Blasey Ford's Female Classmate, Her Last Alleged Witness, Doesn't Recall Ever Attending Party With Kavanaugh
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
C hristine 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 S m yth, 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 OpenSecrets.org reveals Keyser's only political donation has been to former Democratic senator Byron Dorgan.
Keyser's denial, as a female lifelong friend and Ford's last alleged witness, is the most consequential development that has occurred since Ford publicly stepped forward last Sunday and detailed her allegations to the Washington Post . Ford's allegation of the 1982 incident was told to no one until a 2012 therapy session, when Kavanaugh was first touted in the media as the most likely GOP Supreme Court nominee.
All of Ford's alleged witnesses of the party, both male and female, have now denied any recollection of attending such a party.
Tags
Who is online
72 visitors
All of Ford's alleged witnesses of the party, both male and female, have now denied any recollection of attending such a party.
Still goin'.
The lies unravel themselves!
Indeed they are. Looks like Kavanaugh is screwed. The question now becomes will he merely lose his seat on the federal courts or will he end up in prison too?
You need to quit smokin' that stuff.
With none of Dr. Ford's "defense" coming forward and, so far, everyone concerned even denying the event occurred - why is Senator Feinstein pushing this so hard? She has backed herself into a corner with a no-win situation.
You can’t put the toothpaste back into the tube.
I don’t believe this was meant to completely derail Kavanaugh’s confirmation. I don’t think Grassley’s strategic patience was factored in initially by the dems and they figured he would forge ahead with the confirmation.
The dems verbiage gives them away.......”bullying” and “Take it or leave it”......to describe the the SJC’s willingness to give Ford a platform. They haven’t even updated their talking points because this was the intent from the beginning.........to tag the GOP with a MeToo moment before the midterms.
Well, Grassley called their bluff. Now dems are going to get tagged with weaponizing MeToo in a cheap political stunt.
LOL. Grassley is refusing an FBI investigation and refusing to allow any other testimony, not even from Mark Judge (for rather obvious reasons).
By the way it sounds like at least 4 of Kavanaugh's victims have come forward so far. Looks like the dam has broken.
Does the FBI take orders from Senators now?
Is that how you think it works?
SMMFH
No, but the request for reopening the background check has to come from the judiciary committee like it did in the Clarence Thomas hearings. In this case however Trump has already indicated that he won't allow it.
The FBI has concluded more than one background check on Kavanaugh.
Next?
Looks like Kennedy’s seat is going to be the central issue of the midterms....... in a lot of places where we cling to our guns and bibles.
The dam has broken means that some more leftwing idiots are still trying to sabotage an outstanding judge because of politics.
This whole shitshow has absolutely nothing to do with rape, or attempted rape, or Kavanaugh's qualifications.
This is only about political spite.
He sure did huh? Now they're coming out of the walls about this guy.
More women are lining up.
The clerk recruiter at Yale has already said Kavanaugh only wanted female clerks that were "model material".
No wonder they wanted a quick vote...they already knew about Ramirez before she came forward...now she's here. She was no surprise and they tried to beat her to the punch.
Gee I wonder why the gop are alll on board for pushing the nomination through with phony Kavanaugh. Could it be they're all complicit with all the charges against Rump and he could 'pardon' them all?
Interesting that the seed doesn't site the whole comment from the WaPo and CNN:
I don't remember every party I attended in HS, but I sure as hell remember the one where one of my friends almost ODed. I don't remember everyone who was at the party but I sure as hell remember who was in the bathroom with me trying to keep our friend from asphyxiating on her own vomit. Most of the people at the party, including my friends parents, didn't know what was happening as they danced in the other room.
Believing a friend isn't proof.
It would have been much better for Ford had her friend remembered being at the party where Ford claims she was, along with Kavanaugh, who she claims to not know.
Seems a little unreasonable to assume that she wouldn't have at least MET Kavanaugh, seeing as how there were only 6 other people there.
Agreed, which makes PJ Smyth's and Mark Ford's statements equally irrelevant.
Since y'all insist that this whole thing is a fabrication, it would have been much better if Ford said it was just her and Kavanaugh in the room. It would have been much better if Ford and her friend would have 'gotten their stories straight' and Keyser would have been able to say that she was there, knew Kavanaugh and knew what happened after the fact. If a PhD is going to fabricate a story, one would think that she would make up a good one...
Do you remember everyone you ever MET at a party in HS? I sure as hell don't.
Yeah, and that is the fucking problem when people don't come forward to report crimes until 35 years later.
This is a monumental waste of time, and done solely for politics.
Faulty memories, no physical evidence, no police reports, no medical records, no corroborating witnesses, no NOTHING except he said/she said.
Sorry, I won't jump on the bandwagon and convict based merely on the word of ONE person with NO evidence AT ALL.
Of course, I still believe in the rule of law and still think that to be found GUILTY of something, someone has to actually PROVE it.
No proof in this case whatsoever.
Hell, even Dianne Feinstein didn't think much of it until she realized that Kavanaugh was going to be confirmed.
Nope. Crimes that happened decades ago are uncovered AND their perpetrators are brought to justice all the time. Just look at the most recent arrests in CA.
That's right because if Ford was a Republican she wouldn't care if an attempted rapist was on the SCOTUS. /s
Which infers that either Ford is telling the truth or Kavanaugh is. Who wants an FBI investigation and who doesn't?
No one is 'convicting' Kavanaugh. What they ARE doing is placing doubt on whether he is worthy of a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS.
The Senate Judiciary Committee isn't a court of law.
There is exactly as much proof that it did happen as there is that it didn't.
Please post something, ANYTHING, to support that comment.
Crimes have been solved when they are decades old..... when there is DNA evidence, physical evidence, new video evidence, etc...
Ford has not released any verified evidence. Unless she has something new to reveal then her case is extremely weak.
Are you talking about the Golden State killer? If so, actual crimes were committed and evidence collected over years.
I did a search but could not find anything recently in CA outside of that .. the thing is a cold case has evidence, Dr. Ford has nothing for anyone to go on .. most solved cold cases were not reported 36 years later, they are solved 36 years later based on physical evidence and new leads..
This isn't very helpful. You're saying that if the story were more convincing, it would be more reasonable call it a lie, and that it's veracity is confirmed by how many holes are in it. That's kind of backward.
New leads? Like witnesses? Like people who knew about it contemporaneously? Like someone that the perpetrator or his buddy boasted about it in the locker room? Those kinds of leads?
NO. What I am saying is that an intelligent person could make up a much more convincing story IF they were intent on making up a story for purely political reasons.
The story, as it stands IS convincing. The FACT that Ford KNEW the consequences of coming forward lends it credence. She has NOTHING to gain.
Any doubt is too much for me.
How much doubt of the character of a candidate for a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS is too much for you?
There are none of these things, not even locker room boasting, the alleged crime is already 30+ years old before even being reported .. will there be a witness coming forward before another 30+ years go by?
The thing I think individuals seem to be missing is that this is the era of #metoo .. if someone knew about anything 'sexually' inappropriate regarding Kavanaugh, like a 'witness' to Dr. Ford's alleged assault / Kavanaugh boasting in the locker room - I am confident that the individual would have at least released a 'anonymous' statement by this point in time..
Be interesting to see if someone comes forwards as a witness, when will that reveal be? If the Senate decides to move forward with Kavanaugh confirmation, is that when someone remembers and confirms the story of Kavanaugh and the alleged violent sexual assault at the party that so far no one seems to recall happening... someone needs to remember the party first .. don't they?
I do not accuse Dr. Ford of lieing .. but things do not add up .. there is reasonable doubt that a semi can drive through. Feinstein created a considerable amount of that reasonable doubt .. by sitting on a sexual assault claim in a letter, against a Supreme Court nominee for an extended period of time before releasing said letter to the FBI in the 11th hour - the letter is dated July 30, 2018.
We are going to have to disagree on this one … I need a story that can at least be made sense of - I just do not see the there there.. I will happily eat my words and admit my mistake if this accusation can be proven - but as it is, the claim is baseless ...
When you consider that nobody other than Ford and no bit of evidence has put Kavanaugh and Ford at the same party EVER......it’s really not.
Nobody can even put them within a hundred miles of one another because nobody, including Ford, knows the when and the where.
I guess I was being too kind by saying "extremely weak". I guess I should have said "a snowballs chance in hell" of her story having any credibility.
She SAT on it for over a month.
SMH
I don't know how we would measure such intelligence, but you're assuming a lot about Dr. Ford (actually she goes by Dr. Blasey). She may not be as intelligent as you assume.
You're also assuming a lot about the hypothetical "intelligent person." People do this all the time. I'm as guilty of it as anyone. We think we know what we would do or think in a certain situation and then we assume it as fact in somebody else; but that attempt at logic is completely invalid. People do some crazy, unpredictable shit.
Sure, it does. A little, anyway. But if that assessment is all we can point to, it's not enough to take drastic action. We have already held up a vote for two weeks and are holding a hearing so she can speak. If her story had zero credence, we wouldn't even be doing that much.
Actually, this story was advanced (not by her) without regard for the consequences. Remember, this was supposed to remain confidential and it was leaked against her wishes. Her trust in her congresswoman and senator was clearly misplaced. They both owe her an apology.
It's funny, but I have tried to make that same argument about the apostles of Jesus, and atheists don't buy it. Oh well! But today, this lone woman makes a claim, people say she has nothing to gain and that's supposed to be enough. As I said above, I think it helps her position, but by itself our assessment of the risk/reward calculation isn't enough to make a determination, especially since the relative risks and rewards are not terribly substantial either way.
To be fair, we don't really know what she has to gain. I don't think she's losing much. I doubt her job or marriage is in jeopardy. We have little evidence on her. Some sites are reporting she scrubbed her social media accounts right before this came out. I can confirm that if you try to search for any accounts for her, you won't find them. (Maybe suspicious. Maybe just smart)
What little we do have indicates that she is a somewhat activist political partisan. Her attorney, Debra Katz, is a pretty high profile, politically active lawyer. That's pretty unusual for someone trying to lay low and not gain anything. Why was she ready with a story about passing a polygraph exam? Who does that? And has anybody seen this exam? Maybe a political victory is exactly what she was hoping for.
Maybe she just wanted attention. As disturbing as that sounds, it's a real thing.
Maybe she had a vivid delusion.
Maybe something actually happened to her, but not at the hands of Brett Kavanaugh.
We just don't know what happened, and it is apparent that we will never know for sure.
Ever asked your Senator or Congressman to act on your behalf Tex?
You can ask them for help AND ask to be remain anonymous. They are NOT allowed to release ANY information you provide to them without a waiver nor are they allowed to release an anonymous constituents identity without a signed waiver.
You know this HOW? There has been NO investigation into the event.
I am judging her intelligence based on her actions so far. Her choice of lawyers for instance. She just added another heavy hitter to her team.
I would LOVE to see that waiver.
I bet it will be along the lines of the "witnesses" who have all denied knowing anything about any alleged "rape".
Actually, it's a FORM used by ALL members of Congress. It may help if you review the statute that governs:
End of hand holding...
I realize this may shock some, but I meant the one waiver signed by Ford allowing Feinstein to release the letter.
I think you knew that and just wanted to appear condescending.
But it is possible you didn't know what I meant when I said I would like to see the waiver.
SMMFH
Apples and oranges Dulay. I do believe that a confirmation hearing for the next SCOTUS is a little bit more important than a personal request to your elected official.
Better yet, where is the released signed allowing her "local representative" to share with Feinstein?
Why yes, YES I did and my comment reflects it.
Why not go look up what a Congressional Privacy Act waiver entails. It would be more productive.
You obviously don't have a clue what I am talking about and aren't curious enough to research it for yourself.
When a constituent contacts a Senator or Congressman for help, they must waive their right to privacy. THAT waiver can and in many cases does allow the constituent to remain confidential. In short, unless and until the constituent agrees to REMOVE the requirement for confidentiality, their identity may NOT be divulged. Some cases allow release of information/documents, some do NOT.
Each case is unique and is predicated on the wishes of the constituent.
Another comment the illustrates a lack of curiosity.
The letter is ADDRESSED to Feinstein, NOT her 'local representative'. Ford's 'local representative' asked Ford to write a letter to Feinstein.
"On July 6 I notified my local government representative to ask them how to proceed with sharing this information,” Ford wrote, referring to how she reached out to Rep. Anna G. Eshoo, a Democrat ."
And where was your curiosity?
Really? Please DO tell us everything that you know about him and what lead you to that conclusion.
Where was yours?
BTW, why cite the NY Post, which chose to chop up and truncation of that part of Ford's letter? Why not cite the linked CNN article which actually contains the letter in total, rather than what the NY Post felt like 'sharing'?
Here is the whole paragraph, in CONTEXT:
So I suppose now y'all will claim that Rep. Anna G. Eshoo was 'stalling until the last minute' because she took the time to personally talk to Ford and investigate her allegations before counseling Ford to reach out to Feinstein with her letter.
If it's from CNN, it's totally unbelievable.
No, no one is saying Eshoo "waited 'til the last minute" - they're saying Feinstein did - and are asking for what reason.
How 'bout answering those questions - why and why.
Hey, YOU are the one that linked an article that relies on CNN for it's content, not I.
I have already answered those questions. DO try to keep up.
Please clarify WTF you are talking about.
Sorry about your friend, the individual was lucky to have had you there to protect them from themselves .. hopefully your friend learned from that experience..
I really did not attend many parties, unless they were outdoors .. we had keg'rs in the mountains …. that being said, I recall the house parties, especially the small ones and can tell you who was there .. why? because they were intimate 4, 5 .. 6 up to as many as 10 (but that is pushing it) people at a gathering, even if one does not know them at first, one at least becomes aware of who each other were rather quickly. My understanding is that the party in question was one of small attendance .. there are very few details provided regarding the alleged attack.. so I could be wrong, but things just do not add up ……………………. and I do not even support Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court...
I get in trouble for saying what I think .. so I must refrain from writing a book of my thoughts! : )
She is a very successful entrepreneur and a mother of three. Haven't seen her in about 10 years now but she always gives me a kiss and thanks me when we touch base.
Good for her : )
.. I am thinking you are her Hero!
It wasn't just me, my girlfriend at the time and her brother. It was a very hairy 30 minutes. She doesn't even remember exactly what happened but her brother told her later. She NEVER messed around with drugs and booze again.
Your friend was blessed to have had all of you individuals there to protect her..
it would have been much better if Ford said it was just her and Kavanaugh in the roo
Except in 2012, she claimed to have been attacked by 4 boys who were influential in Washington society. Didn't actually name Kavanaugh either in 2012.
It's comical watching the lefties spin.
Everything supports the accusers version, even when it obviously doesn't.
It's a witch hunt and she's Abigail Williams.
Again, since y'all insist that this is all fabricated, Ford could have told her therapist that it was just Kavanaugh. No spin required.
Nothing supports Kavanaugh's version either...
Salem's leaders acted on Abigail Williams' allegations with brutal consequences for those she accused and seemingly NONE for her. Is that really an example of what you think should happen here?
Man, you are going to have to take some Dramamine for all the spinning you're doing.
The fact that alleged witnesses - people who were supposed to actually be in the room - say the event did not happen tends to support his version.
The ONE witness 'in the room', who has written a memoir that bragged about being a black out drunk, stated that he didn't REMEMBER. He did NOT say it 'did not happen'.
Let's just sit back and admire this statement.
Actually, since her story keeps changing: In 2012, it was 4 boys who attacked her. When the letter was released and she came forward, it was 4 boys at the party and 2 attacked me. Now, on September 16, she told a WaPo reporter it was 3 boys and a girl at the party. My question is, which one is it, if this is true. Right now, with each passing day, Kavanaugh's version is the only one that has been consistent and rings of truth.
Kavanaugh said he didn't do it and does not recall the party in question. What other version are you looking for?
That is the liberal way of saying "guilty before...well, just guilty".
Pretty fucking funny, no?
I'm not looking for another 'version'. I merely stated a FACT.
No, it's MY way of countering a fact with a fact.
Ah, but the pesky problem Democrats have is that the accuser has to provide proof of their allegations. What has Ford provided us? A constantly changing story and witnesses that all deny or cannot ever remember any such thing happening and one witness who claims to not know Kavanaugh at all!
An account of her attempted rape by Kavanaugh.......and at least one other women has come forward with corroborating witnesses about her own experience.
That's how Fat Albert fell from grace too. Once the dam breaks lots of victims come forward.
Doesn't it strike you as odd that as soon as Ford's story and claims fall apart two more Democrat operatives/activists suddenly come forth, one of them represented by Stormy Daniels lawyer? To me, this looks completely scripted by the Democratic Party, since none of these things were caught by what I keep hearing were 6 FBI background checks of Kavanaugh. Cosby wasn't not vetted 6 times by the FBI for various Federal offices, so it is understandable that multiple women came out against him and took him down. In this case, if any of these accusations are true; then the FBI cannot be trusted with any investigation.
Sounds like Trump's FBI really is incompetent, but it isn't at all surprising that more of Kavanaugh's victims are coming forward now that the dam has broken.
It's great that this all happened shortly before the election. All women and all ethical men will be voting accordingly.
Trump's FBI? Was Trump President in 2001, 2003, or 2006? And, if the FBI was incompetent then and are incompetent now, then they were incompetent under Obama.
If you're implying that the FBI is incompetent under Republican administrations, I'd agree.
Nope, I am saying if they were incompetent under Bush and Trump, the same agents working under them were there under Obama and therefore, the FBI cannot be trusted until they are completely cleaned out.
3 boys and a girl - all of whom either don't know her or have stated the incident never occurred.
So, she is claiming she was so much more in "demand" than the other girl?? Drunk??? 15???? Where she doesn't know where??? Where she doesn't know when???? Where she doesn't know ANYONE's name but Kavenaugh's????
And there were only four (five counting her) at this "party"???
no she didn't.
There are no witnesses to the event. I take that back. There are no witnesses to the event that support Ramirez. Every person identified as being at the party denies that her newly remembered assault happening.
What fact? There are none to date.
Are you having an issue following the thread 1st?
See
Nope, not really. Just lookin' for those FACTS you're supporting - 'specially when no FACTS have been given. Only one person, even per your recap, seems to remember ANYTHING at all about a 15 year old who was mind-wiped drunk who "sez" she was purportedly attacked - not sure 'bout whom, where, when or even what actually happened. There are absolutely no facts being presented - only supposition.
Yep, still seems so. READ the thread 1st. The FACT that I am supporting is the one I stated. Here, maybe I can help:
Get it yet?
Then, both versions are unbelievable since nothing supports either?
Conversely, both can be equally believable because both are based on first person testimony.
That's how this shit works...
We ALL have to decide on Thursday which person is more credible.
This isn't a court of law. All that matters is which party the Senate finds more credible.....or in this case whether the GOP minds the blowback from confirming a lying sexual predator to the court.
Without any proof, that's your summation???
lying sexual predator
Where did you tell Kavika and I that you studied law??? Oh, yeah, you never answered that question.
This is a good summary of the circular logic employed by the accuser's mouthpieces:
By that logic, we can conclude that Kavanaugh and Mark Judge and Patrick Smyth are probably telling the truth, too, if “nothing of consequence” is a reason for not remembering an event (and I think it is).
team is saying that what happened to her was so consequential, so momentous, that she can’t remember the year, the month, whose house she was at, how she got to the party, or how she got home. And because she can’t remember those events, that is completely consistent with her telling the truth. On the other hand, when Leland Keyser can’t remember the events it is an indication that nothing important happened to her so she wouldn’t be expected to remember. So apparently, not remembering an event can be proof that either something or nothing happened there. Except when it involves men, and their memories are lies....
Right now the only “memory” in this allegation is Ford “remembering” an incident that absolutely no one else remembers. Were these facts applied to any other crime, like murder, we’d have dismissed Ford out of hand by now as a crank if not an outright fraud. But, in the case of Ford, we are bending over backwards to give credence to a story that seems more improbable and outrageous day by day.
This farce needs to end. Just confirm him and let the liberals wail.
The worst part is that as her story unravels she still hasn't committed to testifying on Thursday. Her lawyers only agreed to look at the details of testifying. The longer this goes on the more it stinks. The left has resorted to making emotional arguments since they have nothing to back them up.
Looking at the non political ramifications , the worst part to me is the potential to move the bar for burden of proof for making a claim of a crime of a sexual or abusive nature.
Move the bar too low , and many innocents will be accused , move it too high , and those that actually committed a crime can get off scott free, and there will be even more that will decline to come forward with verifiable and valid claims.
Another thing that I feel wont be good is if the burden of proof is lowered or raised , is it lowered or raised for all accusatory crimes ? or just specific ones?
I think such ramifications raise even more questions, because individually we all hold different levels of where the bar is currently on burden of proof, and how much we each need for that proof to believe either side of an argument ,incident , or claim.
We are days away from the committee's vote to make Brett Kavanaugh a Supreme Court Judge. Will Christine Ford's accusation lead to the dismissal of Kavanaugh from the nomination?
youtu.be/bIgS-JTvuJA
Moral of the story: Don’t trust Diane Feinstein to look out for your best interest
???? That's a rather bizarre and apparently uninformed comment.
Feinstein should have kept the letter to herself ONLY. It was given in confidence.
She did, and Ford states that Feinstein acted responsibly. It was forwarded to the FBI with Ford's permission and the FBI sent a redacted version to the WH. So the odds are the leak of Ford's name came from someone at the FBI.
Your earlier post decries that she SAT on the letter, now you say she should have kept sitting on the letter. Make up your mind.
Was the letter in confidence or not?
My earlier post "decried" her sitting on the letter and THEN RELEASING the letter.
See the difference?
Since you never believe a fucking word I say, perhaps it would behoove you to do your own research and go READ the fucking letter for yourself.
The difference in WHAT?
You seem to think that after a constituent requests anonymity they can never change their mind.
So simply show me the waiver Ford signed allowing her letter to be released.
Shouldn't be all that damn hard.
And if you can do that, perhaps then I CAN believe you on something.
Until then--naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw.
Give me a reason to believe one fucking word you say.
Language folks - language.
Give me a REASON to care whether you believe me or not.
Sorry, forgot to put the quotation marks in that.
Apologies.
Oh.
Well, I can certainly see why it took you so long to answer, what with such a witty reply.
The only reason I mentioned it is because it seemed important enough to you for you to bring it up.
I'll believe as I want to and expect you to do the same.
Thanks Dulay
You are welcome 1st.
Where was the Senate Ethics Committee on Feinstein's holding back that letter?
Where is your proof that Feinstein had Ford's signed waiver to release the letter before she did?
Do you have proof that Feinstein had a waiver from Ford before she released the letter?
Just Ford's statement that Feinstein has behaved responsibly in regards to her.
The leak of Ford's identity most likely came from within the FBI to some creep in the WH.
Do you have any proof that she didn't?
See how that BS works?
BTFW, none of the statements made on behalf of Ford have indicated that she has any issue with Feinstein's actions.
That wasn't the point.
Sigh.
SMH
Yeah, because Ford didn't go to any media, right?
SMMFH
So you are now saying that Feinstein wasn't allowed to tell the rest of the Committee about the letter before and during the hearings, then after they were over and a vote was about to be taken she got permission to reveal the substance of the letter and therefore came out with the allegations related to the letter, but never the actual letter. That's like saying Russia invaded the Crimea because they felt threatened. It is an insult to the intelligence of everyone reading this.
For everyone else here, this is what is know as the campus culture now arriving into the country at large!
Another one who doesn't bother to do any research before commenting.
The SAME DAY that Feinstein announced the allegation, she released 'the actual letter' to the FBI who placed a redacted copy in Kavanaugh's confirmation file. That document was then immediately available to the WHOLE Judiciary Committee.
BTFW, the redactions, beyond Ford's identity, were made by the FBI.
End of hand holding...
Which is why I think someone in the FBI improperly gave an unredacted copy to someone in the WH who then forwarded it to Ed Whelan.
Whelan apparently was checking Ford's Linkedn page shortly after the WH officially received the redacted version.
Which of course has NOTHING to do with the alibi you were making for Feinstein
Wow, talk about a misrepresentation.
Well done. /s
They'd rather talk about Feinstein than Kavanaugh and the upcoming debacle where the cowards outsource their jobs to some broad in hopes the world doesn't notice their anti-woman shitshow. But Feinstein! But emails! But look over there! Anything but the clusterfuck.
So Ford has an allegation form 30 years ago at 0 hour where she can't remember when it happened, where it happened, how she got there or left, the four people she named deny having any recollection of a party she describes, therapist notes which we haven't seen say there were four boys and doesn't name names, she is the only one who hasn't submitted a sworn statement, she keeps repeatedly delaying the hearing, with claims she like she can't fly (riiigght), and now BL has calendars from summer of 82 with dates and times of things (not conclusive I know but damn sure better than "it happened I just don't when or where"- probably intentional in case he was out of town that week and she was worried he would have proof)...
Unless she has something that even remotely backs her claim, BK will be on SCOTUS and rightfully so. No way should someone's career be derailed by a random allegation of "it happened but don't ask me when or where.. and oh.. 4 people I named including one who is a good friend deny the party happened"
ignore the fake outrage from people claiming you should believe this woman who woman who literally has less than her word at this point considering she named people denying a party happened while Ellison has two accusers with actual corroborating public evidence and they ignore it
this was all about trying to prevent or at best delay as long as possible... potentially until after November hoping they could win the senate and deny him the seat even if it's proven she lied... of BK getting on SCOTUS
People better hope she hasn't slipped up and left evidence she planned on making this up just to stop a conservative SCOTUS... a friend who grows a conscious and comes clean about her intentions. It will be years if not decades before anyone buys into the "believe all women no matter what" BS
If that happens without an FBI investigation before the confirmation vote I suspect there will be an investigation in Kavanaugh's near future, possibly as soon as the new Congress is sworn in.
In fact there should be an FBI investigation even if Kavanaugh isn't confirmed but wants to retain his current seat on the DC Circuit.
Have. Nope. Good luck.
Unfortunately for the Kavanaugh fans that swear he will be the next on the scotus.
Buckle your butt plugs, another accuser has come to play and she brought witnesses...
You can kiss his ass goodbye now...
Yep, that's the one...Avenetti says he has another too...but frankly I'm getting tired of Avenetti.
Stormy Daniels and Avenetti caused Cohen's fall from grace and his elocution of a conspiracy to commit election finance violations with Trump. As long as he keeps 'bringing the goods' I'll never get tired of Avenatti.
Agreed. So far he hasn't over promised or failed to deliver in any of his public claims......and this one involves a victim who was gang-raped.
Them boys from Texass gonna be eatin' some crow!
Witnesses???? Are you friggin' kiddin' me???? Read the friggin' article - NOBODY knows/knew if Kavenaugh was even there - just hearsay.
" In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it— and we did not . The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this .”
"Well, it couldn't have been Brett or we would have known"
Damn! That's good enough for me!/s
Looks like "Bart O'Cosby" was just sentenced to 3-10 years on the supreme court for raping women while they're drunk or otherwise incapacitated.
But, he's an African American liberal Hollyweird Elite.....different rules apply to Republican white men doncha know, all them liberal women are liars and whores, etc.
Thats right! Cosby and Kavanaugh are identical except for skin color and political affiliation........well, other than sworn statements and criminal complaints, they’re exactly alike........oh, forgot about the civil suit and confession. The only possible explanation is race........other than due process and a criminal trial and evidence and sworn testimony. One day we loved Cliff Huckstable, and the very next he was sitting in a jail cell, deprived of his constitutional rights of the accused.
if only he were a white republican, then he would be enjoying freedom and admiration from everyone.
It's seems that both men liked to spike the punch with quaaludes in order to rape women.
.
Skin color alone often does determine whether a rapist or other criminal sits inside or outside the prison walls.
True. But do you think skin color is the reason Cosby is in jail and Kavanaugh is not?
No, but I do think class and racial issues are partly why Kavanaugh and his friends consistently got away with so much bad behavior. If a black kid had been drugging and gang-raping white upper class girls in Maryland back then he might have been lynched rather than invited to make the punch at the next house party.
You have a point there too, but we’re not talking about black kids in Maryland in the early 80’s. We are talking about one of their role models......... hell, he was one of my role models too. It disappointed me to learn he was nothing more than a freak.
Kavanaugh on the other hand is a privileged, entitled, Ivy League, east coast elite. It won’t hurt my feelings at all to see him thrown under the next passing bus.........as long as we have some due process before we ruin this man’s life, due process that was extended to Cosby.
The correct due process would be an impeachment hearing since none of his accusers has filed a police report yet.