Kavanaugh Accuser Goes Public With The Support Of A Polygraph To Support Alleged High School Sexual Assault

download-6For a week, a scandal has grown over an anonymous accusation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.  I previously wrote about the unfairness of this last minute accusation from an unnamed law professor who declined to be named.  Moreover, the underlying letter has been in the possession of Democrats since July.  Now, the mystery is over:  Palo Alto University professor Christine Blasey Ford has come forward to say that she is indeed the accuser of Kavanaugh.  It appears that the earlier leaks and media reports that this was a Stanford law professor were untrue.  She is shown here from her high school yearbook picture.  Notably, her lawyer has said that she passed a polygraph examination that found her account was truthful.

The alleged attack occurred when Ford went upstairs to use the bathroom at a party with four or so people that was held in Maryland.  That is when she said that Kavanaugh grabbed her and forced her into a bedroom.  Ford is quoted in The Washington Post that she had feared Kavanaugh “might inadvertently kill” her while he was holding her down on the bed and groping her in 1982.  She says that another boy watched as Kavanaugh tried to rape her.

She said that she tried to cry out but Kavanaugh had turned the music up at the party and closed the door.  She said that her opportunity arose when a friend of Kavanaugh came into the room and jumped on both of them. That friend is Mark Judge, a writer who categorically denies that the incident occurred as does Kavanaugh himself. Judge referred to the account as s “absolutely nuts.”

Ford says that she did discuss the alleged attempted rape in couples therapy with her husband about five years ago.  Russell Ford has supported that account.

Ford says that she was traumatized for years by the experience.  However, there is no indication that she ever made a formal compliant to the police or previously raised the issue during Kavanaugh’s prior confirmation hearings.  There remains the question of why Ford did not go public earlier when Kavanaugh was nominated for the D.C. Circuit or why she wanted Congress to know about the allegation but said that she did not want to go come forward herself.  Ford is an established academic who would clearly be supported in coming forward to report an attempted rape.

Now that the identity of the accuser is known, it will be possible to look at supporting or conflicting accounts.  Did she share the allegation of an attempted rape with friends at the time? Is there any record of seeking medical assistance or injuries? She says that she called a government official about reporting the incident at the time but there does not appear to be a record.  She also said that she received medical attention, but again produced no record.

The polygraph is the most interesting dynamic element.  While not admissible in court, the accuracy of polygraphs are often put between 70 and 90 percent when conducted properly.  I have been counsel in polygraph cases and there can be serious problems raised in the performance of the tests.

Ford also teaches at Stanford University in the Department of Psychiatry and previously taught as a research psychologist for Stanford University’s Department of Psychiatry and a professor at the Stanford School Of Medicine Collaborative Clinical Psychology Program.

Ford has an impressive array of academic degrees.  She was an undergraduate at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and received a Master’s Degree in psychology at Pepperdine University (where she also briefly taught).  She also has a a PhD in Educational Psychology: Research Design from the University of Southern California as well as Master’s in Education from Stanford University.

The Committee vote on Kavanaugh is scheduled for Thursday.

Here is the letter:


Senator Dianne Feinstein
Dear Senator Feinstein;
I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.
As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak.
Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980’s. He conducted these acts with the assistance of REDACTED.
Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school.
The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.
Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room. They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.
Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh. They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state. With Kavanaugh’s hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.
From across the room a very drunken REDACTED said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from “go for it” to “stop.”
At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other. After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom. I locked the bathroom door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.
I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since the assault. I did see REDACTED once at the REDACTED where he was extremely uncomfortable seeing me.
I have received medical treatment regarding the assault. On July 6 I notified my local government representative to ask them how to proceed with sharing this information . It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.
I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss. I am currently REDACTED and will be in REDACTED.
In confidence, REDACTED.

409 thoughts on “Kavanaugh Accuser Goes Public With The Support Of A Polygraph To Support Alleged High School Sexual Assault”

  1. one more thought for lawyers

    this mess is why “CHAMPERTRY” was unethical in the old days

    1. I believe the Trump administration has reversed Obama’s college campus policy which denied due process to those accused of sexual assault. That’s a start, at least. Why anyone would call Obama a ” constitutional scholar” is beyond me.
      BTW, Happy Constitution Day , everybody.



    “Flake flashed a yellow light Sunday night on Brett Kavanaugh’s high court bid, telling POLITICO that he won’t support advancing the nomination this week if fellow senators don’t do more to hear out a woman accusing the nominee of sexual assault more than three decades ago. Opposition from the Arizona Republican wouldn’t doom Kavanaugh outright, but it already has ratcheted up political pressure on a GOP struggling to keep Trump’s Supreme Court nominee from a full implosion.

    Flake is a charter member of the GOP’s anti-Trump caucus, one of only a few senators in the president’s party who freely tee off on the president’s handling of issues from trade to Russia, though they rarely actively undercut his agenda. Another member of that caucus, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), also called on Sunday night for a delay in the Kavanaugh confirmation process.

    But Flake, unlike Corker, sits on the Judiciary Committee. A “no” vote from him on the narrowly divided panel would force Republicans to bring Kavanaugh to the floor with a negative recommendation, or without a committee vote at all, in order to keep the nomination on track”.

    Edited from: “Flake’s Revenge? Trump Antagonist Holds Power Over Supreme Court Picks”

    Today’s POLITICO

    1. Pee, I need a job badly. Cant pay medical bills, run out of savings, cant find a job with benefits and fair wage to pay debts.
      How much do you get paid to troll these forums? Who is your boss and can you put in a good word for me?
      You threw sand in my face in Kindergarten in the sandbox 30+ years ago and pinned me against the grass while thrusting your playdoh in my ear, but I am willing to look past that incident if you pay me well with a job like yours.

        1. Peter Hill, why did you do those awful things to Sandman. That is piggish.

          A woman who read sandman’s account remembers that decades ago when you were drinking at an unknown date and at an unknown place you pushed her down and tried to rape her. Why did you do that? She says you traumatized her.

    2. if, IF, Flake wants to live out his life not being known as a total pussycat and a craven loser, and reminded of it until his dying days, then, he will not break ranks

        1. If that’s the case, it hasn’t occurred to Flake that the popular NeverTrump constituency is slightly less numerous than the Ron Paul constituency. Paul sold a lot of newsletters at one time. Don’t think you can monetize your odd apercus in our time the way you could 25 years ago, though.

  3. After the shenanigans the Republicans pulled on the Garland nomination there really is nothing the Democrats might do that could be considered in any way unfair and that doesn’t even take into account how they are rushing Kavanaugh through the process without having his work thoroughly scrutinized. He is a radical right wing extremist who has no business on the court and it would be right in line with the sort of right wing hypocrisy of moralizing, vindictive and dogmatic personalities we so often find that have significant skeletons in their closets. I find it very easy to believe that he engaged in such conduct. I hope it causes him maximum stress, anxiety and personal discomfort.

    1. How did that investigation into Judge Scalia’s odd ball death go?

      Oh, I forgot, you guy’s think it’s natural cause when you use a pillow to takem out.

      So Ph Garland replacing Scalia!

      1. Justice Kagan was with Scalia on the hunting trip in which he supposedly died in his sleep. Maybe she snuffed him……

    2. as skeletons go, this is barely a fishbone from a supper from 35 years ago

      sounds like vindictiveness is something you are projecting!

      1. Kurtz, several senators, including Murkowski and Collins, have said they believe Blassey-Ford should testify. Once we see her testimony, we’ll have a better idea of how credible she is.

        1. No. Once the committee sees the evidence, then they can determine if her testimony is necessary. No evidence, no testimony.

          You idiots never stop to think about the long-term ramifications of your actions. If the Senate can be forced to go full-stop on every baseless allegation, then you can bet this will be the new confirmation standard.

          1. it seems that they are willing to run that risk. apparently they consider this nomination one to pull out all the stops.

            it goes to show how phony the two party system is and how little they really care about qualifications.

            the Republicans better get busy on retaliatory and punitive measures for this absurd level of obstruction. They need to show up to a gunfight with more than a waterpistol.

            1. They are flying by the seat of their pants; risk assessment comes after they crash.

              I am confident that if this delays the vote in the Senate to hear testimony, etc., then victims will begin crawling out of the woodwork.

              Summer of ’42 was on TCM this weekend. There was more evidence (11 minutes of “shoulder” massage) that Hermy sexually molested his date at the movies than Ford has shown on Judge Kavanaugh. And that evidence was just a description from his friend.

            2. To hell with them and double down that for the socialists. Let them die in place unable to bark at the moon. Where they going to go. Nothing funnier than a city slacker out in the real world finding out the nearest grocery store is 100 miles that other way while they worry abut the calorie count at the neighbor farms vegetable stand.

              Time for the story of super pig!

              This one was known far and wide for being able to weed the gardeen pick out and bring to the kitchen door the evenings meal, deliver both mail from the mailbox and firewood from the splitting yard, mind the kids playing in the yard and then herd the cows home for milking time.AND MORE!

              So some city slacker stops to see super pig and asks “If that pig is so good why has it got only three legs?”

              Famer looks at him all disgusted like and answers “Pig that good you can’t eat but one leg at a time.”

              I’ve been to the city…. that is exactly how they are….

            1. Your news updates are always too late to be considered newsworthy and are often lacking basic facts, which make them nothing more than useless OpEds.

          2. “You idiots never stop to think about the long-term ramifications”

            They don’t care because 1) They are idiots and 2) They are dangerous ideologues as a group but cowardly otherwise.

          1. Gov. Palin has never been daft. Murkowski is notable for nepotistic opportunism, not for being daft.

            1. Spastic, until this moment I entertained the ‘possibility’ that you might have some intelligence despite your Trump leanings. But if you think Sarah Palin is anything more than a political flyweight, then I’ve lost all respect for you.

              1. You have to have respect for yourself before you can respect others. Which leaves you out ot the race.

              2. then I’ve lost all respect for you.

                Not interested.

                The political flyweight has been a mayor, state bureau chief, and state governor. Alaska was one of two states not running a deficit in 2009.

                What’s interesting about reactions to Gov. Palin is how uninterested liberals are in anything she’d done with her life or her time in office. You fancy Barack Obama, who had never held an executive position prior to 2009, who had punched his ticket in legislative bodies for 12 years without ever establishing himself as a maven in any area of policy, and whose career as an academic and as a working attorney were bereft of any accomplishment other than showing up. Shallow and silly is no way to go through life.

                While we’re at it, why do you figure Michelle Obama’s salary was doubled when her husband was elected to Congress, and what do you thing she did all day to justify a salary which exceeded that of a medical specialist?

            2. daft means silly or foolish. Maybe not foolish but definitely she seems silly to me and a lot of others. I don’t dislike her, I think she would be a great big sister or something. I would pass on her being VP

              But, I would pass on McCain being president too. Probably a blessing in disgusie they failed

              1. Kurtz they only speak one brand of English and that one only has eight words a question mark. Daft is exactly the right word.

              2. daft means silly or foolish. Maybe not foolish but definitely she seems silly to me and a lot of others.

                What’s she done that’s silly or foolish?

            3. For Murkowski a Republican to play into this current farce, is definitely FOOLISH which synonym is DAFT. Yes, she is DAFT. This is a partisan war and weakness will only be rewarded with more pain. So there is not one Republican who is justified to break ranks.

              Permanent thumbs down on Murky

    3. ” He is a radical right wing extremist ”

      Let’s here a few reasons why you believe him to be an extremist. It is amazing that his opinions do not demonstrate extremist decisions and conformed mostly and certainly more than most with the Supreme Court.

      Is an extremist one who believes differently than you?

        1. A leftist would use the word conservative which is the biggest one they knowi but then they are quite barmy don’t yoiu know? Round The Bend. and that is the meaning of daft.:

  4. A Feminazi “lynching” under the 19th amendment.

    Enough incoherence and hysteria.

    Repeal the 19th amendment.

  5. This professor it turns out has the following connections

    Brett Kavanaugh’s Mother, a Judge, Presided Over a Foreclose Case Involving Christine Blasey Ford’s Parents … Case Number: 156006V Sub Type:FORECLOSURE … TO FORECLOSE AND FOR SALE OF PROPERTY, EXHIBITS A1-6 & B, STATEMENT OF …. This belief of no personal responsibility.

    The professors big brother it turns out worked Fusion GPS.for 15 years. The one’s Clinton paid a million dollars to for the phony dossier and the one’s that with the British guy Steele helped the FBI use it to manufacture the FISA application scam.

    Hell has no fury like a party girl dis-homed.

    source trail was google search, several comments and then a twitter capture from Bexar in or of Texas.

    However it’s District Court of Maryland wasn’t hard to pick up that trail.

  6. People in government should be held to the highest standards, like Supreme Court nominees the President, Speaker of the House, Majority Leader…………….Oh fuhgeddaboudit…..MAGA…..Morons Are Governing America.

  7. Additional information.

    Her husband said that in 2012, she discussed this as a repressed memory. He remembered her naming Kavanaugh, and he claims she was scared he would one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.

    Not that she was scared he could be raping women for the past 35 years.

    In her recent statement, she called it her “civic duty” to report this. If she really believes this happened, then where was her duty to her fellow women to report this 36 years ago, or any time up until now, to protect women? Even when it passed the statue of limitations, if she had made an accusation years ago, it would have provided the encouragement for other victims to speak up, if they exist.

    In the Bill Cosby case, the women did not make a police report. (Seriously, women, file a police report.) However, there was a trend of very similar accusations spanning a period of time. Because rapists…rape. There is a pattern of behavior. If some accusers do not make a report, at least there is a pattern that can be established.

    1. oh karen stop thinking like a normal human being! of course it’s ok to fail to report a crime for 35 years and then expect folks to believe you. NOT!

  8. Here’s an idea:

    “Republicans should confirm Kavanaugh, expand the Supreme Court to 15, and immediately confirm the next six justices nominated by Trump.”

    tweet by Sean Davis

    1. great idea. Placing before a firing squad Dianne Feinstein, Kamala Harris and Nancy Pelosi – trifecta

      1. Cuervo – I just went to a musical version of The Scarlet Pimpernel. I am now for bringing back the guillotine. 😉

    2. Alternatively, the Supreme Court should be depoliticized, returned to objectivity and reduced to one justice, in jeopardy of immediate, accelerated impeachment and conviction, with the sole and singular charge of assuring that actions comport with the Constitution and that all acts contrary to its manifest tenor be declared void with extreme prejudice.

      “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

      – Alexander Hamilton

    3. FDR already tried that it was his one big failing.; But in history. There haven’t always been nine justices on the court. The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices.Oct 8, 2013. Their have been 113 total since day one. There is no set maximum or minimum per Constitution. The circuit and courts are creatures of the Senate enacting a bill and the President signing it. Likewise there are no requirements to become a SCOTUS except two. Nomination by President and Confirmation by Senate.None. not even citizenship.

  9. We have seen the Democrats are willing to lie about these sort of things. We have even seen Democrats such as Harry Reid lie out right and then admit to it after his blatant lie achieved its purpose. We have the word of two of the participants, so called, that this did not happen. The woman has provided no corroborating evidence.

    We also know how desperate the Democrats are to prevent Kavanaugh’s confirmation. I can absolutely see that somebody would tell this kind of lie to prevent this sort of change on the court. Democrats are very much of the nature that the end justifies the means.
    I held very little respect for Democrats previous to this. Now, I have none. Hopefully, this woman will be caught in her lies and will be stripped of any titles or authority she has.

    1. The sword of one cannot prove a negative cuts both ways. If she lacks evidence, she cannot prove that she did not make it up.

    1. Yup. I did. I took a polygraph test for a job and I used deep sea breathing exercises do to my scuba diving hobby. Question was asked, I lied, and not a blip on the test.

    2. it’s called “beating the box.” sociopaths can do it easily, look at various Russian spies in FBI that regularly lied their backsides off on polygraphs and never got caught

      people can also be trained to beat the box and in fact that itself is part of espionage training or so I have read

      they are inadmissible in court against defendants who object to their use because they are poor tools for verification. not useless, just not reliable.

    3. It’s possible. It’s also possible to take many lie detector test and only report the ones which produce the results you like. I’m not accusing Blassey of this–just saying it’s possible

      1. rix frost – the question she answered was interesting and had nothing to do with the incident, rather a summary. Was the summary accurate?

    4. Yes. One way is no matter what is asked think of someting else and answer that question. Is snow white? Yes Is coal black Yes. Are Chevvies reliable? No.

      Another is purely ethnic but there is one group in the world that consistently can beat the machine.

      Here are some references.

      Top 10 Tips for Beating a Lie Detector – Listverse

      Nov 8, 2007 – There are a variety of instances in which you may be subjected to a polygraph, or lie detector examination. These tests can be a source of …
      Lie detectors and the lying liars who use them – The Conversation

      Jul 17, 2014 – But as much as we would like to rely on technology to give us definitive answers, humans may well always be able to beat the lie detector.
      How to Beat a Polygraph Test – The New York Times

      Apr 11, 2015 – “A polygraph is nothing more than a psychological billy club used to … lower courts can ban them as evidence, and the scientific community has …
      Missing: ethnic ‎| ‎Must include: ‎ethnic
      Do Lie Detectors Work? | Psychology Today

      Mar 7, 2013 – Calling it a “lie-detector” suggests that a polygraph machine can … Doubts about polygraph tests grew in the scientific community until the …
      3 The Scientific Basis for Polygraph Testing | The Polygraph and Lie …

      Evidence relevant to the validity of polygraph testing can come from two main …. are there systematic differences between these groups of people that could affect ….. of fight or flight, thereby promoting the protection and survival of the organism. ….. as race and gender, on the accuracy of polygraph diagnoses of deception.) …
      How to beat a polygraph test – Quora

      The simple answer is Yes, you can beat a polygraph test. This is why they … If you’re like most people, lying makes your heart race. It makes you ….. a polygraph. 01 – It must be used for a very focused topic – background checks are too broad


    “A Senate committee may be forced to postpone its vote this week on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh while members explore fresh allegations of a decades-old sexual assault.

    Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the committee’s chairman, was scrambling Sunday to arrange staff telephone calls with Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who says Kavanaugh assaulted her at a party in the early 1980s when they were both students in high school.

    “Her recollection of these events is crystal clear,” Ford’s attorney Lisa Banks told Morning Edition. “She will agree to participate in any proceedings that she’s asked to participate in.”

    Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, tweeted Monday that Kavanaugh and Ford “should both testify under oath before the Judiciary Committee.” As one of only two GOP women in the Senate and a key undecided vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination, Collins views may carry outsized weight with Grassley”.

    ARTICLE GOES ON TO NOTE: Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski is open to delaying the Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote.

    Edited from: “Kavanaugh Accuser Wiling To Testify If Asked

    This morning’s NPR

    1. Is her mother and father going to be called too? That would be the ones who had their house foreclosed. How about the Judge that foreclosed on her parents house? That would be the Judge Kavenaugh the elder. Or the Fusion GPS connection. That would be her brother.

  11. If the identities of the other 3 individuals at the alleged party are known to Congressional investigators, then I believe Judge K has a problem. The Judiciary Committee can vote to subpoena anyone still living. At this point, a witness corroborating Brett’s attendance along with Christine B. at a party at a suburban MD home, and the fact that Brett was drinking alcohol to excess — that would undermine his denials, and that that could sink his nomination.

    1. pbinca – and she would be cold sober with 4 drunk boys in a house with no adults? And she cannot remember how she got home?

      1. WAS SHEinebriated and that might explain why she does not know how she got home?? Can it be a case of wrong identy and it was someone else? How come she waited until the last moment to interfere with the process? Sounds like she was picked to go against the judge. If she is wrong and the judge can prove it does he have a case to sue?

  12. I believe Judge K will face questions under oath, such as did you attend a party at a suburban MD house during high school as recalled by Mrs. Ford? If you are having difficulty recollecting this party, would it help your recollection if 3rd party witnesses testified? Is it possible that alcohol consumption at the time interfered with your memory formation of some events?

    The Dems don’t need to focus on the sexual misconduct allegation to harm Judge K’s nomination. All they have to do is establish a pattern of high school drinking and partying, and corroborate that K attended the party Mrs. Ford attended. He can’t deny attending a party, and then have a witness under oath (other than Mrs. Ford) place him there with Chrstine B.

    But, Dems are not that smart. They only see the sexual misconduct — the hardest thing to prove with facts. So, this may backfire on the Dems.

    1. for him to suffer this is a shame for our Republic.

      a well known, well qualified nominee comes up and the Democrats gin up a preposterous accusation against him

      in sterner times they just would man up and declare war. Though we are not that honest anymore, yet, the possibility of CW2 has gone up a big notch. When both sides want it fully, it will come, and it may be the worst one ever in human history.

      you know your side is ready when you want the other side to fail, more than you want your side to succeed. then there is nothing left to happen but join the fray

  13. So how about Kavanaugh taking a lie detector test? And have the woman re-tested,by the same technician as for Kavanaugh. There are four possible outcomes. I wonder which would be the more likely …..

  14. 5 people at this party.
    3 go upstairs
    2 lock the bedroom door and allegedly assault Ford.
    Had she been drinking? Was she also drunk?
    Ford runs across the hallway to the bathroom and locks the door. How did she run across to the bathroom if a significant point was the bedroom door was locked by the other two?
    2 of the 3 stumbled downstairs laughing (how did she hear it with the loud music playing?)
    Is she the only girl at this party? If not, then the 2 remaining downstairs were at least 1 male and 1 female. Were they not curious why 3 of the 5 disappeared for a bit behind closed doors and loud music?
    Were they not curious why Ford didn’t come down with the 2 stumbling guys?
    Were they not curious why Ford ran out of the house? She said nothing to the 2 remaining downstairs as she left?
    Why didn’t DiFi report this letter immediately?

    This reeks of clumsy political desperation; worse than the alleged clumsy, drunken sexual assault by teenagers 35+ years ago.

    1. Olly, I just read the WaPo article over again. I don’t see where it says only ‘5’ people were at the party. See if you can find that, I couldn’t.

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

      2. Previously posted in a reply that should have been for Peter:

        From Ford’s letter to DiFi:

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

          1. I wonder if that means ‘4’ others in addition to Kavanaugh and his buddy Mark Judge.

            Of course you do. You can wonder about the unknown, but when someone gives you a basic math problem, wondering about the result is willful ignorance.

            a gathering that included me and four others.
            me = 1
            and = +
            4 others = 4
            1 + 4 = 5

            You’re welcome.

            Try again.

              1. In other words, her *ahem* memory will become more clear under oath than it was as she crafted her letter to DiFi. Got it.

                BREAKING NEWS! Mary Jane Rottencrotch has accused Robert Mueller of sexual assault while he and several others attending, including John Kerry, from the prestigious St. Paul’s School hosted a graduation kegger party.

          2. “I wonder if that means” her multiple personalities.
            Throw in Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and a crucifix, and it carries the celestial weight of an exorcism.

          3. She said “me and four others”, not “in addition to K and the other guy.” So I, too, read it as 5 people total.

            The news is saying that this was a repressed memory that she only recalled in 2012 during a counseling session with her husband.

            My difficulty is how ever could you prove it? It is also impossible to disprove a negative. I could not prove that I have never slaughtered a chicken in my life. How in the world could I prove I have never done something? He literally cannot prove that he has never climbed on top of anyone against their will. It is up to her to prove that this did happen.

            And if she cannot, then what we are left with is an unprovable accusation that may taint the candidate. If Kavanaugh is not confirmed because of an unprovable allegation from 35 years ago, then this becomes the established game plan. If ever there is a candidate that you oppose, bring fraudulent charges up from so long ago that you cannot be prosecuted for making it up. It becomes political terrorism – a threat not to put forward a candidate that the Democrats don’t like, or they will come up with a ruinous allegation that cannot be proven. God forbid both sides were to act like that.

            As I’ve said before, actions have consequences that we all have to live with. Hypothetically, if this really happened, then her failure to report to the police means she has no documentation of her accusation at the time. Her not talking about it to anyone for 35 years means there is no history of her story. Her not talking about it after 2012, while Kavanaugh held important positions, means there is no history of her accusation. Diane Feinstein withholding this until the 11th hour, and failing to ask Kavanaugh a single question about it during his hearing, means that there is no time. She deliberately withheld information for 3 months, only releasing it now. I suspect that this was a Hail Mary pass to delay the confirmation until after the midterms, or to raise the #MeToo specter to vulnerable politicians just before the midterms, pressuring them to vote no to protect their own seats.

            Kavanaugh has 65 women who have vouched for knowing him for over 35 years, and have never seen this behavior. A guy who would try to rape a girl at a party tends to try to rape girls at parties. There would likely be an established pattern, which is really all you have to go on in a he-said-she-said case.

            People are innocent until proven guilty. If you cannot prove an allegation, then it is not fair to withhold the most important job of this man’s career and assume he is guilty. That would punish him for a crime no one proved he did. After 35 years, recollections change. If she really hasn’t spoken about it for 35 years, then nothing happened that would solidify anyone’s recollection of that evening. If I had to testify about any event 35 years ago, how would I remember any details?

            Rape is a very serious offense. If you bring an accusation, you had better be able to prove it. If she can, then of course that is another matter.

            1. rape requires penis to vagina penetration., it is not a rape accusation not even attempted rape. it is at best misdemeanor sexual assault. a serious crime but not exactly a huge one.

              these are being bandied about these days against a lot, who knows but let’s just guess, 10% of every group of boys graduating high school.

              in her case, she waited 35 years to bandy it about

              1. “rape requires penis to vagina penetration.”

                Best I understand from what has been published is clothing was on so that never happened nor was Kavanaugh accused of it. He was accused of a fantasy that almost certainly didn’t involve Kavanaugh.

  15. Don’t tell anybody but Kavanaugh is being investigated by Meuller for colluding with the Russians.

    1. From Ford’s letter to DiFi:

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

      1. “that included me and four others”…..tsk, tsk
        Improper English utilization. Then again she is a perfursor at Palo Alto Univ, that bastion of scholarly rigorously academic work 😜

        1. oh, so Silicon Valley has put her up to it. Silicon Valley is a kind of deep state now in its infancy to rival the old one

          1. She certainly had plenty of contacts in Silicon and WDC area but you put those contacts down against a list of Clintons, DNC, dirt cops, phony dossiers, Fusion GPS, etc etc etc. It sure would make any honest investigator want to check it out thoroughly.

  16. Kavanaugh has had a long distinguished career. This is all that the democrats have to derail him. Whether the republicans take it on the chin or not in November, they should put him on the Supreme Court. And I don’t think the 19th amendment should be repealed.

  17. “The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.”

    ― Leon Trotsky, Their Morals and Ours

    Attempting to fraudulently destroy a Trump Supreme Court nominee by deploying a false and contrived act when all other tactics have failed is condoned by democrats because republicans are not allowed to win elections.

    Enough incoherence and hysteria.

    Repeal the 19th amendment.

    1. out of a lot of the garbage I have digested by Trotsky, that essay was one of the more amusing reads.

      he’s shoveling sheiss in hell now anyways, with an icepick in his head and broken spectacles, his frizzy hair permanently afire

Comments are closed.