Image 01 Image 03

All named eyewitnesses dispute Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford’s story

All named eyewitnesses dispute Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford’s story

All four of the people Christine Blasey Ford says were at the party in question deny being there, including a female Democrat.

Two big developments overnight may be the most significant developments so far in the story told by Christine Blasey Ford about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh:

FIRST. A woman Ford alleged was at the party in question, Leland Keyser, went on record through her attorney denying being at any such Party or knowing Brett Kavanaugh in high school. That mean all four people Ford alleged were at the party in addition to herself have denied Ford’s story. We covered the details in a late update to yesterday’s post.

The Weekly Standard has a report:

Christine Blasey Ford has claimed that four other people attended a small gathering at which she was allegedly assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh. Three of those people, PJ Smyth, Mark Judge, and Kavanaugh, have already denied any recollection of attending such a party.

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.

CNN reports that ” Keyser is a lifelong friend of Ford’s.”

Keyser previously coached golf at Georgetown University and is now executive producer of Bob Beckel’s podcast. Keyser is the ex-wife of Beckel, a former Democratic operative and commentator. A search on reveals Keyser’s only political donation has been to former Democratic senator Byron Dorgan.

Democrats will stand by Ford because this never has been about Ford or her proof, it’s about stopping Kavanaugh with “whatever it takes” (quoting Chuck Schumer).

Byron York has a good post on how believing is all that matters, For Democrats in Ford-Kavanaugh fight, believing is enough:

So what do Democrats do, with so little to go on? For some, the answer is faith….

Now, out of the Democrats’ faith comes a new argument: It doesn’t matter whether Ford’s charge is true. It is credible. And that is enough, because even a credible allegation — no word on who defines what that means — disqualifies Kavanaugh for a seat on the Supreme Court.

“The truth is, I believe her,” Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand said. “She has a credible allegation against Judge Kavanaugh.”

Some academic Ford supporters lent their scholarly credentials to the credible-is-enough argument. “The existence of credible allegations against Judge Kavanaugh should be disqualifying,” wrote Cardozo Law School professor Kate Shaw in the New York Times. “If members of the Senate conclude that a credible accusation of sexual misconduct has been made against Judge Kavanaugh, that should be enough to disqualify him.”

In The Atlantic, Brookings Institution scholar Benjamin Wittes took the argument to its illogical extreme. Because of the political sensitivity of the situation, Wittes wrote, Kavanaugh “cannot…seek to discredit a woman who purports to have suffered a sexual assault at his hands.”

“Even if [Kavanaugh] believes himself innocent, even if he is innocent,” Wittes concluded, “the better part of valor is to get out now.” That is, to withdraw his nomination.

So there it is: Ford’s supporters believe in her because they believe in her. They think a credible allegation is enough to disqualify Kavanaugh. And even if that allegation is not, in fact, true — even if Kavanaugh is innocent — he is still disqualified. In the current battle, Kavanaugh’s opposition is essentially faith-based, trying to create an environment in which there is no way he can win.

#MeToo, the movement weaponized against Kavanaugh, has become a religion where the accusation by a woman must be believed regardless of the evidence. What we have seen develop over the past several years with kangaroo courts on campus now is the governing philosophy of the Democrat Party.

SECOND. As York pointed out, all we have to go on so far as to evidence supporting Ford is what was told in the initial Washington Post story that revealed Ford’s identity. Ford and her attorneys cooperated with WaPo in launching that story.

But it turns out WaPo was not entirely truthful in its presentation. Kimberley Strassel obtained a key email, and explained the deception in a Twitter thread:

1) More big breaking news, which further undercuts the Ford accusation, as well as media handling of it. A source has given me the email that WaPo reporter Emma Brown sent to Mark Judge, one person Ford claims was at the party. This email is dated Sunday, Sept. 16, 2018

2) The email wants a comment from him. The subsequent story would reveal Christine Ford’s name, and give details of the supposed “assault.”

3) One part of the email to Judge reads: “In addition to Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, whom she called acquaintances she knew from past socializing, she recalls that her friend Leland (last name then was Ingham, now Keyser) was at the house and a friend of the boys named PJ.”

4) This matters for two big reasons–Ford’s credibility and WaPo’s. The subsequent WaPo story would go on to cite Ford’s name and details, and also list notes from a therapist that Ford told this to in 2012. Read carefully what WaPo reports, the same day it emails Judge:

5) “The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.”

6) Wait, say what? WaPo reports publicly that Ford says it was “four boys,”even after WaPo reporter tells Judge that Ford had told her it was three boys and a girl.

7) So first, huge problem: This was just a week ago, and we have Ford giving two different accounts of who was present. Four boys. No, three boys, one girl. Either way, therapist notes from 2012 definitively say four boys, which Ford didn’t dispute. But now… a girl!

8) Other problem: WaPo’s reporting. Reporter has for a week had the names of those Ford listed as present. One is a woman. Yet it writes a story saying FOUR BOYS. Why? Maybe a mistake. But if so, why did WaPo never correct that narrative?

9) What, you can’t find Keyser? She has lived in the DC area a long time. The paper had no trouble tracking down the other two men (btw, who also denied such party). And why not publish Keyser’s name? It published the other men’s names.

10) In its most recent update tonight, WaPo writes: “Before her name became public, Ford told The Post she did not think Keyser would remember the party because nothing remarkable had happened there, as far as Keyser was aware.”

11) Wow. “Before her name became public, Ford told…” That is WaPo admitting that it had the name, and had Ford’s response to what would clearly be a Keyser denial, but NEVER PUT IT OUT THERE. Again, why? A lot of people have a lot questions to answer.

So WaPo withheld evidence that, had it been made public with the initial report, might have cast doubt on the credibility of the accusation.

As of this writing, there is no final agreement between Ford and the Judiciary Committee as to the terms of her appearance. So while Thursday is the designated date, there is no actual agreement to show up and testify under oath to a story contradicted by every single person other than herself who allegedly was at the party in question.

Will she show up?

We will update this post throughout the day with additional developments.


Amy Chu Responds To Attacks On Her Because She Supports Kavanaugh

Part of the Total Personal War on Kavanaugh has been to try to destroy people considered friendly or favorable to him. One of those people was “Tiger Mom” and Yale Law Professor Amy Chu. HuffPo circulated a story based on the claim of a single unnamed student that Chu and her fellow law professor husband Jed Rubenfeld told students interested in clerking for Kavanaugh that Kavanaugh required a “certain look” in female applicants and that they had to look like models. There now is a formal Yale Law School investigation of Chu’s husband.

Chu has been in the hospital for weeks, but now finally has responded:

NBC News has the story:

The prominent Yale professor reported to have advised prospective female clerks of Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh to dress a certain way issued a statement on Saturday calling the allegations, “outrageous” and “100% false.”

Amy Chua, a vocal supporter of Kavanaugh, denied allegations that she advised women on their physical appearance to help them land the prestigious clerkship.

“I always tell students to prep insanely hard — that substance is the most important thing,” Chua defended in an email to the school’s law community. “I advise them to read every opinion, including dissents, the judge has ever written as well as important recent cases from the circuit and Supreme Court.”

The law school professor, who is also known for her best-selling book on parenting titled “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother,” was alleged to have told students that it was “not an accident” that all female clerks on Kavanaugh’s staff “looked like models,” according to The Guardian on Thursday.

In her email on Saturday, she said that she advises “students, male and female, to dress professionally — not too casually — and to avoid inappropriate clothing. I remind them that they are interviewing with a member of the judiciary.”

When this is over, and hopefully that will be soon, we need to reevaluate how we approach Democrats and #TheResistance. These are bad people who seek to destroy lives not just of their political opponents, but of anyone deemed friendly to or supportive of their political opponents. It’s total war for them.

Hearing 10 a.m. Thursday (Title Updated)

Apparently an agreement has been reached for the hearing to commence at 10 a.m. on Thursday, with the accuser to go first followed by Kavanaugh. But not all details have been worked out so far.

Dems to Grill Kavanaugh on High School Drinking. Seriously.

From the Washington Examiner, Democrats poised to grill Brett Kavanaugh on drinking, partying in high school:

Democrats are poised to ask questions about the drinking culture of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s high school when the judge faces the Senate Judiciary Committee following a sexual misconduct allegation.

“We want to hear — I would be wanting to hear what kind of environment it was in high school,” Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, said Sunday during an interview with CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“Apparently, there was a lot of drinking and partying going on,” she continued. “This is why we need an investigation. We need an independent investigation that lays all of that out for us, so there’s at least some chance of some outside entity, like the FBI, doing an investigation.”

Mystery 6th Partygoer?

In response to Kimberley Strassel’s Twitter thread (above) about the WaPo initial article, a WaPo reporter has disputed the math, and suggests there were 6 people at the party, not 5. That would contradict Ford’s letter to her congresswoman, at least so much of it as has been released:

“The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.”

All five people are now accounted for, including Ford, and all the other four named by Ford or her attorneys deny being there.

But now WaPo is claiming there were six people. Here’s the thread between Aaron Blake and Strassel. Blake is referencing this NPR interview with one of Ford’s attorneys, Lisa Banks:

“BANKS: OK. Well, I think much as was reported in The Washington Post, which was accurate. When in high school, Ms. Blasey was at a party in the early summer around her junior year, before her junior year, where she ran into or was there with four boys, two girls. Two of the boys were Brett Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge. Those at the party were drinking. She describes Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge as stumbling drunk.” (Emphasis added.)

So now there were six people? Is that why Ford has been delaying, to try to track down partygoer No. 6?

I would not be surprised by anything that happens between now and the Thursday hearing.

The Judge Has Calendars

NY Times reports:

Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh has calendars from the summer of 1982 that he plans to hand over to the Senate Judiciary Committee that do not show a party consistent with the description of his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, according to someone working for his confirmation.

The calendars do not disprove Dr. Blasey’s allegations, Judge Kavanaugh’s team acknowledged. He could have attended a party that he did not list. But his team will argue to the senators that the calendars provide no corroboration for her account of a small gathering at a house where he allegedly pinned her to a bed and tried to remove her clothing.

The calendars show, according to the person working for his confirmation, that he was out of town much of the summer at the beach or away with his parents. When he was at home, the calendars list his basketball games, movie outings, football workouts and college interviews. A few parties are mentioned but include names of friends other than those identified by Dr. Blasey.

Another woman?

This is the reason Ford’s team has been stalling. They’ve been hoping, and probably working on finding, someone else to make an accusation.

Drudge teases it:

Here’s the story (emphasis added):

As Senate Republicans press for a swift vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Senate Democrats are investigating a new allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. The claim dates to the 1983-84 academic school year, when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale University. The offices of at least four Democratic senators have received information about the allegation, and at least two have begun investigating it. Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote. The Democratic Senate offices reviewing the allegations believe that they merit further investigation. “This is another serious, credible, and disturbing allegation against Brett Kavanaugh. It should be fully investigated,” Senator Mazie Hirono, of Hawaii, said. An aide in one of the other Senate offices added, “These allegations seem credible, and we’re taking them very seriously. If established, they’re clearly disqualifying.”

The woman at the center of the story, Deborah Ramirez, who is fifty-three, attended Yale with Kavanaugh, where she studied sociology and psychology. Later, she spent years working for an organization that supports victims of domestic violence. The New Yorker contacted Ramirez after learning of her possible involvement in an incident involving Kavanaugh. The allegation was conveyed to Democratic senators by a civil-rights lawyer. For Ramirez, the sudden attention has been unwelcome, and prompted difficult choices. She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. 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.

In a statement, Kavanaugh wrote, “This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen. The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so. This is a smear, plain and simple. I look forward to testifying on Thursday about the truth, and defending my good name–and the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime building–against these last-minute allegations.”

The White House spokesperson Kerri Kupec said the Administration stood by Kavanaugh. “This 35-year-old, uncorroborated claim is the latest in a coordinated smear campaign by the Democrats designed to tear down a good man. This claim is denied by all who were said to be present and is wholly inconsistent with what many women and men who knew Judge Kavanaugh at the time in college say. The White House stands firmly behind Judge Kavanaugh.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


She names 5 witnesses and a house the ‘gathring’ took place in. It was not her house. Kav and the other three say it was not their house. So whose house was it? Not only was there no assault there is no crime scene. She is lying.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Elzorro. | September 23, 2018 at 11:11 am

    Not only has she lied, she tried to pull a bunch of other people into the lie. I bet those friends now distance themselves from Bush.

    Humphrey's Executor in reply to Elzorro. | September 23, 2018 at 11:34 am

    Earlier reports said four guys two girls at the party. Now just a total of five. What’s with that? And yes, who’s house? That SHOULD be an easy one to remember.

    Fiftycaltx in reply to Elzorro. | September 23, 2018 at 12:30 pm

    She is never going to testify. If the stupid R’s agree to Thursday, about Wed. the feminazi lawyer will introduce another lame excuse, “uh the bus had a flat and it will take 3 days to repair it. Can we make it next Friday?” Or something. ALL THIS IS IS A STALL! She has NO EVIDENCE! She has NO WITNESSES! VOTE MONDAY!

    Observer in reply to Elzorro. | September 23, 2018 at 1:51 pm

    How can anyone in their right mind call this a “credible” accusation? What is “credible” about a woman saying she was attacked at a party over three decades ago, she didn’t tell anyone until 2012, she can’t recall what year it happened, she can’t recall whose house it happened in, she has contradicted herself on who was there (4 guys and her, she told the therapist in 2012; now three guys and one girlfriend, she tells the media in 2018), and every single person she has named as a party-goer (Kavanaugh, Judge, Smyth, Keyser) say they have no knowledge of any such party.

    And although the accuser can’t recall whose house the party was in, or how she got to the party, or how she got home from the party, she can recall with absolute certainty that she drank only one beer while at the party.

    What part of this woman’s story is “credible”? It’s ludicrous.

      Edward in reply to Observer. | September 23, 2018 at 2:02 pm

      I believe her on drinking only beer. People tend to drink what they like and to continue drinking what they started drinking Though that probably doesn’t apply to children, it also is true that most children who are partying have an easier time finding beer than booze to fuel their parties.

        Observer in reply to Edward. | September 23, 2018 at 5:59 pm

        She told the Washington Post that she had only ONE beer at the party. Not that she was just drinking beer. She said she specifically remembered that she had only ONE. She claims that Kavanaugh and Judge had been drinking for hours and were “highly inebriated,” but she wasn’t drunk, because she’d had only the one beer.

      Evan3457 in reply to Observer. | September 23, 2018 at 4:50 pm

      At this point, it’s not a question of “right mind”, it’s a question of either pseudo-religion or corruption

      To be her story at this point, really believe her, you have to be a pathetic dupe, or completely corrupt. There is no longer a 3rd option.

    Canto28 in reply to Elzorro. | September 23, 2018 at 2:40 pm

    The point of her not remembering (really?) when or where IMO is likely that then Kavanaugh can’t prove he wasn’t there.
    It’s a setup designed so he can’t defend.

    LukeHandCool in reply to Elzorro. | September 23, 2018 at 4:09 pm

    In depressing, Orwellian times like these, I thank God for the Gorilla Channel.

    Even if she’s not lying: who cares? It’s sick how petty this b.s. is, and how the left is held to NO standard by the corrupt pussies of the GOPe.

    We were one election away from the loss of our nation: Donald Trump trumped the nightmare of hillary clinton being elected, and covering up all the sickness being exposed since the election of The Donald.

I believe she will keep asking for extensions and continue to make demands in order to take up more time. I do not believe she will testify.

    HamiltonNJ in reply to userpen. | September 23, 2018 at 12:29 pm

    Agreed. They’re trying to run out the clock.

    HamiltonNJ in reply to userpen. | September 23, 2018 at 12:29 pm

    Agreed. They’re trying to run out the clock.

    snopercod in reply to userpen. | September 23, 2018 at 1:05 pm

    She won’t testify because of this:

    18 USC §1001. – Statements or entries generally

    (a) . . . [W]hoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully

    (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any
    trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

    (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or
    fraudulent statement or representation; or

    (3) makes or uses any false writing or
    document knowing the same to contain any
    materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
    statement or entry;

    …shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years…

    If this section doesn’t apply to Ford, then it certainly applies to Feinstein (or Anna Eschoo who, it now comes out, was the original recipient of the letter).

She got the headline and the delay
– don’t have the facts
– but facts were never material to them
– this was an attempt to maumau him out

She will never testify and as I have been saying she is looking for a way to withdraw. She knows that she cannot keep digging the hole is in deeper.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Gersh204. | September 23, 2018 at 11:48 am

    I think Kavanaugh should eventually sue her for libel-defamation, with an offer to not collect damages if she names those behind this, and then sue them.
    That could completely clear Kavanaugh’s good name, and tar and feather those behind the operation.
    Not only is this libel-defamation, there are probably numerous other causes for action.
    The only way that mob driven personal attacks are going to stop is when people behind them are held personally accountable.

      After Kav is seated on SCOTUS, he cannot sue. Public Officials Act, but his wife and children can sue everybody who touched this charade. I would be thrilled if they did. Time for some real “back at cha/give me your money” action.

The slander campaign goes on all the while which is the reason for all this USSR type stuff from the start. We defeated the Soviets but forgot to keep an eye on ‘Democrats’ right behind us.

Don Surber had an excellent post today as well. He wrote that Grassley used Trumpian “strategic patience” to smoke the Democrats out.

I am inclined to agree. I suspect Feinstein thought that the accusation would be enough to derail Kavanaugh outright, in the #MeToo era. Or, after the Total War on Kavanaugh, he would either lose it publicly or withdraw himself.

I now believe that the denials were known by Grassley early on, and the slow roll out has and Trumpian battle tactics were not anticipated by the Democrats. At each step in the process, the Democrats have looked crazier and more desperate.

I must admit, I was almost in total despair until late last night. But now I anticipate the final phase of this particular battle. I have already purchased a “Congratulations” card, which I plan to send to Justice Kavanaugh as soon as he is sworn in.

Here is Surber’s take, for those interested:

    From what I remember, Bk waited three years for one judgeship ( during filibusster wars ).

    Anyone who thought he would withdraw or blow up is nuts. But then there was a lot of speculation that Thomas would do the same.

    civil truth in reply to Leslie Eastman. | September 23, 2018 at 11:19 am

    As I wrote as a comment at Surber’s site:

    The problem at this point is not the Democrats – but certain Republicans who have wanted to use Ford’s accusations as a fig leaf to vote against Kavanaugh because they didn’t have the courage to do so outright.

    That is the real endgame at this point: making the swamp too toxic for these Republicans to carry out their devious plan.

      stevewhitemd in reply to civil truth. | September 23, 2018 at 12:30 pm

      I think that’s correct. We’ve known all along that all the Dems on the committee would vote ‘no’, and that the only Dems in the Senate who would vote yes on the floor are Manchin and Heitkamp, with Donnelly being a wild card. And those three would vote ‘yes’ only if it was clear that all 51 Pubs were hanging together.

      So it’s been about trying to peel away a single Pub. People focused on Collins and Murkowski, but Flake has been the real danger. Make the vote 50-50, force Pence to vote, and the Dems have their talking points for the rest of the election. Or get two Pubs and kill it outright.

      So Flake wants to vote ‘no’; it’s pretty clear from his public comments. But he needs cover, as does Murkowski.

      That’s what this is all about.

      So Leslie Eastman’s comment is even more important: not just that Grassley is using Trumpian patience to smoke out the Democrats, but ALSO to smoke out Flake, Murkowski and Collins. The longer this goes, the more unlikely any of these three cave. Once it’s even more clear that 1) Dr. Ford isn’t telling the truth 2) there are NO witnesses who will testify on her behalf and 3) the Dems are violating all the basic norms of the Senate, the three amigos have to fall in line on a party vote.

      Grassley together with McConnell will deliver 51 Pubs; that then gets 2 or 3 red-state Dems, and Kavanaugh wins. The Dems can shriek but they’ll have lost their best wedge issue going into November.

    Whether it was a brilliant move will depend upon if his confirmation is delayed. The hearing is scheduled for Sept. 27. You would imagine needing a couple of days to digest it, and then some more to schedule a vote.

    Meanwhile, the SCOTUS starts up on October 1, doesn’t it?

    A delay is a needless victory handed to Democrats, when they shouldn’t have had any delay at all. I’m not sure who has been moved by the added spectacle. I’m not sure what has been gained.

    Leslie, with all due respect, it sounds like you’re whistling past the graveyard. I hope I’m wrong.

      I have been justifiably accused of being overly optimistic. However, it is how I retain my sanity while living in California.

      I think we will see which interpretation is most correct by the end of the week. I pray that I am right, and that the nation has gotten a good, clear look at the lunacy of the Democratic Senators…and the Republicans get a mandate to scuttle these useless, circus-like committee hearings and go directly to a vote on a SCOTUS nomination so this travesty is never again repeated.

I agree with Ms. Eastman: there is not there there. The Dem’s house of cards has no foundation whatsoever. They are using the #metoo meme to disparage Kavanaugh, but he said/she said is not enough, given no facts, no witnesses and, seriously, no memory of the actual event.

Get on the air and pound this home. It is a farce a la Anita Hill, and needs to be called our for that. If Flake screws us over, I would spend every day calling him out, and I suspect Trump will. Feinstein too. Throw grenades into her reelection campaign. Trench warfare time. These pointless delays and obfuscations, in all matters, not just this, are hurting the country.

The Democrat Socialists are clowns.

    Call your senators and tell them you support Kavanaugh.
    We don’t want anyone to go wishy washy.
    202-224-3121 for Capitol Switchboard

    Edward in reply to Dimsdale. | September 23, 2018 at 2:06 pm

    Apparently the current Democrap talking point is that Kavanaugh has no Constitutional right to sit on the SCOTUS and therefore has no right to the presumption of innocence.

    “The Democrat Socialists are clowns…”

    That’s what was thought of Hitler prior to his gaining absolute power. Many Soviets thought the same of Stalin.

    When you have clowns in government, your freedom – and your life – are at risk.

What is the position of Jeff Flake? He has little to lose at this point. The flimsiest of excuses will give him cover to do a “Thumbs Down”>

    Except that all his associates want Kavanaugh confirmed. Romney would have nominated Kavanaugh if he were Prez. I doubt Flake is going to do damage to himself or go against his principles to spite Trump.

      james h in reply to RodFC. | September 23, 2018 at 11:41 am

      Jeff Flake doesn’t care. He’s retiring. He would do about anything to spite Trump regardless of it hurting himself or the country. Trump said mean things about him, so he’s happy to sacrifice our future to get back at Trump.

        HamiltonNJ in reply to james h. | September 23, 2018 at 12:33 pm

        According to the Daily Caller Flake has already met with the heads of CNN and MSNBC, so he’s looking for a job as a regular panelist where he can trash talk Trump.

        Evan3457 in reply to james h. | September 23, 2018 at 12:35 pm

        This the situation is similar to Jimmy Carter’s. Jimmy was furious that the American people spurned him for “that idiot” Reagan, He’s spent the last 39 year pushing the American people by supporting the country’s enemies and attack the country’s allies whenever and wherever he could.

        So it is with Flake. He’s furious at Republicans generally and Arizona Republicans particularly for forcing out of his powerful and profitable Senate seat by forcing him out of the primary with so little support that he could not run again without being defeated. So he’s going to screw the party over by working to defeat Kavanaugh, trying to hand Trump a big defeat. This will allow him enough “cred” with the left to get a nice cushy “centrist” lobbying job, and possible a regular media job at CNN or MSNBC where he’ll be used as a “conservative” hatchet man against the president in particular and generally all Republicans who support the president.

Since evidence and serious testimony seem to have no relevance to this case, an in-person appearance by Ford seems superfluous. There’s nothing she’s likely to add to The Narrative that can’t be added just as well by Feinstein’s invisible letter and selective leaks to the enthusiast press. Of course with a personal appearance the D’rats can insist that any questioning is “bullying”. But if there’s no hearing, they can claim that that can only be evidence of a Repub plot and coverup. They can drag this out indefinitely if Ford doesn’t appear . . . if the Repubs let them. As before, all hinges on Collins and the Four Fruitcakes.

    I keep saying Grassley should subpoena the letter.

    Don’t believe anyone is wavering as much as the press reports.

    Reporters ask what they will do and they can give basically two answers:
    1) I’m voting for Kavanaugh.
    2) I want to wait to see her testimony.
    If 1. the press reports that the person is a sexist misogynist pig who already made his mind up. If 2. the press makes abig hoo hoo over how the guy is wavering.

    McConnell said yesterday that Kavanaugh would be confirmed. He wouldn’t do that unless he had the votes in hand.

      tom_swift in reply to RodFC. | September 23, 2018 at 11:32 am

      If McConnell has the votes in hand, he’d probably do best to blow off Ford, Feinstein and the whole circus immediately, and let them squawk and bleat as the Repubs proceed with business. That way the Repubs get the job done, and avoid looking like feeble pantywaists while doing it.

        practicalconservative in reply to tom_swift. | September 23, 2018 at 2:29 pm

        It is far from clear that McConnell has the votes. That may be why Grassley is allowing this to be dragged out. We may not see a vote until the new Congress is seated. Some of the ilk of Jeff Flake would vote no just for spite and a cushy job as go to Trump bashing “Republican” on MSNBC or CNN.

    Chuckin Houston in reply to tom_swift. | September 23, 2018 at 1:44 pm

    Her testimony might differ in a few important ways from the story we’ve been hearing the past 10 days. Just in enough ways to trigger a wild goose chase searching for new witnesses who may not even exist…. an “investigation that must not end until we have answers.”

    While at variance with her earlier letter and statements by her lawyer she probably couldn’t be charged with perjury since the letter was never given to the Judiciary Committee.

IF THINGS go as planned, Mrs. Ford will take control of the questioning almost immediately. Tears, rants, accusations… anything to avoid telling concrete provable facts while at the same time delaying the vote on Mr. Kavanaugh. Speculation will rule the day, sadly, since facts are absent. She must appear both honest and offended, without saying anything…and I think she’s up to the task.

All of this drama means nothing if there is a chance Kavanaugh could be accepted as the next SCOTUS judge. The Republicans worry me more than the Democrats; just imagine if John McCain was still throwing his weight around!!! The problem is that he’s wasn’t the Lone Ranger in being a deceitful Trump hating Republican. Actually, I think he loved Kankles a lot more than his president.

    Or she will suffer some sudden malady- a panic attack- and not appear at all.

      Another Voice in reply to lc. | September 23, 2018 at 12:37 pm

      I read today that she is driving east as she does not like to fly. I would venture to say she has a car “incident” on the way preventing her to make it in time and as it is a Thursday, delayed to the following week till she can get there. The following week it will be her camel that pulls up lame. Delay, delay, delay.

        Chuckin Houston in reply to Another Voice. | September 23, 2018 at 1:49 pm

        Will she travel with a convoy of her supporters, or will she drive under the radar? If the latter, I would bet that she is already in DC and the fear of flying claim is just BS. She apparently went into hiding days ago because of threats, but who is to say she didn’t flee to the DC area to huddle with her lawyers.

Yeah, she’s not showing. Got 10 bucks burning a hole in my pocket if anyone says differently.

Feinstein believes her because it harms Kavanaugh.

Congress should start looking into the billions Feinstein’s husband – Richard Bloom – made off sweetheart government contracts.

    txvet2 in reply to bw222. | September 23, 2018 at 2:34 pm

    If they start prosecuting legislators for using their offices to get rich(er), it’ll pretty much clean the place out.

Yup; she’ll testify. In for a penny, in for a pound. Evidentiary supports are irrelevant. Witness corroboration is irrelevant. Damn it, there’s a narrative that must be told! It doesn’t matter how transparently contrived or suspect the narrative is, and, its timing — just that it be told. For the good of all the women who have ever lived, who are living, and, who will live.

The presumption of innocence? Due process? Statutes of limitation/laches? Sterling professional and personal reputations and myriad character references from everyone that you’ve ever dated, worked with, professionally, or known, as a friend? Please. Those conceits are for fools. We are living in the “Me-Too,” era, rubes. Accusers’ accusations are to be BELIEVED, no matter what. Guilt is presumed — and, in the case of an accused party who happens to be a pasty-skinned white man in sore need of a tanning bed, guilt is doubly-presumed.

Kavanaugh’s innocence is utterly irrelevant — don’t you understand? Because, if he isn’t guilty, SOME OTHER pasty-skinned white guy must be! Accordingly, Kavanaugh must be used as a stand-in sacrificial lamb for the collective, presumptive guilt of every white guy who ever allegedly got away with some sort of claimed sexual advance or grope or what-have-you. Because other men have gotten away with sexual assaults scott-free, Kavanaugh must be made an example out of, as a collective deterrent.

It’s payback time, and, the Left is out for blood. It doesn’t matter who’s blood we’re talking about (so long as it’s not from a prominent Dumb-o-crat lecher and abuser, such as Bill Clinton, or, Keith “Hakim” Ellison) — but, the Leftists demand that blood be spilled, to appease the “Me-Too” Gods.

    guyjones in reply to guyjones. | September 23, 2018 at 11:23 am

    Also, this is just my own personal theory, unsupported. Pure gut speculation.

    I think Ford is a partisan sociopath, deeply emotionally disturbed, searching for “meaning” in some “cause,” and, situated in an unhappy marriage. I think she has either contrived this tale, outright, in search of her fifteen minutes of Joan of Arc messianic glory, to be lauded by adoring masses as an anti-Trump Valkyrie, flying to Valhalla, triumphant; or, she did suffer some sort of unpleasant incident back in high school, dimly-recalled, and, her partisan zealotry has caused her to retroactively latch on to Kavanaugh as the alleged culprit, for a multitude of reasons.

    Either way, we are dealing with the delusions and pathologies of a very troubled woman.

      AmandaFitz in reply to guyjones. | September 23, 2018 at 12:18 pm

      Who is Ford’s therapist? If it’s Dee Mosbacher or her wife, Nanette Gartner, the whole “recovered memory” thing from 2012 is suspect.

regulus arcturus | September 23, 2018 at 11:19 am

So WaPo withheld evidence that, had it been made public with the initial report, might have cast doubt on the credibility of the accusation.

This is a form of fraud. It is time to prosecute media outlets for this type of crime.

    Yes and Post reporter Emma Brown has known about Leland Keyser for a week, as she emerald her name to the other *witness* Mr. Judge. She said in a story, without naming Keyser that there was a female witness, who was described by Ford as not knowing anything untoward about the party. Does that mean, that based on Ford’s account of Keyser, the reporter never bothered to contact Keyser a week ago? She contacted interviewed and named the other two *witnesses* Judge and Smyth.

    Or did she speak with her a week ago and decide she wouldn’t use what Keyser said because it didn’t fit her propaganda?

    She clearly scrambled last night after CNN came out with their story about Keyser. And feebly tried in a Tweet, to cover up her failed reporting by Tweeting that Keyser – who doesn’t even know Kavanaugh “believes” Chrstine.

    Reporter’s name should be Emma Rubin Erdely Brown

Sexual assault is a serious allegation and I have been impressed with Sen. Grassley’s patience and dignity. I’ve also been impressed by the White House response. The initial statement by Mrs. Conway was excellent. Pres. Trump has even shown a great deal of restraint.

But at this point we have little left to investigate or review. No doubt its very interesting that Dr. Ford noted in her 2012 therapy session that the boy who attacked her was intoxicated. By extention it would be easy to imagine that so to were Smyth and Judge which means, of course they don’t recall – they were all too drunk! Dr. Ford ensuring that WaPo knows Keyser wouldn’t remember anything is also an amazing coincidence.

I feel bad for Dr. Ford, honestly. I believe something happened to her by someone at some point. That said, its difficult to see how this 36 year old allegation can move forward when Dr. Ford seems to be the only person with any knowledge of it. There is no physical evidence. There are no supportive witnesses. Reality is that Keyser states she’s never even met Kavanaugh much less been at a small, drunken party with him.

Call the vote – with or without her testimony.

    Mercyneal in reply to WillS68. | September 23, 2018 at 1:01 pm

    I was sexually assaulted at age 8, and never forgot the incident. I know that many victims do block memories of their assault until they are adults.

    However, I do not believe Ms. Ford. She seems emotionally unstable.. I would feel sorry for her had she and her team not done so much damage to Kavanaugh and his poor family

    Arminius in reply to WillS68. | September 23, 2018 at 1:39 pm

    I don’t feel equally bad about all 36 y.o. accusations.


What we need right now is a nice juicy accusation against Schumer. Or against several of the Ds on the judiciary committee, ready to go if they don’t shut up now.

Bucky Barkingham | September 23, 2018 at 11:29 am

What have the Leftist propaganda arm and even conservative blogs not been talking about all week? The Müeller Switch Project.

I may be hyper-cynical, but I honestly think Ford could completely back down. She could never testify, write a book and give the media years of subject matter and the left would be most happy.

After all, they still paint Thomas as a misogynist and serial sexual aggressor. They just need a remotely living/human source for their fiction to be question as “is it real”, for generations to come. Taint anyone who they don’t like. Over and over.

    But that doesn’t really do them any good. So a Justice is “tainted”. We don’t look at Court decisions and say, “well sure, the decision was 5 to 4, but one of the 5s was a “tainted” Assoc Justice, so it really only counts as a 4.5 to 4.” And if two Justices are “tainted”, then it counts as a tie vote. That would make “tainting” useful.

    Fortunately, that’s not how it works. A 5-4 decision remains a 5-4, no matter who does the voting or what some goof somewhere thinks of them.

      casualobserver in reply to tom_swift. | September 23, 2018 at 2:03 pm

      First, my effing phone created a down vote instead of a reply click. Mistake.
      Second, to me if this were about keeping Kavanaugh out of SCOTUS this false narrative would have surfaced earlier. There may be some who think they might turn the Senate in Nov, but most don’t. So the goal is to motivate the base by using a Kavanaugh confirmation to change the current voting dynamics. Keeping him out won’t create the same motivation. To me they way they reduce every single issue down to race and women proves it’s all they have. So they need more alarms to sound on those grounds.

Humphrey's Executor | September 23, 2018 at 11:38 am

The Dems are trying to determine if she presents well. If not, she won’t testify, simple as that.

    Wow, I never even considered this. If she testifies and looks like a nutter it will be very bad and so far she looks like a real nutter.

    I bet after the midterms info about this woman starts coming out that shows most of what she says is a lie.

    Also, where are all her students that would usually be supporting her “courage”?

Will Kavanaugh accuser really testify now that all her eyewitnesses dispute her story?

Since this affair was all orchestrated, I wonder why the D’rats didn’t foresee this obvious problem and do something suitably underhanded to head it off.

    C. Lashown in reply to tom_swift. | September 23, 2018 at 12:11 pm

    The perfect scenario would be for her to show up late for giving her testimony and Kavanaugh being advanced. She could claim she was ‘lost in traffic’ or ‘got sick’ or ‘fell asleep at the restaurant’ or…. She could then prance in and start screaming about disrespect, etc. etc. etc. The Left would love that little drama play and it would fit well with her past actions.

    About her HS years. There are plenty of testimonies how the group of young women she ran with were consistently something else other than the quiet studious type. Parties at homes with the parents gone, etc. To smart, to much money and to little supervision is a perfect equation for a dissatisfied adult (her current status). The Don Quixote of burned out sluts where intellectual attainment doesn’t really satisfy any longer….her students did not have a high opinion of her, and it could have been earned by her. Unhappy with her mate? Good Lord, can anyone imagine the horror of being married to this alligator woman? The home life would be a train wreck; time to take up reading historical biographies as a hobby.

      MajorWood in reply to C. Lashown. | September 23, 2018 at 1:02 pm

      We use the term “psycho-whore” to describe them. Typically, physically attractive women who over utilize their looks to get places, and then at about 35-40 it stops working for them, and they enter the “psycho” phase. Phil Hartman’s wife was their queen. In three decades I have encountered a lot of them who bounce in and out of AA over the course of 5-10 yrs or so, periodically cleaning up and getting it together to get into another relationship which is doomed to failure because root problems aren’t addressed. It is often a roller coaster where the hills get higher and steeper. About 1 in 5 ever stick with it, which is about the same success rate for anyone who ever entered the rooms. The TV show “Mom” is frighteningly accurate in this regard. I start laughing at the jokes halfway through because I’ve heard them live before on numerous occasions. So with people like CBF, I feel sorry for them, I am grateful that I am NOT them, and I know to keep firm healthy boundaries between us. We have one woman in my town who has destroyed enough men that a “her-name anonymous” group would be well attended.

      The sad part is that they are oblivious to the fact that experienced people see them coming from a mile off. Who is to say whether Grassley is naive here, or he is just knowingly reeling out line looking to see what else latches on. On a plus note, I would have to say that this whole escapade is bringing this tactic to a timely death. It will be pretty hard to fool people twice.

    MajorWood in reply to tom_swift. | September 23, 2018 at 12:35 pm

    Liberals are, for the most part, incapable of seeing the unintended consequences of their actions. Whoever came up with the statement “the path to Hell is paved with good intentions” was clearly thinking about a liberal acquaintance at the moment. Decisions made based on emotions and not facts or logic rarely turn out well. Just look at #metoo. 100 dems taken out, 0 Trumps.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to tom_swift. | September 23, 2018 at 2:03 pm

    They didn’t see it because they expected the mere accusation to torpedo his nomination that is why they held it until after his hearing before the committee. They couldn’t rattle him during questioning so they went with this.

    Except he didn’t back down like they expected. I also agree with Leslie that Grassley has been waiting so that they Dems can look more and more crazy and silly. The best way to prove that someone is nuts is to let the nut keep talking.

    I wouldn’t be surprised to find out one of the White House people have been working with Grassley on what to do.

    I mean look at Trump tweets, only 2? Really? I mean come on this is Trump who has Twitter diahrrea 99% of the time. So Trump makes 2 tweets on the subject that aren’t really bad for Trump just enough so it looks like “typical Trump”

    In the meantime you have Ford’s people making massive demands that they know aren’t going to fly. You have the moron Senator from Hawaii going on national television saying that Kavanaugh doesn’t deserve a Presumption of Innocence because of how he decided some cases.

    The longer this goes the worse it is looking for the Dems.

    Besides at this point about the only way that Ford doesn’t look like a complete nutter is if she shows up with video of the alleged assault or a handwritten letter from Kavanaugh admitting to the attack. Both of which would already have been spread all over the place if they existed.

    So Grassley knows what the deadlines are so here is what I think will happen. They will have a 10 am hearing scheduled for Thursday. About Tuesday or Wednsday Grassley will schedule the vote for the afternoon on Thursday. Also about that time McConnell announce that the floor vote will be Thursday evening (which will be accompanied by much wailing, tearing of clothes, pearl clutching, and gnashing of teeth).

    The Senate will vote to confirm with a couple of Red State Dems voting yes. The Dems will use this as a campaign issue and might cause problems if they manage to retake either house, but I doubt it.

    This whole thing has had 3 real goals. First attempt to derail the nomination or at the very lease “taint” the nomination so they can bring it up anytime Kavanaugh makes a decision they don’t like (Just like they did with Thomas for so long.) [Accomplished]

    Second delay Trump’s nominations to the lower courts. This delay has kept them from confirming at least one group of lower court judges before the mid-terms were they are confident (overly so in my opinion) that they will retake at least one of the houses. [Accomplished]

    Third was to test an old strategy to see if it was still viable. If they can’t defeat the nomination through the usual means then see if the Thomas strategy was still viable. [Partially Accomplished]

    You could add having another issue for the Mid-Terms but I think this has blown up in their faces so badly that it won’t be really viable for that.

We’ve come a long way from the Salem Witch hunts!

There’s a column in today’s San Diego Union-Tribune talking all about how victims of real crimes and real trauma are all being triggered by this accusation. The writer seems to think that the mere request for some kind of proof for allegations is somehow equivalent to ignoring the existence of real crimes founded on real proof.

The column does not touch on the Ellison story, and how it fits in to the traumatization of real rape and stalking victims.

    puhiawa in reply to Valerie. | September 23, 2018 at 12:34 pm

    Let the writer identify a verifiable rape or sexual assault victim that can’t remember the date, place, time, location and gets every witness wrong.
    What a bunch of fabricated psychology that is.

Jonah Goldberg gave a great riposte to the whole “Believe women” meme…

“To Kill A Mocking Bird”

In 1984, George Orwell wrote: “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” What we are witnessing is the Demon-crats, lead by Not-So-Fine-stein, stomping on the face, as it were, of a good, decent, and honorable man, one who could be any one of us if it were shown we were standing in their way to get and hold power.

Roundly we hope and pray they will be defeated and “forever” will be no where near the horizon.

    If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.

    Right idea, but he got the details wrong. It’s not a boot, it’s a high heel.

      DieJustAsHappy in reply to tom_swift. | September 23, 2018 at 3:16 pm

      The heels will be worn by those who are more equal than others.

      Evan3457 in reply to tom_swift. | September 23, 2018 at 4:55 pm

      I don’t think so, tom.
      The high heel is just to get the foot in the door through token opposition. Once the door is blown down, it’ll be boots for everyone. Steel-tipped with a spike toe. Aimed at the sack first, and then at the brain.

Interesting to put CBF’s reaction to Ed Whelan’s since withdrawn post outlining how a young man who looked vaugely like Kavanaugh and lived in a house that matches the location and layout in her story better than any of the named participants against Leland Keyser’s claim to have not known Kavanaugh. CBF claimed to know both, as did Judge and I think PJ knew Kavanaugh at least, so if Keyser says she never knew Kavanaugh then the logical conclusion to draw (assuming the party occurred) is that somebody at the party identified the fifth person/third boy as NOT Kavanaugh, even though CBF keeps insisting that it was. I’m wondering now if Ed didn’t take one for the team to get CBF to make that statement, possibly having been tipped that Kesyer would be claiming to have never met Kavanaugh.

I am watching Sen. Hirono (D-Moron) on Jake Tapper and she makes me want to vomit. Such a ding-a-ling.

Kavanaugh was supposed to withdraw already because Collins and Flake were to go wobbly, likely prearranged by Feinstein. But the story is so weak even they now have second thoughts about using this ploy to make the court liberal.

Late Wednesday night Katz will send a letter to Grassley saying Ford would love to testify but her car broke down in West Virginia and parts won’t be available for a month. Need a 6 week posatponment.

I am guessing not. I must say her attorney Katz’s statement regarding Leland Keyser not remembering anything was very condescending and dismissive. Wonder when she knew Keyser denied all knowledge of this party, and even knowing Kavanaugh?

“When this is over, and hopefully that will be soon, we need to reevaluate how we approach Democrats and #TheResistance. These are bad people who seek to destroy lives not just of their political opponents, but of anyone deemed friendly to or supportive of their political opponents. It’s total war for them.”

So, you finally get it. Yes, we are in the middle of a Civil War, in this country, and have been since the end of 2016. And, as it does not appear that the liberal/progressives, including the Dems, will return to any semblance of decency in the near future, this will eventually turn into a shooting war. Look for increased false demagoguery and physical violence on the part of the liberal/progressives and the Dems. This will be used intimidate Republican legislators and candidates and to suppress non-liberal voters at the polls nationwide. The decent, law-abiding people of this country are rapidly being pushed to the point where they are going to have to resort to violence to protect themselves. Get ready. It is coming.

    tom_swift in reply to Mac45. | September 23, 2018 at 1:21 pm

    I doubt that they’ll make the mistake of bombarding a Federal fort a second time. They’ll use the frog-in-boiling-water approach to eradicate all signs of intelligent life and complete the Fundamental Transformation of the United States™.

      The liberal/progressives have beenusing the frog-in-the-boiling-water approach for 50 years. It was on the verge of paying off, in spades. Then roughly half the country, the deplorables, torpedoed that by electing Trump. What was the lib response?

      First, it was violence from Antifa, BLM and other liberal anarchist organizations. Then it was “The Resistance” within the government, including the Russian Collusion scam. Then it was unfettered lawfare. Then it was the #MeToo movement targeting men. Then it was the “Harass a Trump Supporter” campaign waged by the liberal politicians. We have recently seen a resurgence of Antifa violence. Now we have Legislative warfare. The violence on the left is escalating.

      As the elections get closer, there will very likely be an upsurge in physical and legal intimidation tactics from the left. This will include voter suppression by liberals through physical intimidation right around election day. There is no sign of the left stopping or even reducing the violence. If the Dems fail to take back any part of Congress, there will be an incredible upsurge in violence from the left. And, then there will be a backlash.

      Watch for it.

Addendum – I think my logic works even if you presume there was a sixth participant who could be Kavanaugh. I also think Keyser is not lying about not knowing Kavanaugh. That detail is somewhat extraneous to her denial. If she even suspected she might have met him, she could have worded it more like Judge or PJ’s denials of not being present at a party where Kavanaugh acted the way CBF alleges.

When this is over, and hopefully that will be soon, we need to reevaluate how we approach Democrats and #TheResistance. These are bad people who seek to destroy lives not just of their political opponents, but of anyone deemed friendly to or supportive of their political opponents. It’s total war for them.</blockquote

Agree, except why wait until the confirmation drama is over?

Unless it's on their terms:
The left doesn't want you in government.
The left doesn't want you to sell in the alleged free market.
The left doesn't want you to speak.
The left doesn't want you to do squat.

These people are control freaks. Unchecked, the story ends the same way around the world.

The only question is whether Grassley and the spineless GOP senate agree to some kind of resolution this year? What a laughing stock they have become.

Every lost second in the confirmation is a victory for them.
Meanwhile, the new Dream-Team are at this moment conspiring on how to force Grassley into error.
I seriously doubt that any of them actually want Christine to testify… who in their right mind would?
But, for the moment, they have won Thursday.
Between now and then… who knows?

It doesn’t matter if Ford testifies…the Democrats will have a new method of obstruction by the time Ford’s absurd fraud unravels. And the Republicans will just keep bending over for it.

    Colonel Travis in reply to D3F1ANT. | September 23, 2018 at 2:22 pm

    I seriously wonder if the (D)s thought it would go this far. Every witness she named has denied the story. Her story has holes and contradictions. She’s been coddled like a 4-year-old.

    I’m actually looking forward to this amateur hack falling apart on national TV.

    Democrats = hoisted
    Ford = petard

      Or they have something up their sleeve.

        I would expect the next letter to be delivered around noon on Wednesday.

          Or the blue dress. If the Dems don’t have another shoe to drop, what the heck are they doing? Do they really believe they can get away with this as it now stands?

          General comment on this whole disaster:

          As others have been forthcoming with their high school narratives, I will be, as well. I would never ever attend a drinking party with three (or maybe four) boys if I were the only (or only one of two) girls. That’s not a party, by definition. What Ford has described was a hook-up party, as they say today, but the same thing applied in the ’80’s. Any girl dumb enough to go to some guy’s house when there were three to four drunk teenage boys and only one to two girls wasn’t there for a party. Yeah, yeah, political correctness, blah blah. No normal girl with half a brain cell would go to a “party” with only five or six people present. That is NOT a high school party; that is all about hooking up, i.e. about having sex.

          That said, I think it’s moot because at this point, I don’t believe such a “party” ever even took place. No one knows about it, everyone Ford has provided as a witness has denied it, and no one apparently knows in whose house this supposedly occurred.

          Another weird point is the Ford attorney stating that it’s unsurprising the “lifelong friend,” Leland Ingham Keyser, has no recollection not only of this party but of ever even knowing Kavanaugh because she was not privy to the alleged attack. I can see her saying she didn’t know about the attack (well, not really. Two teenage girls who are best friends? Come on.), but let’s give the benefit of the doubt and agree that Leland didn’t know about the attack. How is it that she also doesn’t know Kavanaugh and states she was at no such drinking party? “I wasn’t told what happened at that party we went to at which Kavanaugh was present and attacked my friend” is one thing; “I have never met and do not know Kavanaugh and don’t recall any such drinking party” is quite another. And it’s this latter point the “witness” has made. She didn’t just not know of an assault, she didn’t even know about the party and has, to this day, never even met Kavanaugh.


          if we are expected to believe one woman over another as in this case, the entire #MeToo movement is confirmed as nothing but a sham. The supposedly attacked girl is telling the truth, but the girl who was claimed by the attackee to be present is not? How do you believe “all women” . . . except the ones who state that nothing happened and that she doesn’t even know the accused?

          What if I believe the latter woman’s claim? I’m all for hearing both women out and then deciding what I believe. I can do that, right? I just happen to believe the woman who is a “lifelong” friend of the accuser and not the accuser herself. I’m still believing one of the women who allegedly was there, but if the stories aren’t consistent, I am only a real woman if I believe the accuser? This makes sense how?

      I don’t know whether she will fall apart or not. But the fight is bigger than the girl who can’t fly. We are involved in a fight to the death against an entity which in the process of trying to overthrow our president and take over the country. And no one is coming to help. That’s right Col Travis. Kavanaugh is our Alamo.

Now I tripped over a thread that claims the mysterious letter was not even addressed to Feinstein, but rather given to her by the addressee.
Feinstein having the voice and the standing to mention it, yet refuses to offer it is for good reason.

1) When did Maryland change statute of limitation for felony sex assault? ex post facto?

2) How is this even a 4th degree assault when she is 15 and he 17 when the law apparently uses 4 years of age separation or minior and adult for these instances?

64 sex partners from high school through college and major drinking? When does addiction come into play? Reports are of a boy crazy troubled teenage girl. She is trying to rationalize her actions, behavior and marital problems on one person?

Need to see full notes by therapist and unredacted letter.

Go to Chu’s twitter feed and read the responses.

These people are insane.

snowshooze- saw that on Instapundit. She sent it to a CA congresswoman. Appears to be an attempt to get around the False Statements Act. Information supplied from a Congress person to a Senator regarding a nominee is specifically exempt from prosecution if I remember correctly.

“She began to enlarge upon the subject. With Julia, everything came back to her own sexuality. As soon as this was touched upon in any way she was capable of great acuteness. Unlike Winston, she had grasped the inner meaning of the Party’s sexual puritanism. It was not merely that the sex instinct created a world of its own which was outside the Party’s control and which therefore had to be destroyed if possible. What was more important was that sexual privation induced hysteria, which was desirable because it could be transformed into war-fever and leader-worship. The way she put it was:

‘When you make love you’re using up energy; and afterwards you feel happy and don’t give a damn for anything. They can’t bear you to feel like that. They want you to be bursting with energy all the time. All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simply sex gone sour. If you’re happy inside yourself, why should you get excited about Big Brother and the Three-Year Plans and the Two Minutes Hate and all the rest of their bloody rot?'”

George Orwell, 1984

We are working our way up to a war between the sexes. Among other things, this must destroy sex. That’s not a bug, it’s a feature. For some theoretical background on this, see my books.

“It’s total war for them.”
Why isn’t it total war for us? Do we have a death wish?

Who, where, and when?

Without corroborating testimony or physical evidence, we should burn the warlock and recycle his ashes. It’s a preemptive Choice to reduce post-birth burdens on the individual and society for the sake of social and economic progress.

Point of clarification. The current meeting of the legislative brach is the 115th U.S. Congress. It spans from January 3, 201 to January 3, 2019. So, is it at the end of the 115th when President Trump’s nomination of Kavanaugh to the SCOTUS expires, if not acted upon by the Senate?

Let me throw this log on the fire: What if Dr. Ford’s lawyers know she is lying, or have no reason to believe she will testify credibly? Who would be in greater legal jeopardy?

Pesky Code of Professional Responsibility 3.3:

“(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client or a witness called by the lawyer offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.”

Go ahead, lawyers for Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Let your client testify under oath for the very first (and perhaps final) time. You allow this and you will be complicit in her perjury. Come October, Dr. Ford will still have her cushy university job. The whole lot of you? I think not.

If all of the other evidence out there does not back up your client’s version of events, you reach a point where you “knew or should have known” that your client was perpetrating a fraud on the court.

Told you lot she was sitting on a go fund me gold mine!!

Look at how things played in 2016 Texas. Clinton played on the women are victim thin to the point where women picked up on the fact she was really talking about them.

It’s 2018. You are still not valid. Sez I a man who didn’t vote.

This farce, more than anything else has energized me and my entire family to vote against all the Democrats. As for the Rinos we should work hard to primary as many of them as possible. What the Democrats have started here of making an allegation without proof enough with which to bludgeon your opponent is a frightening precedent! After this any whacko will be able to say anything, no matter how outlandish, and will be believed, and to hell with “innocent until proven guilty.” It will now forever be “guilty, now try to prove you’re innocent and we won’t believe you anyway.” As for CBF, I think she has serious issues, not the least of which is a penchant for lying,

I really don’t care about a downvote but if you don’t agree with what I post, tell me why. When I’m wrong, I usually learn from the comment. It’s a dialogue. Right, Rags?

    Colonel Travis in reply to Redneck Law. | September 23, 2018 at 4:46 pm

    I have accidentally hit the down button and I know others have, also. Sometimes in those cases, the person often says so and apologizes.

    But yeah – it’s lazy. We’re all here for dialog, not to thumbs-up or thumbs-down like a gladiator ring.

    To your point above, there is genuine apprehension about this Ford woman. Feinstein already let that cat out of the bag, not thinking about her words carefully like a good little apparatchik.

    I would love to be in the offices of leftists negotiating with Grassley. Holy crap, he said he wants her to show up????

    Ragspierre in reply to Redneck Law. | September 23, 2018 at 5:30 pm

    Since you evoked (provoked) my response, here it is…

    You quoted the ethical cannon, but then go on to change the standard to “knew or should have known” from “reasonably knows”.

    Those are two vastly different requirements or standards.

    Most civil attorneys take on a case based on what they’re told by a new client. Good ones will fire a client they catch lying to them, and they test that over the course of litigation. But an attorney has no business BUT representing the client’s interests based on their good-faith acceptance of the client’s story (the opposing party has a story, too, and it isn’t my job to judge one against the other).

    When I wood-shed any witness (and I very thoroughly DO) prior to any testimony, the very first and last thing I impress on them is never to lie. I have a strong belief that most juries and judges can sense a lie. And when I go to trial, I have the belief that juries or judges will grant me credibility because I am very careful to tell the truth.

    But I’ve had opposing attorneys swear to documented lies in affidavits supporting their client. I’ve made bar complaints supported by documents. I’ve never seen one sanctioned by either the court or the bar.

      Rags… cool of you to come right to it and clarify!

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 23, 2018 at 7:49 pm


      A couple of minor notes. “…reasonably believes” (I misquoted). This is a defensive thing for a lawyer to raise if alleged to have committed malpractice by not allowing a lying client to testify.

      But the “knowing” part in the first part of the cannon is hard to prove. Good lawyers honor it internally.

Betcha she doesn’t testify. Washington Post reporter Emma Brown sat on Leland Keyser’s name for a week and never mentioned it, although she interviewed the two other men at the party.. Did she not report on her because Keyser’s information didn’t fit in with her propaganda or did she not bother to contact her because Ford told her she wasn’t an important witness. ? Perhaps Ford knew what Keyser would say would be damning and didn’t want it in the story

If that was the case, why did Brown just go along with Ford? She should have sought her out. Only reason she did is because CNN outed Keyser yesterday

    Joe-dallas in reply to Mercyneal. | September 23, 2018 at 6:53 pm

    Appears even less likely to testify –

    1) As of 6.47pm EST Sunday- national review is reporting that Kavanaugh has a calender from the summer in question
    2) 4 of the 6 people at named by the Christine state no such event took place (or was it 4 out of 5)
    3) As of 6:47 ESt, sunday, they are still in negotiations

    The more we learn, the less likely to testify.

    Joe-dallas in reply to Mercyneal. | September 23, 2018 at 7:03 pm

    Drudge is reporting – 5:56 EST Sunday –

    Insiders claim Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer are set to report a late twist in Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation… MORE…
    NEW YORKER to publish account of a new woman and a ‘dildo’…
    She is ‘Never Trump’, says a source. But best friend will say ‘She never told me!’… Developing…

Unless another fake accuser can be rounded up before Thursday to bolster her discredited accusation…Ford won’t testify IMO…..due to death threats and the trauma GOP senators plan on inflicting on her during
questioning….or some such leftist victimology crap

It does not matter. Thursday won’t happen. The appearance will be moved to next week. Next week Ford will be “ill” or something. This will continue.
It the committee allows this pretty soon the Surpreme Court. Will be in session, minus Kavanaugh, and Congress will be in recess.
Should the committee decides they have had enough, the democrats will boycott and not vote. Ford will remain the darling of the media and write a tell all book.
Those witnesses she mention. Clearly none of them want to be dragged into this. You’ll see no books or confrontations from them.

    Milhouse in reply to icabod. | September 23, 2018 at 5:45 pm

    Should the committee decides they have had enough, the democrats will boycott and not vote.

    That’s fine. Then it will pass without their votes.

    AmandaFitz in reply to icabod. | September 23, 2018 at 6:22 pm

    “Hospitalized” from “stress” brought on by Kavanaugh, Trump, and Republicans.

    As I understand it, she cannot be charged with lying to a congressional committee YET, since the letter was sent to her congresswoman, NOT to Diane Feinstein. All other people, Kavanaugh, Judge, Smyth, and Keyser are under felony penalty of perjury, BUT NOT FORD, YET!

Hi. Correct me if I’m wrong but I recall reading that one of them (Perhaps Kamala Harris) pointed out that this is not a criminal proceeding; it’s just the Senate in its advise and consent role, so rules that ordinarily would apply in a criminal or civil proceeding doe not apply.

    Ragspierre in reply to MAB. | September 23, 2018 at 5:50 pm

    That’s largely, though not entirely, true.

    You won’t hear any objections to testimony on the usual rules of evidence, for instance. There is no “hearsay” rule as an example

    There isn’t a judge who can rule on an objection for a non-responsive answer. Sometimes such hearings are remarkable for the lack of any responsive answer to questions.

    Nobody is going to object to a “question” that is really a sound-bite speech.

    So, while there are some areas where hearings like this vaguely resemble a trial, there are many others that make them distinguishable. Perhaps the most important being there will never be a “verdict” that comes out of one. That’s left up to you and I.

      Thank you. Frankly, I trust the bloggers and those who voice their opinions in the different threads much more than I do the Democrat members of the Committee, who will just bloviate.

      Not entirely true. I remember Oliver Norths lawyer abruptly objecting when Inoyoe (sp?) was making a speach and talking about “other people who were only following orders”. Inoyoe was discombobulated and never finished his point.

      An effective lesson in tiemly objectives if you can find the tape.

    tom_swift in reply to MAB. | September 23, 2018 at 7:48 pm

    it’s just the Senate in its advise and consent role

    Calling the current Senate burlesque show “advise” or “consent” puts quite a strain on the English language.

I hope she testifies. I’m looking forward to the following exchange:

Ford: Sit! Roll over! Speak!

Grassley: Woof!

“How often did you get drunk in high school, judge?”

“Less often than you did, senator.”

Christine Blasey Ford’s initial accusation may have been credibly believable and sufficient grounds for inquiry. However, when all four of her own “witnesses” cannot recall ever being at a high school party with Ms. Ford and Brett Kavanaugh in attendance, that’s when the accusation goes from credibly believable to incredibly unbelievable. Ms. Ford has already decided not to testify, but the Senate Judiciary Committee will not be informed of this decision until next Thursday at 10:00 AM.

Keeping calanders from that long ago– how “Sheldonish”
Now I believe those accounts of his classmates voting him ( or someone writing in his yearbook ) guy most likely to die a virgin.

What evidence can she testify to? All she will do is CRY CRY CRY (Johnny Cash).

I happen to reside in Montgomery County, Maryland, where the alleged attempted rape took place. Our county has no statute of limitations on either rape or attempted rape, and no jurisdiction in the land would be more sympathetic to Dr. Ford should she walk in and file a complaint. This is one of the reasons why I suspect that this whole thing is politically motivated theater.

The calendars show, according to the person working for his confirmation, that he was out of town much of the summer at the beach or away with his parents. When he was at home, the calendars list his basketball games, movie outings, football workouts and college interviews. A few parties are mentioned but include names of friends other than those identified by Dr. Blasey.

THIS, right here, is exactly WHY the Dim-wit-ocrats wanted Judge Kavanaugh to go first. So they would “know” when he was in town, and could tailor their testimony accordingly. Since Dr. Ford will go first, she’ll be asked AGAIN AND AGAIN about what the date was. Expect her to waffle.

As of right now, we have “sometime in the [maybe beginning of] summer of 1982.” They were hoping that Kavanaugh didn’t have some document stating that he wasn’t home during particular weekends, and could try to pin it down. But since there’s specific [if self-serving] evidence that he WAS NOT home during specific periods, if Dr. Ford testifies “well, it happened during [these particular weeks]” and Kavanaugh opens his files, pulls out a calendar, and says “Senators, I was 500 MILES away on the dates in question” that will be the END of Dr. Ford’s credibility (and for the love of GOD of Chairman Grassley’s patience).

This is all over but for the recriminations.

Drudge has story about Ronan Farrow finding another woman accuser, something about a dildo.. Story has not been released. This could be another story like the classmate who said she knew something but didn’t

I’m still waiting for, “I’m sorry I disobeyed the law. I promise it won’t happen again.”

“Apparently, there was a lot of drinking and partying going on,” she continued. “This is why we need an investigation.”

So the D’rats see their future as being the “party” Party.


We’ll they’re piling on now. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

Brett Kavanaugh Responds to Accusations by Deborah Ramirez: “This is a Smear, Plain and Simple”

Stormy Daniels’ lawyer Michael Avenatti claims he is now representing a woman with “credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge.”

Amazing that all of the “eyewitnesses” for both of these women don’t remember these things happening. It’s as if the accusers are lying…. “One of the male classmates who Ramirez said egged on Kavanaugh denied any memory of the party. “I don’t think Brett would flash himself to Debbie, or anyone, for that matter,” he said. Asked why he thought Ramirez was making the allegation, he responded, “I have no idea.” The other male classmate Ramirez said was involved in the incident commented, “I have zero recollection.””

    Remember, the charge doesn’t have to be accurate or true, only credible, which is now defined as anything the Democrats want to hear.

Why wouldn’t she testify? It doesn’t matter what she says. The committee members will vote based solely upon their personal best interest; the country and the truth be damned.

Is it too late to ask the Rocket Man to aim one their way?

Pi s s on your Poll FoxNews. Who did you make it available to, certainly not me. Your poll is fake.

“…because of Party dogma, mob bloodlust, because of Me-Too, because of past injustices; etc”

No. Just as for the Avengers series, the True Enemy was not Ronin or the Chitauri or Loki. They were all agents of Thanos.

Burning Kavanaugh at the stake was in service to their god, Abortion.

We need to remember that when it comes time for the counter-attack.

And really, we were unprepared that the people willing to define their own children as subhuman to excuse murdering them in the womb… that these same people would behave so monstrously in other venues?

And, while I think the Left is crazy with their TrumpHitler narrative, I am seeing similar threads from history weaving together a familiar pattern: Weimer. ..if the GOP and Conservatives can’t find the will to fight, the Right will start looking to the extremes for leadership.

I literally have a Christine in my background. College. She giggled. We both laughed. We were just making out. I wouldm’t think about except that I couldn’t deny that the encounter happened. And maybe she remembers things differently. But I didn’t force myself on her.

What if she felt intimidated, and I didn’t know it?

We can all be undone by this.

This Ford’s obviously an Edsel…..and if her eyes were any closer together, they’d rub.