Republicans who thought color did not matter) in order to affect voting outcomes. While we hear of the lynchings of black persons (who did make up a larger percentage of lynchings), there were quite a few white “radicals” lynched for supporting the black vote and arming ex-slaves. It is also ironic that the current Democrat melee is focused on racial differences.
I could go on, but I won’t.
Here is a short video discussing the matter:
“…virtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.” — Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), ix;
“…not every Democrat was a KKK’er, but every KKK’er was a Democrat.” — Ann Coulter, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (New York, NY: Sentinel [Penguin], 2012), 19.
After a decade of justice denied — under Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, John Brennan, James Comey, and others —BILL WHITTLEthinks he now detects a whiff of fear among those in that cabal. Former CIA Director John Brennan, usually a cool calculating man, seems frightened about the probe into how the Russia collusion investigation began.
On my RPT-FACEBOOK PAGE, I post many articles I read in full or in part during the week. Here is a “dump” of MANY of them (from newest to oldest):
By issuing putatively national injunctions, Attorney General William Barr said in a May 21 speech to the American Law Institute: “One judge can, in effect, cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen. No official in the United States government [rightly] can exercise that kind of nationwide power, with the sole exception of the president. And the Constitution subjects him to nationwide election, among other constitutional checks, as a prerequisite to wielding that power.”
…for the general public NOT TO KNOW is a diservice to them (or, a service to the Democrat Party) — Via TOWNHALL:
Here are the suspects in the line up: Beto O’Rourke, who is challenging Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), flat-out lied in a debate about his DUI arrest. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) accepted lavish gifts from donor and friend Salomon Melgen. For Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), one of the most vulnerable Democrats running for re-election, her husband apparently took advantage of a low-income housing tax credit program to make millions…for himself. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee’s staffer doxxed Republicans during the vicious fight over the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), who is running for governor, reportedly got physical with a female staffer. And Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), who is running to be the chief law enforcer of Minnesota, was hit with domestic abuse allegations that the media and his party seemingly decided to straight up ignore. Between all of these scandals, the media devoted less than 10 minutes of media attention from the Big Three, which was the focus of the study (via Newsbusters) [emphasis mine]:
When Texas Senate Democratic challenger Beto O’Rourke lied about a past DUI arrest, it was so blatant even the liberal Washington Post’s fact checkers couldn’t let it pass.
On September 25 The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler reported the following:
During a debate with his rival, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Tex.) was asked point-blank about a drunken-driving incident when he was 26: Did he try to leave the scene of the crash? The Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News had recently obtained police reports of the collision and reported that O’Rourke had done so. O’Rourke responded with what appeared to be a well-practiced answer. He flatly denied trying to leave the scene of the crash but added that driving drunk was a “terrible mistake” and that he would not provide an excuse….The police reports show not only that O’Rourke was highly intoxicated but that a witness to the crash said he tried to leave the scene.
Big Three coverage: 0 seconds
CBS This Morning co-host Bianna Golodryga interviewed O’Rourke on the October 5 edition of CBS This Morning, but she never asked about his DUI.
Back in April, Democratic incumbent Senator Robert Menendez was officially admonished by the Senate for accepting gifts from a donor in exchange for promoting his interests.
On April 26, The New York Times’ Maggie Astor reported the following:
The Senate Ethics Committee “severely admonished” Senator Robert Menendez on Thursday for accepting gifts from a wealthy doctor while using his position as a senator to promote the doctor’s personal and financial interests. It also ordered Mr. Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, to repay the market value of all improper gifts he has not already repaid.
Big Three coverage: Total = 49 seconds (CBS 34 seconds, ABC 15 seconds, NBC 0 seconds)
Sen. Claire McCaskill’s Husband Takes Advantage of Government Program for Poor to Make Millions
Earlier this month, the husband of Missouri Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill was accused of using a government program intended to help the poor, to personally enrich himself.
On October 5, Washington Free Beacon’s Brent Scher reported the following:
Since Claire McCaskill joined the Senate, her husband Joseph Shepard has made at least $11 million through a business that buys up tax credits awarded to Missouri affordable housing developers and sells them to high-income entities seeking tax relief.
Big Three coverage: 0 seconds
Former Staffer for Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee Arrested for Doxxing Republicans
At the height of the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, private information about Republican senators was illegally released to the public. A former Democratic staffer was arrested for the crime.
On the October 9 edition of FNC’s Special Report, anchor Bret Baier reported the following:
A former staff member for Democratic Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee is still in jail tonight. Bail was denied this afternoon for Jackson Costco. He’s accused of committing several felonies including the release of personal information about Republican Senators on the Internet.
Big Three coverage: 0 seconds
Democratic Governor Nominee Jared Polis Pushes Female Employee
Democratic candidate for Colorado Governor Jared Polis was accused of pushing a former employee.
On September 25 The Washington Free Beacon’s Todd Shepherd reported the following:
Jared Polis, the Democratic nominee for governor in Colorado, was involved in a physical altercation with an ex-employee in which he admitted to police he pushed the woman, according to a police report obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. The incident dates back to June of 1999 and took place at an office Polis had in Boulder for a company called JPS International LLC.
Big Three coverage: 0 seconds
Democratic Congressman and DNC deputy chair Keith Ellison, back in August, was accused of physically abusing an ex-girlfriend.
On August 13 The Star Tribune’s J. Patrick Coolican, Maya Rao and Jessie Van Berkel reported the following:
A former girlfriend of U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison has accused him of domestic violence, which Ellison — a DFL candidate for Minnesota attorney general — denied on Sunday
The alleged incident between Ellison and Karen Monahan came to light Saturday night after her son posted about it on Facebook. She then confirmed it on Twitter. Ellison responded Sunday in a statement released by his campaign: “Karen and I were in a relationship which ended in 2016, and I still care deeply for her well-being.”
Big Three coverage: Total = 3 minutes, 47 seconds (CBS: 227 seconds, NBC 50 seconds, ABC 0 seconds)
News item: Antifa mob overruns Portland, and Democratic mayor stands aside. (And to think, I had dinner once with Ted Wheeler a few years ago, before he was elected mayor of Portland, and thought he was a sensible human being. Another case of misleading first impressions I guess.)
Okay, so this last item is from 1851—the famous caning of Republican Senator Charles Sumner by southern Democrat Preston Brooks. But some things never change. And as Lincoln once said, “If we know where we are, and whither we are tending, we can better judge what to do, and how to do it.” And with the Democratic Party openly embracing mob tactics, we can make out a reversion to a very old pattern……….
As reports of political violence against Conservatives appear to be on the rise, the mainstream media this week tried to quell concerns that leftist protesters were participating in mob-like tactics. That’s not a good look for the Democrat party.
CNN reporter Brooke Baldwin led the charge by going as far as to ask a guest not to “use the ‘mob’ word here.”
Check out this compilation of liberal media outlets rejecting the “mob” label.
(RIGHT SCOOP) This is a great segment from Mark Levin’s show last night where he interviews both Joe Concha and Mollie Hemingway on the very apparent media bias and smears during the Kavanaugh allegations.
The media are working overtime not just to prevent the eminently qualified Brett Kavanaugh from being confirmed to the Supreme Court, but to destroy his life as well. One of their avenues is to make it impossible for him to coach girls’ basketball in the future.
USA Today’s Erik Brady wrote:
The U.S. Senate may yet confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, but he should stay off basketball courts for now when kids are around…
The nation is deeply divided. Sometimes it feels like we don’t agree on anything anymore. But credibly accused sex offenders should not coach youth basketball, girls or boys, without deeper investigation. Can’t we all agree on that?
The article, which was illustrated with a picture of Kavanaugh and one of the girls’ basketball teams he coaches, has since been dramatically revised. Apparently editors at USA Today realized that calling a human being a pedophile with precisely zero actual evidence of any sexual impropriety was indefensible.
“This is disgraceful,” wrote Jedediah Bila. “The man was accused of atrocities with no evidence, no corroboration, no proof. He’s undergone 6 FBI investigations in his life. Maybe wait to criminalize someone till you have damn good reason? I’m utterly disgusted.”….
…Stelter argued that the press is being targeted as part of a “hate movement” spearheaded by the president, who regularly decries the news media as “fake news” and “the enemy of the people.”
“He has been wonderful for the industry,” said Koppel, who currently serves as a CBS contributor.
“But that means what?” responded Stelter, a staunch critic of the Trump. “If ratings are up, that means what?”
“It means you can’t do without Donald Trump,” Koppel replied. “You would be lost without Donald Trump.”
“Ted, you know that’s not true,” Stelter said.
“CNN’s ratings would be in the toilet without Donald Trump,” Koppel declared.
“You know that’s not true; you’re playing for laughs,” Stelter said. “You’ve lived through enough presidencies to know there will be more presidents.”
After some back-and-forth over what CNN’s ratings would look like if Trump hadn’t won the presidency, Stelter said he didn’t accept the notion that broadcast networks were benefiting from money generated from the additional eyeballs Trump brings to the table.
“I reject the premise that these networks are making so much money off of Trump and thus, we benefit from it,” Stelter said.
Koppel joked that discussing CNN’s ratings was “a sensitive subject” for Stelter, and pivoted instead to MSNBC.
“Tell me for a moment if you will — let’s get away from CNN; sensitive subject,” he said to laughter from the audience. “Let’s go to MSNBC. Is there a moment of the day when they’re not focusing on Donald Trump, or some intimately related subject?”…
Hugh Hewitt this morning asked only for first time women callers to call in — he had over 30 women chime in. A truck driver (widow) with 6-children. A couple psychologists as well as a few prosecutors, lawyers, house wives etc. They were all for Kavanaugh, and many said they would be horrified if this happened to their sons. Others had only girls and are in full support of Kavanaugh. Some said they were never interested in politics like they are after a good man had his life destroyed.
Fallout from the Brett Kavanaugh hearings and the now-debunked allegations of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford has expanded the divide not only between Republicans and Democrats, but among women — the very group Democrats hoped to motivate for this year’s midterms.
As I’ve covered the hearings and the circus surrounding them, I’ve heard a constant refrain — conservative women are furious about the false allegations leveled against Kavanaugh. They resent the feminist call to believe the woman and thereby assume the man’s guilt simply because he is a member of the male collective.
Feminists have made a mistake assuming that they speak for all women. They don’t.
Many of us are mothers. We have sons whom we love and would defend to our last drop of blood.
We have husbands, fathers, brothers, and male friends we hold in high esteem. Kavanaugh referenced these relationships during his testimony when he pleaded with the committee to consider how they would respond if this happened to a man they loved.
Women across the country applauded, identifying more with Kavanaugh than Ford’s tearless, detached performance laced with inconsistencies, contradictions, and uncorroborated evidence….
“A majority of voters believe that Kavanaugh’s confirmation process was politicized and mishandled, with 69% calling it a ‘national disgrace,’” a poll from the respected Harvard CAPS – Harris group just found.
Voters are surprisingly unified when it comes to one thing: Chastising Feinstein for her role in the debacle.
“75% of voters believe that Senator Diana Feinstein (sic) should have immediately turned over the letter from Christine Ford to the Senate Judiciary committee in July, when she received it,” the Harvard CAPS – Harris poll found.
Even the Leftist rag SLATE has to admit November is looking like a “red wave”:
The accusations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh are widely perceived to be a boon to Democrats heading into the midterm elections in November. “The women of this country identify with Dr. Ford and will not forget what is happening here,” Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress, told NBC News over the weekend. “They are not angry, they are furious, and I expect the largest women’s turnout in a midterm—ever.”
In fact, however, the Kavanaugh spectacle seems to have evaporated the Democrats’ enthusiasm edge, according to a poll conducted Monday by NPR, PBS NewsHour, and Marist. In July Democrats were likelier, by 10 percentage points, to say the November elections were “very important.” That gap has now narrowed to a statistical tie. “The result of the hearings, at least in the short run, is the Republican base was awakened,” Marist head Lee Miringoff told NPR.
The change is particularly striking when comparing women in the two parties. Of all the cohorts measured by the poll (including Independent men and women), Democratic women are the only group to display less enthusiasm for the midterms this week than they did in July. Meanwhile, Republican women seem invigorated. In July, 81 percent of Democratic women said the November elections were very important, compared to 71 percent of Republican women. Now, Republican women are 4 percentage points likelier to view the midterms that way (83 percent to 79 percent). That’s a 14-point swing in female voters’ interest in the midterms—after the hearings, and in Republicans’ favor.
The titanic anger of progressive women has been a dominant theme in the media since President Trump’s surprise victory over Hillary Clinton two years ago. Two major books about female rage have been published this fall, including Good and Madby writer and reporter Rebecca Traister. “This political moment has provoked a period in which more and more women have been in no mood to dress their fury up as anything other than raw and burning rage,” Traister wrote in the New York Times on Saturday. “Many women are yelling, shouting, using Sharpies to etch sharply worded slogans onto protest signs, making furious phone calls to representatives.”
But women’s rage is not a chorus performed in unison. Atlantic reporter Emma Green talked with about a dozen female conservative leaders across the country for a story this week that puts flesh on the Marist poll’s finding: that the Kavanaugh hearings have electrified conservative women too. “I’ve got women in my church who were not politically active at all who were incensed with this,” the chairwoman of the West Virginia Republican Party told Green. The Indiana state director for the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List, Jodi Smith, told Green that “people in Indiana are angry.” In her view, the hearings are “one of the best things that could happen to us” as she looks forward to a hotly contested Senate election in the state in November.
The Marist poll is just one poll. And conservative women plugged into state and local politics were already very likely to vote (and vote Republican) before the Senate hearings. Their new outrage over Kavanaugh’s supposed mistreatment won’t make their votes count more. But their reactions may indicate that less-engaged Republican women are feeling similarly outraged, or even just ambivalent, about the Kavanaugh accusations.
The Kavanaugh hearings have riveted the country in a way that few news stories have the power to do. Almost 20 percent of American households watched portions of the testimony last week; that figure does not include people who streamed the hearings online or listened on the radio. In my own anecdotal observation, my evangelical-heavy Facebook feed has been taken over by posts about accuser Christine Blasey Ford’s credibility, often written by women, including those who rarely post about politics. “There is total manipulation of this process—it’s disgusting,” one woman wrote on an evangelical friend’s post that proposed it was impossible to know who was lying. “I believe she was assaulted [but] I simply refuse to believe it was him.” Others argue that Ford’s evidence is too thin, that Kavanaugh’s good name has been permanently smeared, that his family is suffering unjustly.…
In the space of three weeks, Democratic fortunes have turned in a shocking way. Just three weeks ago, on September 13, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) came forward with an allegation of sexual abuse against Brett Kavanaugh; just three days later, Christine Blasey Ford herself came forward in an interview with The Washington Post. At that time, Kavanaugh’s nomination fell into severe jeopardy. Democrats held an eight-point lead on the generic Congressional ballot according to the RealClearPolitics poll average. According to the latest Economist, Marist, and IBD polls, those numbers are now below six points. IBD has the race inside the margin of error; Rasmussen does as well. The enthusiasm gap for Democrats has essentially disappeared.
So, what happened?
Democrats woke the sleeping giant.
In 2016, Republicans showed up to vote because they were afraid of Hillary Clinton. But that concern pales next to the concern Republicans now have about the possibility of Democratic governance. Republicans have been treated to a front-row seat in a display of Democratic willingness to do anything to damage conservatives. Anything.
Republicans have known about lack of Democratic decency since at least 2012, when Mitt Romney was characterized as a potential slaver by Joe Biden and an emotionless, cruel sexist by many in the media. It’s one of the reasons so many Republicans voted for Donald Trump, a blunt instrument unwilling to back down in the face of threats, to face off against Hillary Clinton.
But Kavanaugh was one step further. Kavanaugh wasn’t up for election — he was a career judge, on one of the most prestigious circuits in America. He was a political moderate, with the support of many of his liberal colleagues. He was establishment. What’s more, he was a devout Catholic and a father of two.
And Democrats decided to ruin his life. Feinstein decided to hold back Ford’s allegations until the last minute, then drop them. Democrats decided to play up every weak, uncorroborated allegation, no matter how disgusting; they decided to promote the insane speculation of professional publicity whore Michael Avenatti. The media decided to endorse the idea that Kavanaugh, a respected federal public servant, was actually a secret gambler, alcoholic, ice-thrower, and gang rapist, throwing out their basic standards of journalism in the process.
And Republicans watched. So did independents.
What they saw scared the bejeezus out of them: a militant Left willing to ruin a man’s life based on unverifiable and uncorroborated allegations, for purely partisan purposes. And those Americans began to think: would the Democrats do that to me?…
…Cory Booker explain[ed] on Tuesday that “ultimately” it doesn’t matter if Kavanaugh is “guilty or innocent,” because “enough questions” had been raised that it was time to “move on to another candidate.” (NEW YORK TIMES)
What the American public see is something entirely different than what the Dems see:
Brett Kavanaugh is no longer a mere Supreme Court nominee. His name is now a veritable conservative cause — one that has united the right for the first time since the 2016 primary sent Republicans quarreling over Trump and Never Trump.
Whatever the outcome of the immediate contest, it’s increasingly clear that Democrats and the media establishment made an enormous miscalculation by waging total war against Kavanaugh and his family.
Liberals set out to cast the federal judge — amiable, well-credentialed, mildly conservative — as a demon. In the process, they have reminded GOP voters and all but the most stubborn Never Trump intellectuals that there are worse things than Donald Trump’s outbursts and the ineptitude of congressional Republicans…..
Trump merely repeats the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford — BOOM STICK!
WHAT WE KNOW SO FAR:
Here are two good posts from Facebook I wanna share as well as some updated testimony by the “witnesses named.” Here is the first by COMMON SENSE SOAPBOX:
I don’t know whose house it happened at or even what year it happened. I don’t know if I got there before everyone else or after. I don’t know how I got there or how I got home over 8 miles away (at the age of 15).
My life time friend doesn’t remember any of this (and the other 3 people I said were there testified under oath they don’t know anything about this).
I have a fear of flying , but have no problem jet-setting all over the world while on vacation. I’ve been on airplanes more in the past two months than most people in a year, but my fear is completely legit.
I don’t know who paid for my hotel and polygraph test( the afternoon of my grandmothers funeral, or maybe it was the next day, who knows). And guess what? I flew there. Oh and that polygraph, it was only two questions, neither of which were about Kavanaugh. But hey, I passed so that’s all that matters. And my PhD in psychology definitely, in no way, helped me with it or my testimony today.
My friends on the beach encouraged me to continue contacting the media with my story (because we were running out of time). I can’t name them, so we’ll just call them beach friends. Yet while giving such great advice, none were willing to be character witnesses. Meanwhile, Judge Kavanaugh had hundreds of character witnesses step up in a matter of days.
My lawyers, out of the kindness of their hearts, are helping me for FREE yet I have a “needed” gofundme page that currently is sitting at $473,622. I’m so desperately in need of help there’s even a second gofundme with $209,987. I promise though I’m not getting anything out of my testimony, that money is just going to cover my expenses.
I’m super smart. I have a PhD and I teach graduate students. I know lots of big words, but it should be totally believable that I don’t understand basic questions.
I was the only person in the United States that didn’t know Congress agreed to come to me instead of me going to DC. They really do care about my flying phobia after all.
Get the picture yet, America?
July 30 (to Dianne Feinstein): “It was me and four other people.”
August 7 (to polygraph examiner): “There were four boys and a couple of girls.”
September 16 (to Washington Post reporter): “There were three boys and one girl.”
The above graphic comes by way of POWERLINE (click it to enlarge), and here is the description: “…James Freeman observes that journalists seem to have lost interest in trying to ascertain whether Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee was accurate. Her story is shot through with holes. [….] He made the graphic illustration below drawing on public sources – ‘mainly the Washington Post and public legal documents’.”
USA TODAY continues to zero in on the “credibility” issues Blasey Ford has:
…Ford’s Story Changed In Key Ways
Ford’s retelling of the alleged sexual assault also included several conflicting accounts of the number of individuals at the gathering. The therapist’s notes stated that four boys had attempted to rape Ford. (Ford claims her therapist confused the total number of boys at the party with the number of boys who had attacked her.)
Later, in her July letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Ford again placed the number of individuals at the party at five, stating the gathering included her and four other individuals. But Ford then identified the four by name, and that group included three boys and one girl. And finally, during her Senate testimony, Ford unequivocally stated that “there were four boys I remember specifically being there,” in addition to her friend Leland Keyser.
Another significant change in the scenario came when Ford testified about the location of the party. She had originally told the Washington Post that the attack took place at a house not far from the country club. Yet, when Mitchell revealed a map of the relevant locations and reminded Ford that she had described the attack as having occurred near the country club, Ford backtracked: “I would describe [the house] as it’s somewhere between my house and the country club in that vicinity that’s shown in your picture.” Ford added that the country club was a 20-minute drive from her home.
Finally, Ford altered her description of the interior layout of the home and the details of the party and her escape. A “short” stairwell turned into a “narrow” one. The gathering moved from a small family room where the kids drank beer (and which Ford distinguished from the living room through which she fled the house) when she spoke to the Washington Post, to a home described in her actual testimony as having a “small living room/family room-type area.” And in an obvious tell to the change, Ford suggested that she could draw a floor plan of the house.
These four points are significant. First, because Ford had waited 30-plus years to report the purported attack, a therapist’s notes from Ford’s sessions with her husband countered claims that Ford had invented the assault to derail Kavanaugh’s confirmation. But the notes did not name Ford’s attacker. And the timing of the assault summarized by her therapist, whom Ford saw individually the following year, conflicted with Ford’s current claims against Kavanaugh.
The final three contradictions are even more significant because in each circumstance Ford altered her story only after Kavanaugh and Senate investigators had obtained evidence to disprove her original tale. For instance, investigators had obtained statements from Kavanaugh and the two men and one female lifelong friend of Ford’s, and they all denied any recollection of the gathering.
These Contradictions Mean Ford’s Not Credible
Investigators also spoke with former classmates of Kavanaugh, including two men who showed staffers the “party houses” near the country club during the relevant time period. And the detailed description of the home interior Ford originally provided allowed investigators to compare her story to the layout of the homes of the individuals Ford identified. But then Ford changed her description of the house’s floor plan.
Since media leaks of Ford’s charges first broke, Kavanaugh and his supporters have stressed the impossibility of proving the negative: Kavanaugh could not prove he did not attack Ford. But Kavanaugh could prove that Ford’s story could not possibly have happened by showing that none of the individuals at the supposed party lived in a house near the country club, and that none of their houses matched that described by Ford. Kavanaugh and investigators were poised to do so when Ford changed her story.
Open-minded Americans of all stripes should see that — emotions aside — Ford’s testimony is completely devoid of credibility: so much so, that Mitchell told the Senate this week that Ford’s allegations do not even meet the preponderance of evidence standard. That standard, which governs in civil litigation, asks whether it is more likely than not that an event occurred.
Yes, victims must be believed. But Ford is not a victim — at least not of Kavanaugh.
Okay, it’s time to just blow this wide open. “We should believe Dr. Ford! She took a polygraph! That means she’s telling the truth!” Sorry, but that’s not how this really works. In fact, if anything, the polygraph results further destroy her already flimsy story and lack of credibility.
First, the examination didn’t happen at a police station or even an office. It was at Ford’s hotel. Bizarrely, the person conducting the polygraph — who was a third-party examiner and not a law enforcement official — had Ford scribble down her nearly 40-year-old memory of the drunken party, and then asked her two vague questions.
1) Is any part of your statement false? 2) Did you make up any part of your statement?
This is absolutely important to understand: Again, the polygraph test didn’t actually ask the main accuser any questions about Kavanaugh. His name was never brought up by the interviewer. Instead, Ford was simply asked if she she believed her own hand-written statement.
It gets even more strange, as nowhere in that written statement does the name “Kavanaugh” appear, either. Furthermore, she scratches out corrections on her own statement and if you listened to her testimony yesterday, her story has shifted once again from the statement posted here. Oh, and icing on the cake, the statement to the polygrapher also contradicts the July 30th letter to Diane Feinstein and then another contradiction to her Washington Post story.
July 30 (to Dianne Feinstein): “It was me and four other people.”
August 7 (to polygraph examiner): “There were four boys and a couple of girls.”
September 16 (to Washington Post reporter): “There were three boys and one girl.”
The fact that Ford “passed” the polygraph based on a statement that she later herself contradicted while telling the story to other people shows how unreliable this “evidence” truly is.
HOT AIR has a great post on this discrepancy: “Pull the other one, sir. It’s got bells on it. Ford’s story, confirmed by nobody else she claims was present, including her lifelong friend, has been shifting and getting dodgier by the day.”
Ford’s lawyer took her to a polygraph examiner who concluded she was not being ‘deceptive’ with claims about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh
Attorney sent the results to Senate Republicans but refuse to show them a therapist’s notes from the sessions where Ford first discussed it
The polygraph test consisted of two yes-no questions
Ford and Kavanaugh are scheduled to testify in a Senate hearing on Thursday
Polygraphs, so-called ‘lie detactor’ tests, are generally inadmissible in court
The California woman who first accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault passed a ‘lie detector’ test in August that consisted of two questions.
Christine Blasey Ford’s attorneys sent Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans a report from a polygraph examiner who interviewed her on August 10.
But they refused on Wednesday to provide the committee with copies of notes from her psychotherapy sessions. Ford has said she first spoke to a therapist in 2012 about her memories of an ordeal.
‘Any request that she expose her private medical records for public inspection represents an unacceptable invasion of privacy,’ attorney Debra Katz wrote.
Katz, however, handed over the polygraph results to buttress her client’s accusation.
The test examiner asked Ford to write down a description of what happened to her at a high school party in the early 1980s, where she claims a drunken teenage Kavanaugh groped her and tried to remove her clothing while pinning her to a bed and covering her mouth.
AFTER INTERVIEWING HER ABOUT HER STATEMENT, THE EXAMINER ASKED HER A PAIR OF YES-OR-NO QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WRITTEN NARRATIVE.
‘IS ANY PART OF YOUR STATEMENT FALSE?’ HE ASKED, FOLLOWED BY: ‘DID YOU MAKE UP ANY PART OF YOUR STATEMENT?’ FORD ANSWERED ‘NO’ TO BOTH QUESTIONS.
The report doesn’t mention questions about any specific parts of her story.
The polygraph examiner wrote that her two responses were ‘not indicative of deception,’ and that the chance she was lying was a tiny fraction of one per cent….
(DAILY MAIL | emphasis added | editor’s note: there were no comparison questions asked in differing ways to create a baseline)
Earlier today Allahpundit looked at the negotiations taking place between Christina Blasey Ford and the Judiciary Committee. The GOP agreed to push the date to Wednesday but is requiring that Ford testify first. A Politico story published today points to one additional factor which is apparently motivating Ford to push the date of the hearing back as far as possible: She plans to drive cross country to the hearing in Washington, DC.
Chairman Grassley, obviously losing patience with Ford’s lawyer, had said in a letter that his staff welcomed the opportunity to meet with Ford at a time and place convenient to her to facilitate Monday’s hearing. And as Sciutto mentioned above, that offer Wednesday included a flight to California. [….] Of course, Democrats will frame this as Grassley “bullying” Ford into speaking before there’s been the full FBI investigation she demanded, but it really does seem as though Republicans are bending over backward to get Ford’s testimony on the record.
Now, here is the issue, this goes to show that this is not genuine but merely political. And it shows as well that Dr. Ford is willing to lie about even small items regarding herself to make a political point (by stalling a hearing):
CONSTRUCTION and COUNSELING TIMELINE LIE
In her testimony on Thursday, Dr. Ford stated that she put a second door on her house in 2012. However, in dated pictures, the second door was already installed in March of 2011 (GATEWAY PUNDIT):
Real estate and other records undercut a key part of Christine Blasey Ford’s account of why she finally came forward with charges of attempted rape against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh after some 30 years.
Ford testified last week that she had never revealed the details of the alleged attack until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. She said the memories percolated up as they revisited a disagreement they’d had over her insistence on installing a “second front door” when they had remodeled their Palo Alto, Calif., home.
The need to explain a decision her husband “didn’t understand,” Ford testified, pushed her to say she wanted the door to alleviate symptoms of “claustrophobia” and “panic attacks” she still suffered from an attempted rape allegedly perpetrated by Kavanaugh in high school during the early 1980s.
“Is that the reason for the second door — front door — is claustrophobia?” asked Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. “Correct,” Ford replied.
Ford never specified when the renovation took place, leaving a possible impression that it and the therapy session happened around the same time.
But documents reveal the door was installed years before as part of an addition, and has been used by renters and even a marriage counseling business.
“The door was not an escape route but an entrance route,” said an attorney familiar with the ongoing congressional investigation. “It appears the real plan for the second front door was to rent out a separate room.”
The discrepancy raises fresh doubts about Ford’s candor and credibility amid other inconsistencies, congressional and other knowledgeable sources say, including her purported “fear of flying.” Ford initially refused to submit to an interview with the committee because of an alleged airplane phobia, but investigators established that she had taken a number of flights back East this summer, and had previously flown to Hawaii, Costa Rica, French Polynesia and other South Pacific islands.
Since the second front door was installed, moreover, students from local colleges have lived in the additional room with the private door. In fact, under congressional questioning Thursday, Ford testified she has “hosted” various other residents there, including “Google interns.”
The attorney said the tenants call into question Ford’s claims about why she installed the additional exterior door in her home.
“Renters and a business operating out of Dr. Ford’s home would explain the added door,” he said. “Clearly, there were business purposes [for it], not just ones related to her anxieties.”…
Here is Christina Ford’s claim:
One evening that summer, after a day of swimming at the club, I attended a small gathering at a house in the Chevy Chase/Bethesda area. There were four boys I remember being there:Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth, and one other boy whose name I cannot recall.
All of Ford’s named witnesses of the party, both male and female, have now denied any recollection of attending such a party.
…”In fact, I have no memory of this alleged incident,” Judge said in his statement to the committee. “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 Dr. Ford describes.”
“I have no information to offer the Committee and I do not wish to speak publicly regarding the incidents described in Dr. Ford’s letter,” Judge added…
On Saturday night, Leland Ingham Keyser, a classmate of Ford’s at the all-girls school Holton-Arms and her final named witness, denied any recollection of attending a party with Brett Kavanaugh.
“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,” lawyer Howard J. Walsh said in a statement sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
On Saturday morning, after President Trump authorized a one-week FBI probe into Ms. Ford’s charges, Mr. Walshagain repeated her denial in a new statement to committee staff.
“Ms. Keyser asked that I communicate to the Committee her willingness to cooperate fully with the FBI’s supplemental investigation of Dr. Christine Ford’s allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh,” Mr. Walsh said. “However, as my client has already made clear, she does not know Judge Kavanaugh and has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”
The fact Ms. Keyser says she didn’t know Mr. Kavanaugh in those days is another set back for Ms. Ford.
…On Saturday, Keyser said through her lawyer in a letter to the committee that she was willing to “cooperate fully with the FBI’s supplemental investigation” into Kavanaugh.
“However, as my client has already made clear, she does not know Judge Kavanaugh and has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford,” the letter from Howard Walsh, Keyser’s attorney, said. It continued that Keyser “does not refute Dr. Ford’s account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford’s account.”
“However, the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question,” the letter continued.
Mark Judge, a friend of Kavanaugh’s who was allegedly present during the assault, has also said that he will cooperate with the FBI investigation….
“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,” Smyth says in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “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. Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women. To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the Committee may have.” (TOWNHALL)
Arizona sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell told Republican senators in a conference meeting Thursday evening that she would not charge Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh after hearing testimonies of the Judge or his accuser Christine Blasey Ford.
Mitchell, who took a leave of absence from Maricopa County’s Deputy County Attorney and division chief the County Attorney’s Office’s Special Victims Division to join the Senate Judiciary Committee’s team of attorneys for the hearing, “broke down her analysis” of both testimonies to GOP lawmakers. In a nearly 30-minute presentation, Mitchell went over the “facts that were established and not established” and concluded that not only would she not charge Kavanaugh based on the record of evidence from both parties, but would not even pursue a search warrant for the judge, which in virtually all cases would require the standard of probable cause to be met, Politicoreported.
NEW: Montgomery County (Md) police chief and prosecutor release letter “.. stand ready to investigate any sexual assault allegation from any victim where the incident occurred in our jurisdiction”
Swetnick (and Ford) could go to local PD and demand a criminal investigation, in contrast to the FBI’s background investigation. Ford’s claim is likely too thin to lead anywhere, though. And if there’s anything at all to Swetnick’s claim, chances are that the FBI probe will turn up something and Kavanaugh will be borked long before Maryland police got around to looking at it.
Here’s Avenatti today trying again to answer the question everyone had about Swetnick’s affidavit, namely, why she didn’t tell the cops about multiple parties she attended where women were allegedly being drugged and gang-raped. Avenatti’s theory: She was young ‘n stuff. No wonder Senate Democrats are keeping their distance.
EDITOR’S NOTE:If these women walked into the police station and gave testimony for a police report, if found lying could be criminally prosecuted. WHICH IS WHY THEY HAVE NOT DONE THINS! They know that even if caught in a lie, politics ties the hands of Repoublicans going after Dr. Ford. But not a local Police Department.
Wednesday on the radio, Mark Levin addressed the latest sexual assault allegations raised against Judge Brett Kavanaugh and pointed out a pattern:
“No witnesses, no corroboration, no evidence. That’s the pattern.”
Just some separate responses to some Facebook comments:
BTW, just as a passing observation. With what the Left feels is the “bar to reach” as a nominee to the Supreme Court, they are insuring conservative, Evangelical, Catholic, and Mormon nominees in the future. People who were raised religiously from birth, went to private schools (or were home schooled, then off to religious based (Catholic or Protestant) type universities (like St. John’s or Biola). In other words, I would bet a person being “left of center” their whole life would have less “firewalls” to act out their passions as students. And so, open themselves up to similar tactics… which will succeed at a greater rate.
I was thinking about this. IF THIS happened (which I doubt) I have two thoughts. The first being perception versus reality. I heard a caller on a radio show mention this and it made a lot of sense. she said that her and her friends went to quite a few parties as young teenagers… and that if she asked each one of her friends about an event that happened that one of these parties they would all have differing perspectives of the real event. Especially an event from so many years ago. We even see this in the gospels where a lot of times the writers saw the same event but wrote differently about it based on the importance that they saw in it or who they were writing to. So to dr. Ford’s perceived reality is probably different than the actual event — again even if it took place at all.
…if this did happen, is, I imagine most girls that went to House Parties and indulged in drinking and hanging out with teenage boys, we’re felt up at one point or another. Not always, but the idea is not far-fetched. For her to be traumatized for an entire life by not even having any clothes removed is more a commentary on the constitution of left-leaning women. They are the founders of safe spaces and the “snowflake” generation. Modern feminism weakens the woman, and does not empower.
A book that deals with repressed memories in modern psychology entitled, “Confabulations: Creating False Memories, Destroying Families,” shows that bad memories come out of these sessions were repressed memories are supposedly remembered again. I had heard that this is how Dr Ford finally recalled these memories. Whether this is true or not I do not know, but the book is a good read.
UPDATE For years I have known that hypnosis as a psychotherapy is dangerous. Most of the “alien abduction” stories, or contacts with spirits or past historical figures comes from some altered state of mind. Dr. Elizabeth Loftus mentions hypnosis in her TED-TALKS which I edit into the below audio a bit. I mentioned to a cyber acquaintance that I wonder if part of her (Christine Blasey Ford) therapy included hypnosis. This is what he said (I will emphasize the main point):
The timing of the specificity of her memories is certainly disquieting, but unless we learn more about her therapy, it will be hard for this to be more than speculation. It seems very likely that the name “Kavanaugh” never in fact came up until this summer, despite reports to the contrary.
True dat. HOWEVER, new information has come forward to bolster the hypnosis angle. Here is a great post by GATEWAY PUNDIT:
Christine Ford has not turned over her therapist’s notes to the Senate regarding her suppressed memories about Judge Kavanaugh abusing her decades earlier. This may be because if the memories were revealed through hypnosis they would be “absolutely inadmissible” in the court of law in many states, including New York and Maryland.
One of Christine Blasey Ford’s research articles in 2008 included a study on self-hypnosis. The practice of self-hypnosis is used to retrieve important memories and “create artificial situations.”
My cyber acquaintance’s response after reading the story above? “Wow” Continuing on now with the previous post:
If I’ve learned anything from my decades working on these problems, it’s this: Just because somebody tells you something and they say it with lots of confidence, detail, and emotion does not mean that it really happened. We can’t reliably distinguish true memories from false memories; WE NEED INDEPENDENT CORROBORATION. Such a discovery has made me more tolerant of friends and family who misremember. Such a discovery might have saved Steve Titus. We should all keep in mind that memory, like liberty, is a fragile thing. — Dr. Loftus
The only book I have read from years ago is “Confabulations: Creating False Memories, Destroying Families.” I would be curious to know if some of the counseling for Dr. Ford included hypnosis. I would also like to know the factors used to “recover” Ms. Ramirez’s memory. There have been many more studies based a lot more in control groups and the scientific method:
The Memory Illusion: Remembering, Forgetting, and the Science of False Memory
Witness for the Defense: The Accused, the Eyewitness and the Expert Who Puts Memory on Trial
The Myth of Repressed Memory: False Memories and Allegations of Sexual Abuse
Memory Warp: How the Myth of Repressed Memory Arose and Refuses to Die
Victims of Memory: Sex Abuse Accusations and Shattered Lives
National Review has an excellent article regarding the issue of false memories, “‘False Memories’ Are More Common Than You Think”. In this excellent radio segment by the JOHN & KEN SHOW I add video and end in humor to embolden the idea herein.
Dennis Prager reads from David French’s NATIONAL REVIEW article, “The Case Against Kavanaugh Is Collapsing“, regarding the latest allegations by Julie Swetnick and “gang rapes.” Democrats are giving this serious consideration, for the pure fact that they hate everything conservative. I would say enjoy, but a man’s life is being destroyed with glee by the Democrat Party.
MORE FROM FRENCH:
Let’s deal with the easiest issue first. The day before the hearing, Michael Avenatti released a “declaration” by a client, a woman named Julie Swetnick, claiming that she saw Kavanaugh “waiting his turn” for gang rapes after facilitating them by spiking or drugging the punch at high-school parties. She claimed that she went to multiple such parties and was gang raped at one of them, though she would only assert that Kavanaugh was present on that occasion.
The claim against Kavanaugh was transparently absurd. The idea that a person would repeatedly attend gang-rape parties and that the existence of these parties (which would presumably generate multiple victims and bystander-witnesses) remained utterly secret for decades is nonsense. But left-wing Twitter took up the claims with a vengeance, dragging anyone who dared express doubt through the mud. After all, didn’t the Catholic Church scandals prove that crimes could be concealed? Didn’t Sixteen Candles have a subplot about a drunk male geek sleeping with a drunk popular girl? (Yes, that was an actual article in Vox.)
But then the Wall Street Journaldid some actual reporting, “contacting dozens of former classmates and colleagues,” only to find it “couldn’t reach anyone with knowledge of [Swetnick’s] allegations.” Moreover, “no friends have come forward to publicly support her claims.” Again, she alleged repeated gang rapes. Yet there are still no other witnesses.
It also turns out that a former employer, a company called WebTrends, once sued Swetnick for defamation and fraud. Among other things, it contended that Swetnick engaged in sexually inappropriate conduct and then, “in a transparent effort to divert attention from her own inappropriate behavior,” made uncorroborated sexual-harassment complaints against the two men who accused her of such behavior.
Which brings us to Christine Blasey Ford. Yesterday, Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell released a memorandum to all Republican senators summarizing Ford’s evidence against Kavanaugh. I’d urge you to read the entire thing. Democrats are describing it as a “partisan document,” but it refers to multiple, undisputed facts that should cause even Ford’s most zealous defenders to pause and reevaluate her claims.
Ford has no corroborating witnesses, and even the friend she says was at the party in question has denied being there or knowing Kavanaugh at all. She doesn’t know who invited her to the party, where it took place, how she got there, or how she got home after, by her account, Kavanaugh attacked her. But the problems go beyond gaps in memory. She has offered substantially different accounts about when the attack occurred (she’s previously said it happened in the “mid Eighties,” in her “late teens,” and in the “Eighties.” Now she’s saying it happened in 1982, when she was 15) and how it occurred (her therapist’s notes conflict with her story of the attack, and she has offered different accounts about who attended the party).
All of these inconsistencies and omissions are important. None of them help her case.
For a brief moment after the hearing, Democrats believed that one of Kavanaugh’s calendar entries corroborated Ford’s story. A July 1, 1982, note says, “Go to Timmy’s for Skis w/Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi.” According to the Democratic theory, because Ford testified that “Skis” was short for “brewskis” (beer), and because Mark Judge and “PJ” were allegedly at the party where Ford claimed she was assaulted, this could be the documentary evidence that the party took place.
Interestingly, no Democratic senator explored this theory with Kavanaugh while he was testifying, and Ford’s team never raised it, either. It was left to be floated after Kavanaugh was off the stand. And now legions of Democrats are presenting it as “corroboration.”
It’s nothing of the sort. First and most important, “Timmy’s” house was ten miles from the country club Ford has described as in proximity to the party, and it did not meet the description of the house that Ford offered in her testimony. Second, the lineup of attendees does not mention a single female and is substantially different from the one she has described. And finally, the lineup includes “Squi,” the nickname for Chris Garrett, a boy Ford was (according to her testimony) seeing at the time. It would be odd indeed to remember a party’s attendees and forget that one of them was your then-boyfriend.
No responsible lawyer would bring even a civil case on the facts described above, and civil cases must meet only the lowest burden of proof. Believe women? Believe men? No. Believe evidence. …
Mark Levin reads from a memo, written by the sex-crimes prosecutor Republicans hired to question Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Kavanaugh at last week’s hearing (Rachel Mitchell), that points out numerous inconsistencies and lack of corroboration for Ms. Blasey Ford’s account of the sexual assault she says she suffered when they were in high school 36 years ago.. Enjoy, this is classic Levin!
The below is from ZERO HEDGE, not a favorite site to visit (some wild-eyed conspiracy hacks over there), but this is a good summation of the memo (the WASHINGTON TIMES and NATIONAL REVIEW has a good article as well):
…Mitchell listed several reasons for that conclusion. Courtesy of Heavy.com, these included:
Dr. Ford “has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.”
Under this header, Mitchell listed different accounts she says Ford gave, ranging from “mid 1980s” in a text to the Washington Post to “early 80s” in a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, among other things.
Dr. Ford “has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.”
According to Rachel Mitchell, no name was listed in 2012 and 2013 individual and marriage therapy notes. She did note that Ford’s husband “claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012” and added “in any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure of abuse is common so this is not dispositive.”
“When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific.”
Mitchell stated that Ford told The Washington Post that she told her husband she was the victim of “physical abuse,” whereas she has now testified that she told her husband about a “sexual assault.”
“Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question – details that could help corroborate her account.”
Among the lack of details, Mitchell said that “she does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it. She does not remember how she got to the party.” Mitchell continued: “She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity. Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party to her house.” The memo then continued listing more details.
Mitchell pointed out that Ford “does, however, remember small, distinct details from the party unrelated to the assault. For example, she testified that she had exactly one beer at the party and was taking no medication at the time of the alleged assault.”
“Dr. Ford’s Account of the Alleged Assault Has Not Been Corroborated by Anyone She Identified as Having Attended – Including Her Lifelong Friend.”
Mitchell wrote that Dr. Ford has named three people other than Judge Kavanaugh who attended the party – Mark Judge, Patrick PJ Smyth, and her lifelong friend Leland Keyser, formerly Ingham. She said another boy attended but she couldn’t remember his name, but Mitchell pointed out that “no others have come forward.”
“All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever,” Mitchell wrote. She stated that Keyser stated through counsel in her first statement that “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.”
In a later statement, Keyser’s lawyer said, “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”
Ford testified that Leland did “not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.”
“Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged attack.”
Mitchell wrote that Ford wrote in her letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein that she had heard Kavanaugh and Mark Judge talking to other partygoers downstairs while hiding in the bathroom after the alleged assault but testified that she could not hear them talking to anyone.
Her “account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.”
Mitchell said The Washington Post’s account of Dr. Ford’s therapist notes say there were four boys in the bedroom when she was allegedly assaulted. Ford told The Post the notes were erroneous because there were four boys at the party but only two in the bedroom.
In her letter to Feinstein, she said “me and 4 others” were at the party but in her testimony she said there were four boys in additional to Leland Keyser and herself. She listed Smyth as a bystander in a text to The Post and to a polygrapher and then testified it was inaccurate to call him a bystander. “She did not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser’s presence should have been more memorable than PJ Smyth’s,” wrote Mitchell.
“Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.”
Mitchell said that Ford doesn’t remember if she showed a full or partial set of therapy notes to the Washington Post. She doesn’t remember if she showed the Post the notes or her summary of the notes.
Mitchell stated that Ford refused to provide her therapy notes to the Senate Committee.
“Dr. Ford’s explanation of why she disclosed her allegations the way she did raises questions.”
Mitchell says that Ford wanted to remain confidential but called a tipline at the Washington Post. She testified that she had a “sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the president.” But she also said she did not contact the Senate because she claimed she “did not know how to do that.”
Mitchell also noted that Ford “could not remember if she was being audio or video-recorded when she took the polygraph. She could not remember whether the polygraph occurred the same day as her grandmother’s funeral or the day after her grandmother’s funeral. It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who was grieving.” (Ford’s attorneys have said she took and passed a polygraph.)
“Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.”
According to Mitchell, the date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was told that Ford’s symptoms prevented her from flying, but she agreed during testimony that she flies “fairly frequently.” She also flew to Washington D.C. for the hearing. Mitchell noted that Ford testified that she was not “clear” whether investigators were willing to travel to California to interview her.
She said she struggled academically in college, but she didn’t make the claim about the last two years of high school.
“The activities of Congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account.”…