Ford Admits She Flies Often after Citing Fear of Flying to Delay Hearing

"During her public testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday, Christine Blasey Ford admitted that she has flown often for business and pleasure in recent years despite citing her fear of flight in requesting that the hearing regarding her allegations against Brett Kavanaugh be delayed.
"In explaining why their client could not grant Committee chairman Chuck Grassley’s request that she travel to Washington, D.C. to testify on September 17, Ford’s lawyers cited her unwillingness to fly, which they claimed stemmed from her fear of enclosed spaces. Ford’s attorney’s further alleged her claustrophobia was brought on by the alleged assault.
"Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona sex-crimes prosecutor retained by the Committee to ask questions of Ford and Kavanaugh, established during the hearing that Ford traveled by plane to Washington, D.C. to testify regarding her claim that Kavanaugh pinned her down and tried to remove her clothes when they were in high school.
“ 'May I ask, Dr. Ford, how did you get to Washington?,” Mitchell asked.
“ 'By airplane,” Ford responded." . . .

Ford’s Testimony Has Changed Everything and Nothing  . . . But it’s also very important to note that Dr. Ford’s testimony has changed nothing about the underlying evidence in the case. She has made her claim, there are no corroborating witnesses. No one else can place the two of them together at the party — not even the witnesses she’s identified. She is inconsistent or forgetful on a number of key points. She can’t even identify who brought her to the party or who took her home. He’s denied the claims and will deny them again.

"That’s thin — very thin — evidence of sexual assault. The evidence is no stronger this afternoon than it was before Dr. Ford testified. When this controversy began, I said that her claims were serious enough that, if true, Kavanaugh should not be confirmed. Further, I said that that she should only have to carry the lowest burden of proof — to establish that her claims were more likely than not. If you step back, look at the totality of the evidence and consider that she has brought no new evidence to the committee, I still don’t believe she has met that minimal burden.

Posts about today's Ford-Kavanaugh hearings

After Kavanaugh’s Stand, Republicans Abandon Him at Their Peril  . . . "But even when you express your anger, it must be expressed with reason, and in a hearing that reason has to be laden with evidence. That’s what Kavanaugh did. He countered Ford’s accusation with his own denial, but he went well beyond he said/she said. He constantly reminded the committee that Dr. Ford’s named witnesses could not place him at the party. He went through calendars showing that it was improbable that he would have been at the party that Dr. Ford described. He showed time and again that there was no corroborating evidence supporting Dr. Ford’s allegations. This was powerful. This was true."

That’s what Brett Kavanaugh did today. He fought with passion, evidence, and compassion. And absent any new, substantiated revelations, he united the conservative movement. Any Republican who abandons him now will abandon the electorate that put them in power.

Kavanaugh’s Impassioned Rebuttal To Accusations Of Sexual Abuse May Have Just Saved His Nomination  . . . "Kavanaugh was on the verge of tears nearly every time he mentioned his family — as he should be. And by wearing his heart on his sleeve, Kavanaugh may have just saved not just his nomination, but his reputation." . . .

Actress Alyssa Milano Tries To Shame Sen. Susan Collins By Recalling Her Response To Al Franken Allegations

Although these two stories are somewhat similar in that they both involve sexual harassment or assault, it’s not a 1-1 comparison. To make such a claim, as Milano appears to be doing, is intellectually dishonest.

CNN's Tapper Argues There's 'No Contemporaneous Corroborating Evidence For Any Of The Charges' Against Kavanaugh

"Stolen Valor Blumenthal Vouches For Kavanaugh Accuser’s Credibility"

Dems already fundraising off Ford-Kavanaugh hearing

It’s jiu-jitsu time on the Kavanaugh accusations  "As desperate people intoxicated by early success are wont to do, the Democrat opponents of Judge Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court have overplayed their hand.  We've seen something very like this happen before."

Lindsey Graham explodes in anger at Kavanaugh hearing blasting the Democrats’ tactics

Charleston Post and Courier

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham exploded in a rant of outrage at the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court hearings just moments ago, attacking his Democratic colleagues and a process he said has worked to destroy the judge’s reputation. 
“You’re looking for a fair process? You came to the wrong town, at the wrong time my friend,” an angry Graham told Kavanaugh during his assigned moment of questioning. 
“Would you say you’ve been through hell?” Graham added. 
“I’ve been through hell and then some,” Kavanaugh responds. 
During his allotted time, Graham asked Kavanaugh if he were a gang rapists or even a Bill Cosby in high school. He went on to blast the line of questioning Kavanaugh has faced, saying it would stain the country for decades to come and prevent good people from serving. 
“I hope the American people will see through this charade,” Graham said, calling the afternoon the “most despicable thing” he’s ever seen in politics. 
“This is the most unethical sham since I’ve been in politics,” he added. “And if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn’t do what you’ve done to this guy.” 
Graham’s comments came seven hours after the day began with the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Christine Blasey Ford discuss in detail her claim that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while both were in high school in the early 1980s. 
Kavanaugh has denied the accusation. 
Graham went on to threaten Democrats as well, saying he was fair to Democratic nominees to the court and that goodwill il is forgotten. 
“If you wanted an FBI investigation, you could have come to us,” he said speaking to Democrats on the committee. To date, Byrd has won awards for her work. “What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life, hold this seat open, and hope you win in. You’ve said that, not me,” Graham said, shouting to Democrats. 
Turning back to Kavanaugh, Graham continued, “You’ve got nothing to apologize for. When you see Sotomayer and Kagan, tell them Lindsey say hello because I would never do to them what they’ve done to you.” 
Graham’s outburst drew praise from the White House. 
″@LindseyGrahamSC has more decency and courage than every Democrat member of the committee combined. God bless him,” said press spokeswoman Sarah Sanders.

Caitlin Byrd is a political reporter at The Post and Courier and author of the Palmeo Politics newsleer. Before moving to Charleston in , her byline appeared in the Asheville Citizen-Times. To date, Byrd has won awards for her work. 

Senate Democrats Smile, Laugh Before Christine Blasey Ford’s Testimony

Big Government   WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEPTEMBER 27: Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) smiles ear to ear while talking with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) (Photo Screenshot/C-SPAN)

"President Donald Trump said Democrats are “laughing” at the attacks on Kavanaugh’s character in a press conference Wednesday night: “They know it’s a big, fat con job.”

“ 'And they go into a room, and I guarantee you, they laugh like hell at what they pulled off on you and on the public.' ” . . .

Christine Ford Giggles and Asks For Coffee After Claiming Kavanaugh’s Assault “Drastically Altered” Her Life (VIDEO)

Democrats at work

DEMOCRAT SHEILA JACKSON LEE Caught On Video Discreetly Handing Note (Envelope?) To Ford’s Lawyer  "What was Democrat Rep. Sheila Lee Jackson (TX) doing at the table where Democrat activist Christine Blasey Ford was testifying to the Senate Judicial Committee? What was on the white note card or piece of paper the Democrat Congresswoman discretely handed to Ford’s lawyer, Michael Bromwich, just as they were getting ready to take a break in her testimony? 
"The Republican Party sat in that room like a collective group of cowards, afraid to be labeled “old, white Republicans”. Who, in that group of cowards will have the courage to ask what Sheila Jackson Lee what she handed Ford’s attorney during the hearing?"
Video  

STUNNING: CNN’s Jake Tapper Calls Out ALL Kavanaugh Accusers For Having “No Corroborating Evidence” [Video]  "How often do you get to hear a CNN anchor tell the truth? No often! Well, Jake Tapper made a very bold and truthful observation this morning:
"CNN’s Jake Tapper stunned Thursday by saying there is “no contemporaneous, corroborating evidence” coming from ANY of the accusers of Brett Kavanaugh…None! Zilch! Zero! Nada! 
“They’re brutal accusations, and his denial is so unequivocal, that there’s nothing that happened that he can even understand why these charges would be brought forward. At the same time, there is, as of now, no contemporaneous, corroborating evidence for any of the charges, as far as we know. We haven’t seen anybody emerge and say, ‘Yes, I remember that.'”

Senator Feinstein apparently discussing Sen. Murkowski's vote on Kavanaugh

Lindsey Graham on What 'Sealed it' for Him in Disbelieving Latest Accuser

Cortney O'Brien

"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has several questions for Christine Blasey Ford, who is accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. The alleged incident happened 36 years ago at a high school party, but the details are hazy. Two other women came forward to accuse Kavanaugh of inappropriate sexual behavior. The third accuser, Julie Swetnick, says Kavanaugh was present at parties where girls were drugged and raped. In an interview with "Fox & Friends," Graham cast doubt on the accusation. 

" 'Why would you go back to the second party," if you knew girls were being drugged and raped, Graham wondered. "Why did you keep hanging around that crowd?" 

" 'I don't buy this," Graham added. A "reasonable person" would not go to a party where people are being drugged and raped and not tell anyone. 

" 'This makes zero sense," he said. "Why didn't she inform her girlfriends?" The thing that "seals it" for the senator, however, is that Kavanaugh says he doesn't even know Swetnick. "I believe him." 

" 'If you’re a serial rapist, it sticks with you the rest of your life," Graham said. By contrast, Kavanaugh is "a good man" and he gives the latest accusation "zero credibility." 

"Graham rejects his colleagues assertions that Kavanaugh needs to prove his innocence. Sen. Chris Coons (D-and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, for instance, say there's no presumption of innocence. Democrats like Coons are "willing to ruin his life because he's a Trump nominee," Graham concluded. "The accusation doesn't need to be corroborated, it just needs to be made." 

"They are "destroying" his life with an accusation that "is not specific to time, place, or corroboration."

" 'His life rejects these allegations," Graham said. Kavanaugh "doesn't have to prove to me he was not at a party 35 years ago." Ford, however, "has to prove me there is credibility beyond the allegation."

"Graham implored his colleagues not to abandon Kavanaugh. He wants to see Republicans fight back. If they don't, they "deserve" to be abandoned by voters."

Two men tell Senate that they, not Kavanaugh, assaulted Ford

Kavanaugh smeared, but two men coming forward actually find the real (narrative) killer  "Is the nightmarish miasma of increasingly flimsy charges against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh about to come to an end?  Sure looks like it, as two men step forward and say they were the ones who assaulted the woman who charges Kavanaugh with the assault 37 years ago.  It's as if O.J. Simpson really did find "the real killer."

"According to USA Today:

WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee has questioned two men who say they, not Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, had the disputed encounter with Christine Blasey Ford at a 1982 house party that led to sexual assault allegations. 

The revelation was included in a late-night news release by Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the committee.  The release includes a day-by-day view of the committee's investigative work over the last two weeks since allegations surfaced targeting Kavanaugh.

"Oh, my.  You wouldn't expect the real attackers to come forward just to keep Kavanaugh from having to bear an improbable accusation of sexual predation and having to defend himself alone.  How often does anyone see someone take a bullet based on his own actions to at least ensure that someone innocent doesn't take it?  They would have had nothing to gain from this, yet they came forward, signaling that they eventually grew up.  Incredibly, it has happened.

"Something like this has potential to end the whole nightmare for Kavanaugh." . . .

NY Post

"Two men have come forward to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to claim that they are the ones who actually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford during a house party in 1982 — and not Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

"Republicans on the committee released a timeline of events late Wednesday, which included details about their interactions with the two men who admitted to the attacks.

"On Monday, the timeline recounts GOP staff members interviewing “a man who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982.”

"The “encounter” refers to an episode in which Ford claims that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in a bedroom at a Maryland house party.

"They had a follow-up interview with that man, and he provided more detail about the assault.

"Then on Wednesday, the committee staff said they spoke with a second man who said he assaulted Ford in 1982.

"The committee did not release any more details about the men, or why both were coming forward with the claims." . . .

Juanita Broaddrick Shows Up At Kavanaugh Hearing To Look ‘Hypocrite Democrats’ In Eye

Daily Caller  "Juanita Broaddrick, a woman who has accused Bill Clinton of rape, showed up outside the Senate calling Democrats “hypocrites” for not believing her allegations.

"Broaddrick told the Daily Caller in an interview that she showed up at the Senate to “look hypocrites Schumer, Durbin and Feinstein in the eye and ask for an apology.”

"Broaddrick calls the hearing today a “double standard.”

“ 'I have twenty times more evidence for my rape by Bill Clinton than Dr. Ford has against Kavanaugh,” Broaddrick says, “Democrats turned their backs on me. They refused to read my testimony or acknowledge me in 1999 when I went public with my story. Democrats turned their backs on me.”

"Broaddrick said that the mantra the ‘All women deserve to be believed” does not apply to her.

“ 'All women are to be believed if they’re not conservatives and as long as the assault was not done by Democrats.”

"Broaddrick brought up the domestic abuse allegations against DNC Co-Chair Keith Ellison: “Ellison is leading the Democratic party right now. He should be kicked out of office. Karen Monahan has 10 times the evidence that Dr. Ford does. Where is her hearing?” . . .

         Ellison Barber‏Verified account 

Juanita Broaddrick is outside of Dirksen Senate building. Broaddrick says she does not believe Dr Ford, and Democrats supporting her now are “hypocrites” because they didn’t support her.

How did Dr. Ford claim ignorance that she was taking a polygraph?

If these requirements by the Commonwealth are typical, How can Dr. Ford say she did not know what was going on? TD

State of Virginia regulations for polygraph examiners 
Part V: Standards for Practice and Conduct

. . . 18 VAC 120-30-200. Polygraph examination procedures. 
A. Each licensed polygraph examiner and registered polygraph examiner intern must post, in a conspicuous place for the examinee, his license or registration, or a legible copy of his license or registration to practice in Virginia.

 B. The examiner shall provide the examinee with a written explanation of the provisions of 18VAC120-30-200, 18VAC120-30-210 and 18VAC120-30-220 at the beginning of each polygraph examination. 

C. The examinee may request a recording of the polygraph examination being administered. Each examiner shall maintain recording equipment and recording media adequate for such recording. The examiner shall safeguard all examination recordings with the records he is required to keep pursuant to 18VAC120-30-230. All recordings shall be made available to the department, the examinee or the examinee's attorney upon request. The examiner may charge the examinee a fee not to exceed $35 only if the examinee requests and receives a copy of an examination. 

D. The examinee shall be entitled to a copy of all portions of any written report pertaining to his examination which is prepared by the examiner and provided to any person or organization. The examinee shall make his request in writing to the examiner. The examiner shall comply within 10 business days of providing the written report to any person or organization or receiving the examinee's written request, whichever occurs later. The examiner may collect not more than $1.00 per page from the examinee for any copy provided. 

E. The provisions of subsections B, C, and D of this section shall not be applicable to any examination conducted by or on behalf of the Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions when the examination is for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or the enforcement of penal laws. However, examiners administering examinations as described in this section shall comply with subsection B of this section through a verbal explanation of the provisions of 18VAC120-30-210 and 18VAC120-30-220.

18 VAC 120-30-210. Examination pretest procedure. 
A. Prior to administering any polygraph test, the examiner shall inform the prospective examinee of all the issues to be covered during the polygraph examination and of all the items to be reported by the examiner to any other person. 
B. The examiner shall obtain written permission from the prospective examinee to administer the examination after fulfilling the requirements of 18VAC120-30-200, and before proceeding further with the administration of the examination. Historical Notes Derived from VR190-03-1 § 5.2, eff.

11TH HOUR SHOCK! Two Say Kavanaugh May Have Been Mistaken For Them

Socio-Political Journal  "As an extraordinary series of uncorroborated, lurid last-minute allegations threatens to derail his confirmation to the Supreme Court, nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Ford, the California professor accusing him of sexually assaulting her more than three decades ago, are set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday morning.
"The proceedings may be upended by late-breaking developments: In a statement released Wednesday evening, Judiciary Committee Republicans revealed that on Monday, they conducted their "first interview with a man who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982 that is the basis of his [sic] complaint." They conducted a second interview the next day. 
"On Wednesday, Republicans said in the statement, they received a "more in-depth written statement from the man interviewed twice previously who believes he, not Judge Kavanuagh, had the encounter in question with Dr. Ford." GOP investigators also spoke on the phone with another man making a similar claim.
"Ford has previously said there is "zero chance" she would have confused Kavanaugh for anyone else.
"In response, an aide to Democrats on the Judiciary Committee reportedly unloaded on Senate Republicans: "Republicans are flailing," the aide said, according to NBC News. "They are desperately trying to muddy the waters. ... Twelve hours before the hearing they suggest two anonymous men claimed to have assaulted her. Democrats were never informed of these assertions in interviews, in violation of Senate rules."
"The aide, before again calling for an FBI probe into Ford's accusations, added, "This is shameful and the height of irresponsibility."
"But Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, shot back on Twitter late Wednesday, writing, "Some might find it exceedingly difficult to imagine Judiciary Committee Democrats expressing this complaint with straight faces.' " . . .

Surviving Our 'Survivors'; Are they "hired guns"?

David Solway  "According to the feminist mantra, a veritable epidemic of male violence against women is sweeping the country.  Women in every walk of life are apparently prey to a wave of male sexual harassment, assault, and rape; they are victims of a nefarious consortium called "the patriarchy," which has been oppressing women in the home, the workplace, and the professions from time immemorial.  Women who bring forth allegations of male sexual misconduct, whether proven or not and no matter how frivolous or innocuous, are now classified as "survivors" who must be believed and afforded remedial counseling and legal recourse.  Accused men are regarded as bearers of a pathology known as "toxic masculinity" and must be prosecuted as undoubted perpetrators.

"I have observed and recorded innumerable examples of the phenomenon.  The litany of dodgy #MeToo grievances is common knowledge – the preposterous allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is only the most currently prominent such episode – and even women who have not entered the hashtag world are primed and provoked to join the vendetta.  Four more such instances have just now come to my attention, a grouping that, in effect, constitutes a full data set.

"Marcus Knight, a student at Saddleback College in the California Community College system, who suffers from dysphasia, autism, and cerebral palsy and is fitted with a drainage shunt to relieve pressure on the brain, has been the target of two Title IX complaints.  His transgression?  Asking for a fist bump and a selfie with a presumably friendly co-ed.  Knight was not allowed to defend himself against the allegations.  The "survivor" of a fist bump and a selfie must be protected at all costs." . . .

Patricia McCarthy: These women are hired guns!  . . . "We know from Brian Fallon, a Hillary Clinton operative, that the left has planned to destroy any person Trump nominates to the Court.  One has to wonder what the left's strategy would be had he nominated Amy Coney Barrett.  Perhaps leftists would have reported that she had worked her way through college as a stripper or a prostitute.  One thing is certain: they would have pulled out every sleazy trick in their playbook to see that she was not confirmed, either.

"This is who the Democrats are these days.  They will go to any lengths, no matter how seedy or illegal or fabricated, to ruin the people they fear.  Whom do they fear?  Good, honest men like Brett Kavanaugh.  People they cannot manipulate, bribe, or threaten to do their bidding. 

"Who represents Christine Blasey Ford?  Debra Katz, a far-left socialist and HRC fundraiser whose firm once represented Julie Swetnick, the most recent and most ridiculous accuser.  Swetnick is the one who, after she was in college, continued to attend high school parties where, she claims, boys drugged girls and then lined up to "train rape" them.  She went to such parties at least ten times but told no one, reported nothing, even though she must have been the only adult present.  That in itself pretty much proves that this planned and plotted smear is all part of an overall strategy to keep anyone Trump nominates from being confirmed." . . .

Senator Hirono Didn’t Always Tell Men to ‘Shut Up’ and Believe Accusers

John Fund at National Review

Hirono and Gillibrand

"When it mattered in her own backyard, with a male Democratic senator, she turned a blind eye to sexual abuse."

"My, how times have changed. My, how liberals have changed.

"Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, opened the 1991 Anita Hill hearings by declaring that Judge Clarence Thomas must “be given the benefit of the doubt.”

"In the end, eleven Democratic senators voted to confirm Thomas. That’s not going to happen with Brett Kavanaugh. Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii threatens to become the new model of Senate inquisitor. Rather than ask questions of both parties, she has made clear that her mind is already made up: She condemns Judge Kavanaugh and supports Christine Ford.

"Hirono made some truly remarkable statements last week. “Not only do women like Dr. Ford, who bravely comes forward, need to be heard, but they need to be believed,” she insisted. She added, “I just want to say to the men in this country: Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change.”

"When the Wall Street Journal editorial page pointed out that her statements suggest that the “new American standard of due process will be the presumption of guilt,” she went further. Appearing on CNN on Sunday, Hirono said that Kavanaugh’s basic integrity had been undermined, in her eyes, during his confirmation hearings:" . . .

All that has followed we can thank Democrats for, including these :

‘I hope you get raped’: Check out these messages left with Sen. Chuck Grassley’s staffers  You angry people out there, let only the left be guilty of vile such as this!  "Liberals" have set a really low bar - the Maxine Waters standard - for class and we should beat it easily if we just will. TD
"We’re on Twitter all day, so we know how ugly things can get. But on Wednesday evening, the Washington Examiner’s Philip Wegmann posted some of the comments that have been left for Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley’s staffers recently."
Creepy porn lawyer and creepy comedienne among featured speakers

LIVE: Kavanaugh, Ford Testify in Front of Senate Judiciary Committee

Branco Cartoon – Manifest Destiny  Gotta love those Brancotoons.

Legal Insurrection

LIVE: Kavanaugh, Ford Testify in Front of Senate Judiciary Committee
"At 10:00AM ET, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser Christine Blasey Ford will 

testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"Ford has accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault back in high school.

"I will update this thread as it goes. You can follow along and watch a livestream." . . .

What They Will Say:  "Kavanaugh’s and Ford’s prepared remarks came out yesterday. Kavanaugh denied the allegations once again and insisted he will not resign over a last-minute character assassination.

"Ford wrote that she came to the hearing because it is her “civic duty” to tell everyone what happened to her. She claims that Kavanaugh “locked her in a room, held her down and tried to remove her clothes at a party when they were both in high school.”

Questioners

"Arizona sex crimes prosecutor will question Kavanaugh and Ford instead of the Republicans. She has worked for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for 26 years.

"The Democrats on the panel will question Kavanaugh and Ford."

Apparently, Mazie Hirono will allow Judge Kavanaugh to speak just this once

Comment to this post: 

 I think that it needs to be reiterated what a vicious ordeal this is, and what a waste of time. It is being done to assuage three senators—Flake, Murkowski and Collins. All the Democrats have announced their opposition. Despite their fear of saying so out loud, all of the other Republicans are on board. This is an expensive, ego-massage for three senators. None of these accusations have any evidence to back them up. How much is it costing to get Ford to this hearing? Whose paying for it? Who is paying for her lawyers? How much money have Democratic senators fundraised off of this? The scandal here is not anything that Kavanaugh might have done, but the insistence of the Democrats on destruction, and the acquiescence of the Republican leadership–and three Vichy senators–who let them do it.

Another comment with this post:

 I read the accuser’s testimony, as released by her law firm in a 9-page document.
Much inconsistent material, therein. Try this on, for transparent contradiction:
On page 2, she states, as she begins relating her account of the alleged attack, “One evening that summer.” “One evening?” Was this May? June? July? August?
Also on page 2, she claims that the details of the alleged event have been “seared” into her memory, yet, in the same paragraph, previously, she explains that she “truly wish[es]” she could remember details about how she got to the party, who hosted the party, etc. Sounds to me as though she had been drinking, heavily. And, it sounds as though she’s establishing a pre-emptive rationale to rebut obvious scrutiny of why she can’t recall basic details of that night.
Perhaps the most nauseating and manifestly devious excerpt:
“My hope was that providing the [letter] confidentially owuld be sufficient to allow the Senate to consider Mr. Kavanaugh’s serious misconduct without having to make myself, my family or anyone’s family vulnerable to the personal attacks and invasions of privacy we have faced since my name became public.”
Translation — “My hope was that my anonymous accusation, devoid of a scintilla of evidentiary supports, would be sufficient to derail Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination, without me having to actually testify under oath, in support of the allegations.”
Page 4 – she writes that “everything changed in July 2018,” when the press reported Kavanaugh as a potential SCOTUS nominee. But, Kavanaugh had been mentioned as a potential SCOTUS nominee as far back as 2012.
This is embarrassing, venemous and transparent slander. The Senate should not be entertaining this nonsense, which would never hold up in a civil or criminal court, tardy and as devoid of evidentiary supports as it is.