• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

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

Jim_S

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
Will Kavanaugh accuser really testify now that all her eyewitnesses dispute her story?
Posted by William A. Jacobson Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 10:00am

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/...-eye-witnesses-dispute-her-story/#more-260648


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 OpenSecrets.org 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.


Legal Insurrection
@LegInsurrection
At this rate, Crystal Mangum may end up being the only one to back up Ford's story https://shar.es/a1hbjV
11:06 PM - Sep 22, 2018


Erick Erickson

@EWErickson
Ford provided 5 people who she says can corroborate her story.
Smyth: Denies it under penalty of perjury.
Judge: Denies it under penalty of perjury.
Kavanaugh: Denies it under penalty of perjury.
Keyser: Denies it under penalty of perjury.
Ford: Refuses to testify under oath.
11:01 PM - Sep 22, 2018


Will she show up?

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

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Will the mainstream media still believe her now that her witnesses refute the story?

Will democrats still call him a rapist now that her story has pretty much fallen apart?

Will partisan politics end and unicorns dance under rainbows?
 

Jim_S

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
Will the mainstream media still believe her now that her witnesses refute the story?

Will democrats still call him a rapist now that her story has pretty much fallen apart?

Will partisan politics end and unicorns dance under rainbows?

Yes

Yes

No!
 

Jim_S

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2018 BY SCOTT JOHNSON IN BRETT KAVANAUGH
THE STORY SO FAR

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/the-story-so-far-3.php

Now that we have heard from Leland Keyser https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/report-yet-another-witness-fails-to-back-ford.php — what, no Keyser Söze? — NR’s Charles Cooke has provided this handy summary of the story so far:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/and-then-there-was-one/

Well, we seem to have hit a brick wall. All four of the people named by Kavanaugh’s accuser have now given their accounts to the Senate. And all four of them have said either that Kavanaugh is innocent of all charges, or that they have no recollection of his doing anything — anything — wrong. Put as simply as can be, there is nothing in the testimony of any of the named witnesses that corroborates, supports, or even implies Dr. Ford’s allegations. Of the five people who were supposedly at the party, only the accuser has suggested misconduct.

I may be mistaken, but I doubt you will find such a blunt summary in mainstream media accounts today.
 

Jim_S

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
And Then There Was One . . .
By CHARLES C. W. COOKE
September 22, 2018 11:50 PM

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/and-then-there-was-one/

Well, we seem to have hit a brick wall. All four of the people named by Kavanaugh’s accuser have now given their accounts to the Senate. And all four of them have said either that Kavanaugh is innocent of all charges, or that they have no recollection of his doing anything — anything — wrong. Put as simply as can be, there is nothing in the testimony of any of the named witnesses that corroborates, supports, or even implies Dr. Ford’s allegations. Of the five people who were supposedly at the party, only the accuser has suggested misconduct.

Stranger still, Dr. Ford remains the only person within the saga who has not subjected herself to an oath. In various forms, everyone else has given written information that, if false, can lead to serious punishment. Dr. Ford has not — and, as of this writing, she is still doing everything she can to avoid changing that.
 

mla2ofus

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
If, in the end, she refuses to testify Kavanaugh should have his personal lawyer file a slander and defamation charge against her!!
Mike
 
Top