Kavanaugh Denies Knowing Ford And Ever Going To The Party

download-6download-7Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has categorically denied knowing Dr. Christine Blasey Ford or going to the party where she says he tried to rape her in the 1980s.  The categorical denial certainly clarifies the situation but it is not a response that most seasoned lawyers would advice.  Ford cannot remember much about the location or the time of the party, but Kavanaugh is saying with certainty that he did not go to the party.  Moreover, the denial puts Kavanaugh one polaroid away from disaster. One picture of the two teens at a football game or party would be enough for a coup d’grace on his confirmation.

Kavanaugh’s team is putting forward dozens of women to vouch for him.  Those testimonials are unlikely to make much of a difference. It comes down to corroboration or contradiction.  Kavanaugh has set out a bright line denial — making this a fact dispute.

As I have said in commentary, there is a possibility that someone can have a false association with a traumatic event.  I have handled a significant number of polygraph disputes where results have been rejected as unreliable.  Ford could have had this traumatic experience but wrongly associated Kavanaugh with the attacker.  In such a case, she could pass a polygraph.  The key will be any contemporary witnesses like any friends with whom Ford confided after the alleged attack.

Monday’s hearing will indicate if any such corroboration or contradiction has been found.  Indeed, it would be better for both sides to avoid leaking any damaging information until the hearing to push Ford or Kavanaugh.

288 thoughts on “Kavanaugh Denies Knowing Ford And Ever Going To The Party”

  1. One picture of the two teens at a football game or party would be enough for a coup d’grace on his confirmation.

    No, it would not. It would just demonstrate that they’d crossed paths, not that one knew the other. They both lived in the Bethesda / Chevy Chase at the time, so it wouldn’t be surprising to find they been at some event at the same time. (Unsurprising does not mean likely, however).

    I can see in my mind the faces of people I was acquainted with in 1982 but I cannot recall their names. I can recall people I knew or people I’d met, but not much about them. Take this guy:


    If he told you he didn’t know me, he almost certainly would not be lying. If I told you I did not know him, that statement would not be entirely true, but it would be 98% true. I remember his face, I remember one of his hobbies, I remember he was from Eugene, Oregon, and I remember we had a conversation over lunch in 1982 or 1983. It was in a cafeteria and we just happened to sit at the same table with no one else present. Had there been a yearbook photographer snapping pictures, you’d have had the ‘proof’ you find so damning.

      1. No, he was someone I was tangentially acquainted with 35 years ago. Reading comprehension. It’s great stuff.

        1. It seems odd you would bring him into this discussion as only an ‘example’. We can imagine random encounters without posted links.

          1. It’s not odd at all. You were just too sloppy to read it properly and you insist on having the last word all the time.

            1. Maybe I need special optic wear for Spastic posts. There would not seem to be any logical reason to link a specific person here. But I’m sure you linked him for some (catty) reason.

              1. There would not seem to be any logical reason to link a specific person here.

                No, Peter, it’s a perfectly obvious reason. I cannot help it if you’re obtuse.

            2. Peter Hill’s skills exclude understanding anything that is not provided to him in a clean package. You were about as clear as you could get and he still couldn’t understand it.

  2. As simple-minded as this sounds, (as well as totally unrealistic) I think the only fair thing to do is to reveal all of the Judicial Committee Senators’ past high school escapades……encouraging former friends and party goers to offer-up stories under oath. The Senators are not being considered for the Supreme Ct, but they are determining who will spend the rest of their lives there. I’ll bet some of Cory’s, Kamala’s , and Feinstein’s former classmates have some juicy stories for us.
    Gosh I hate soap operas, especially real ones.

    1. I’d like to have seen former Democrat senators Ted Kennedy and his drinking buddy Chris Dodd up there doing some of the questioning. They were infamous for their drunken “waitress sandwiches” where the two of them would squish their fat old bodies on either side of a young giggling Capitol Hill restaurant waitress and call it good old-fashioned fun.

    2. Also, speaking of Democrats: Kamala slept her way to power, Cory Booker is rumored to be gay, and Feinstein has yet to be seriously questioned about the Chinese spy she had on her staff for 20 years.

      1. It’s well known in CA that Kamala Harris was Willy Brown’s girlfriend. He was Speaker of the CA Assembly, about the age of her father, and she was a recent law grad trying to break into politics. The issue wasn’t that he was married. He has some type of “open” marriage where he and his wife stay legally married, but both do their own thing as far as romance goes. I guess they are good friends but not interested in one another romantically. But the scandal as far as Kamala goes, is that it was so blatantly obvious that she was sleeping her way to the top and Willy Brown, [sorry Willy if you’re reading this], well, he’s kind of gross looking and the thought that she would….well never mind.

        Cory Booker….I’ve read that he has a thing for young white guys. That’s the rumor, and he’s a bit of a drama queen, but who knows.

        I respect Feinstein. She is too liberal for me politically, but she’s a hard worker and has done a lot for her constituents.

        1. Feinstein’s was fined $190,000 for failure to properly report campaign contributions.

          I don’t hold that against her for it is a common problem but wish to bring it up so that others that like to be sticklers when it comes to Republicans should see that the same occurs with Democrats even those who have been around forever.

  3. Well, she has 1 week to find that photo. However, her attorney says it is not up to her to defend the charges she has made. She just gets to let the charges lie there like a steaming t**d. And none of the Republican will really cross-examine her, like they should, because of the #MeToo movement.

    And the story keeps changing in the telling. First, it was four boys attacking her. Then Brett attacking her with 3 boys in the house. Now, there might have been another girl in the house.

    Okay, I am going to ask the question. Was she the neighborhood bicycle? Only the neighborhood bicycle would have gone to a house alone with 4 teen boys.

    1. Paul:
      Some accounts do make her the neighborhood moped who eventually moved away from Bethesda. You can insert the old moped joke here about it being fun to ride but you never want your friends to seeing you doing it.

      1. Her family has lived around Washington for a loooong time. Her great-grandparents were marred in the District of Columbia in 1895. Her (paternal side) grandparents pretty much spent their lives in the area. Her father grew up in the area and her parents relocated to the area in 1960; in recent decades they’ve been resident in DC, Silver Spring, Rockeville, and Potomac. They were resident in Potomac as recently as 2002. Her brother was resident in Kensington as recently as 2002 as well.

        1. Addendum, a WhitePages search puts her parents, her brother and sister-in-law, her niece, and her sister in Kensington or in Pototmac.

    2. Paul C. Schulte,
      At one point, we lived down Mass Ave. from Bethesda., which at that time had the BEST Howard Johnson’s, (especially the fried clams). I don’t ever remember seeing either of them there. Of course, they were about 8 or 9 years old at the time 🙂

      I’m going to have to check the urban dictionary for “bicycle” as I am unfamiliar with it’s new meaning. I hope I don’t blush.

  4. Kavanaugh’s strong statement of denial rings true to me. This accusation by Blasey-Ford coming out of the woodwork from 36 years ago rings false to me. Not only does it ring false to me, the alleged incident does NOT hold the seriousness with which we are all being told it does.

    IF this incident happened as alleged, it was a drunken teenage groping session that frightening a 15 yr old girl. That’s it. She was in over her head with an older inebriated teenage boy and she got frightened. Period end of story. Just STOP with all this garbage of what a serious accusation this is and how the trauma of the experience led her to life long therapy for PTSD or something.

    This whole drama is a political hit job. Period. It is meant to smear and destroy not only Kavanaugh, but ANY Republican nominee from this day forward. This game plan is crystal clear. Stand your ground Kavanaugh. Do not back down in the face of this atrocious dishonorable behavior by the DEMONcrats.

    1. Bob, if one wanted to argue, just for the sake of arguing, they could say the treatment Republicans gave Merrick Garland was every bit as atrocious and dishonorable.

      1. Really, Shill? I guess if it’s your ox that is gored, then it’s atrocious and dishonorable. Otherwise, meh.

      2. Purely political. The Democrats would have played it the very same way if the situation had been reversed. McConnell referred to it as “the Biden rule.” Biden is a Democrat, no?

          1. Maybe so. But please don’t assert the argument here that the Democrats hold any righteous high ground or moral authority or play-by-the-rules-superiority here. They don’t. You can be dam certain if the situation had been reversed and Harry Reid was in power, that he would have used every dirty political trick he could get away with in order to achieve a desired outcome for the Democrats. Count on it. McConnell beat them at their own game and they can’t stand it.

          2. Plus, considering that almost all the media and pollsters were forecasting an almost certain Clinton victory at the time McConnell made the declaration that the winner of the 2016 election should decide the new Supreme Court nominee — it goes without saying that he was taking a chance on letting Hillary decide the next nominee. He called it “the Biden rule.” Considering Hillary was supposedly a shoe-in to win at the time, it sounds fair enough to me.

              1. So what’s your point? Is there another position one should hope to find themselves in when deciding on a major course of action?

                  1. Bob, McConnell’s ‘gamble’ was unprecedented. And here you are blabbering self-righteously about how mean the Democrats are to Kavanaugh when the accusations possibly have merit.

                    We’ll see when Ford testifies how credible she is. But this idea that the Democrats are so horribly ‘mean’ that McConnell was justified in denying Garland a hearing is just self-righteous nonsense.

                    What’s more, Merrick Garland had been widely respected by ‘both’ parties and seen as a fairly moderate jurist. Kavanaugh, by comparison, is clearly political.

                    1. Peter Shill, you’re reiterating a theme that’s been common in liberal discourse in recent decades: that it’s outrageous when political process isn’t structured to allow your side to win every time and your opposition are horrid if they don’t cave in to you. You live in a competitive political order. Grow up.

                    2. Peter Hill,

                      “Unprecedented.” So? Now we have a precedent.

                      “Blabbering self-righteously”? I think not.

                      “How mean the Dems are to BK”? Never said that word, “mean”….please don’t put words in my mouth.

                      “…when the accusations possibly have merit”? Possibly have merit? How on earth will we ever know that beyond ‘she said, he said’??

                      “We’ll see when Ford testifies”? She won’t testify, silly. That’s not her purpose nor her intent. Think. Think real hard.

                    3. TBob – she is waffling. It appears she made the same claim during the Gorsuch hearing but no one took her up on it. According to the family counseling notes she was in her late teens when she was attacked by 4 boys. Michel at Deception Bytes tracked down her faculty ratings from Fullerton when she taught there in the MSW program. She evidently was a crap teacher with high standards. In fact, one of the reviewers found her scary. Another found her unprofessional and another thought something was wrong with her mentally.

                    4. Peter Hill – “What’s more, Merrick Garland had been widely respected by ‘both’ parties and seen as a fairly moderate jurist.”

                      Define “fairly moderate jurist.” Because what I want, and what most of us want on the Supreme Court, is a jurist who interprets the law as the law and not anything else.

      3. Petey, you’re a bloody jackass. I can see why no one here respects you. Nobody accused Merrick garland of groping, or attempted rape or assault. There is no equivalency here, and only a democrat jackass like you could suggest that.

        1. Moron, if nobody accused Merrick Garland of any wrong-doing, then he should have gotten a hearing. You’re logic here is bizarre, to say the least.

          And nobody respects me because I’m not a Trumper. Trumper’s think this blog is supposed to be their safe space.

          1. Peter, nobody respects you because you are ” a bloody jackass”

            You deserve everything you get because you feed off of innuendo and lies.

    2. Even unattractive girls get groped in high school and college. Especially if one or both are inebriated. This clutching of pearls over such a silly incident is ridiculous.

    3. Pushed a lot of 15 year old girls into rooms against their will and jumped on them while holding your hand over their mouth and trying to disrobe them did you TBob.? Good thing their older brother brothers or father didn’t learn that info back in the day, your sorry ass would be mush.
      Your boy Kavanaugh looks to have enjoyed a real wild drunken time back at his “Holy” Catholic party school, good times had by all the boys it seems.


  5. Hey, where are all the pontificating articles about Rep. Keith Ellison. Nobody leaked a letter from the alleged object of his domestic scorn. The Dems seem to have completely forgoten about the DNC co-chair. Amazing how morality and defense of women only work one side of the street in DC.

  6. Kavanaugh is pulling a Trump here. When accused of anything, simply deny it in the most absolute way. ‘I was in Peoria having breakfast with a nun. She passed away las week.’ If nothing more surfaces to reinforce the girl’s accusation(s), then the last words will be Peoria/nun. If he is found to be lying then he rolled the dice and lost, it all. ‘I don’t recall.’ ‘It wasn’t like that.’ ‘It was all verbal tease.’ etc would make this go away and leave the girl alone in attesting that it wasn’t harmless. The main argument against her would be, if it was so harmful, why have you waited this long=political bias. Kavanaugh will not lose his appointment unless he is found to be clearly lying. He could run for President though. If a helpless libido like Clinton can make it in or a total sexual deviant and liar like Trump, then he could be President. The bar is set there.

      1. There is nothing in my post saying Trump was accused of rape. Just about everything in Trump’s life shows that he was and remains a deviant.

        ‘Kavanaugh is pulling a Trump here. When accused of anything, simply deny it in the most absolute way.’

        Trump relies, most of the time, on the old routine, ‘Who ya gonna believe?’ Trump has lied thousands of times since taking office. Trump has bragged about making stuff up. Trump has taken Putin’s side based on the same logic. Trump is the consummate liar. Lots of people seen to admire that.

        Trump is on tape illustrating that he is a deviant; bragging about grabbing and getting away with it because he is rich and famous…. Trump wins the disgusting, deviant, lying, buffoon award hands down.

        You have that common problem called, ‘Not understanding before responding.’ It’s either a politician avoiding the issue thing or a responding in a knee jerk manner thing. There’s a lot of that on this blog.

  7. While I’m open-minded to the possibility that Chrissy Blasey attended an early ’80s teen party also attended by Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh where there was underage drinking to excess, I’m also open to the possibility of memory contamination if she had read a copy of Mark’s 1997 book, “Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk”.

    I’m concerned about the message being sent to young people.

    That message should be: “If you get stupor drunk with the opposite sex, and something goes wrong, you won’t even be able to stand as a credible witness to what happened. You give up essential legal rights and protections when you drink to oblivion.”

    This is the correct message, as it pins the same level of responsibility on boys and girls, and treats them as equals before the law.

    As far as advice to Kavanaugh, he would be wise to show a little more humility about having participated in underage drinking while at Georgetown Prep. He can afford to have been an “average teen” in going through a learning phase with alcohol consumption. There is Mark Judges’ memoir “Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk” to contend with. If there is a hearing Monday, some Senators will be holding up a copy of the book and quoting from it, ready to grill Kavanaugh about his youthful drinking escapades with his friend Mark.

    Jonathan is right. The best course at this point would be to prepare Judge K to present himself as having been immature at one point, and possessed of a typically American spirit of rebelliousness and independence-seeking. To try to impart an image of sainthood all through high school will not work, especially in light of “Wasted”.

    1. You apparently didn’t know guys and girls in HS who didn’t go along with the “crowd”. Not everyone was a John “Bluto” Blutarsky” back then.

    2. As far as advice to Kavanaugh, he would be wise to show a little more humility about having participated in underage drinking while at Georgetown Prep.

      Your advice stinks.

  8. It’s astounding what the Left perceives as criminal behavior. Here’s a hint: the first hurdle is ideology; if you support the ideology, then attack the accusers with the full weight of the state. If you threaten it, then attack the accused with the full weight of the state. This is banana republic stuff that no rational and reasonable person would condone. This will have legs.

      1. Trump’s attacks on the FBI and Justice Department fall right into that Banana Republic category.

        Fair enough. President Trump attacking those high-level members of the FBI/DOJ that have weaponized their agencies like we see in Banana Republics should be praised. Thanks for the reminder.

  9. Let’s just cut to the chase. If people would do two things it would solve many of these sad situations. If people, male and female, would take responsibility for “their” behavior AND if we committed to the concept of respect for self and respect for others that would go a long way in circumventing these situations. Lastly, there are several studies indicating that the frontal lobe of a young person’s brain is NOT fully developed till their MID-20s. The family of Brett Kavanaugh is being annihilated and that is WRONG. If this proves to be political fodder I hope the Kavanaugh Family files a defimination of character law suit on behalf of the family against this person AND Dianne Feinstein. Lastly, if I was a guy in this feminist choked world I would not even run for dog catcher.

  10. Well if this is allowed to stop this man from getting the position it will threaten each and every appointment from both sides hereafter. Victims should be heard and protected but when incidents occur not years and years later. We don’t know what, when and if the incident occurred and from some of her recollections neither does she. The other witness involved who she has named says it didn’t happen. The Dems said they would never vote for this guy from the get go so Republicans all of you and I mean all of you vote this guy in. This dem tactic is as bad as Spartacus. By the way how many of you guys did or did not back in HS let your hormones take over and put your hands on some little girls assets? If you have you better worry she suddenly remembers how traumatized she was or wasn’t by your attempts.

  11. Prof. Turley, you omitted the word ‘denied’ in the first sentence of this post. That makes it grossly misleading, sir.

  12. Does Dr. Ford have an axe to grind for another reason?

    There needs to be testimony from Dr. Fords parents, Ralph & Paula Blasey. And Judge Martha Kavanaugh, Brett’s mother who ruled in favor of the Blaseys concerning a house foreclosure case in Maryland 1996. Docket No.156006V. Dr. Ford’s age would be about 30, not a teenager in 1996.

    1. TJ:

      “Does Dr. Ford have an axe to grind for another reason?”

      She has an axe to grind because she is a Democratic activist and partisan. She full well expected this to play out as it has having taken a lie detector test she could pass from an unidentified “former FBI employee” in AUGUST. (Wonder how many she took?) She also retained counsel before the letter was leaked. And her lawyer is a Democratic activist, too. The Dems are masters of subterfuge, character assasination and backroom shenanigans. Let’s see how many feckless Republicans there are who understand everything about Washington EXCEPT how to wield power.

      1. mespo…..yes, she knew she was going full monty with this way back when she was anon.
        “Let’s see: Lipstick? Check. Hair appointment? Check. Workout at gym? Check. New pants suit? Check. Feminist attorney? Check. Pass the poly? Check. Practice crying in front of mirror? Check and double check!”

        btw, mespo,………. hope those toronadoes missed y;all!

        1. “btw, mespo,………. hope those toronadoes missed y;all!”
          One was a few short miles from my office. I saw a second one while driving. We lost two people here in Richmond. Very sad

        1. Not that long. Company was founded in 2009, IIRC. I believe her brother is Ralph Blasey III and he lives in Kensington, Md.

  13. Maybe if the rank and file DNC dinosaurs would have been as dismissive to Hillary as they are to the new blood maybe this whole fiasco would have never been necessary.
    But, no, it’s all Russia’s fault.

  14. What is needed is a credible investigation by trained sexual assault investigators, not politicians. What the Judiciary Committee has planned is a political spectacle, not an investigation to determine the facts concerning the allegation.

    1. they are really busy with far more credible cases to investigate that are not 35 years old

      this case complaint would not get an hour’s worth of staff time from the cops. there are just too many real and serious allegations that need looking into to waste on a patently political smear job

      1. It is sad to see people criticizing the victim, a female while forgetting we call come from a woman’s womb.
        Demeaning Dr Ford is demeaning all the women in our own lives.

        1. “Demeaning Dr. Ford is demeaning all the women in our lives.” !!!! OMG man, you are exactly the type of weak-minded individual who buys into and then regurgitates the poltical propaganda of the day. Well done.

          Here’s another perspective: using female sexual assault “victims” as political weapons for smearing and destroying political opposition is anything BUT empowering to women. This whole charade is completely disempowering to women, disempowering to men, and disgustingly disrespectful and dishonoring to actual victims of sexual predatory behavior.

          Treating an alleged teenage drunken groping session from forty years ago as anything more than that IS the ACTUAL disgusting behavior that should be condemned – not bought into hook line and sinker you idiot.

          1. And if you want an example, take a look at what DNC deputy chair Keith Ellison has been accused of: domestic violence. And the victim is a woman (probably a Democrat herself) credibly accusing Ellison, the Democrat candidate for Attorney General in Minnesota. Are we hearing anything about this accusation in the media? No. Instead, this woman is being dismissed and cast aside. Now what were you saying about “demeaning all the women in our lives”? Yeah, talk to the DEMONcrat party and the media about that one.

            1. IF this woman (victim of Ellison’s bad behavior) could have been used as a political weapon to destroy the political opposition, then of course, we WOULD be hearing all about it and everyone would know her name. But see, she has alleged actual violence against a Democrat that the Democrat party and the Media want to WIN. So we hear nothing and this woman/victim is cast aside and silenced by the Democrats and the Media. That’s how the game works.

        2. She’s not a demonstrable victim. She’s a dame with a story. And it’s a swiss-cheese story to boot.

          You don’t belong on juries.

    2. Christine admits in her letter that the sexual misconduct went as far as groping and attempted undressing. Both teens had been drinking, which is known to impair judgment, and reduce inhibitions. She was not raped. She escaped a very uncomfortable situation. No investigator is going to take up a 35 year old case with these parameters.

    3. What is needed is a credible investigation by trained sexual assault investigators, not politicians.

      Rubbish. They have nothing to work with.

      BTW, Tara Levicy, the nurse who made such a cock-up of things during the Duke rape case, was completing her training as a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner.

  15. The good professor writes: “Moreover, the denial puts Kavanaugh one polaroid away from disaster. One picture of the two teens at a football game or party would be enough for a coup d’grace on his confirmation.”
    I’d have to ask, what price did any of the Senators who grilled Anita Hill suffer? Name one of them who lost their pension because of it.
    Guess who’s still on the Supreme Court?
    Dianne Feinstein has done the most damage in all of this and it’s to any credibility she had.Booker and Harris just flipped the game over and went home in a tantrum DF used her powers to manipulate this whole mess and now looks like a partisan fool to the nth degree.
    This last minute Hail Mary stunt is pathetic.

  16. Good for Kavanaugh.

    He stands by his position; the doubters (many of whom are not truth seekers, but partisan hacks) will never have enough proof.

    One unsubstantiated accusation made 35 years after the alleged event is now considered “sufficient doubt”; enough to derail a lifetime of accomplishment.

    Sexual abusers are typically lifetime abusers – they repeat the offense. If Kavanaugh”s distractors expect us to believe that he bit once and never bit again. BS

    1. I completely disagree with your “etiology” of sexual abusers. The fact is that many or most young men and women go though a learning phase about alcohol overconsumption. The majority are shocked when told by observers how they acted before passing out – no awareness of risk, total overconfidence, lascivious, wanton sexual pursuit, etc. The majority of young drinkers learn from experience, and then avoid the degradations of stupor drunkenness. They learn moderation as a form of impulse control.

      A small % of boys, however, succeed in getting laid and begin to use alcohol as a tool — as a rape drug — to whittle down the inhibitions of their prey. These boys control how much they imbibe and how much their target imbibes. That is the “tell”. A predatory party-rapist comes up with all kinds of reasons to force the women to keep drinking. There are drinking games exploited for this purpose.

      The repeat sexual abuser develops from early experiences that he sees as “working”. In his mind, it’s always consensual. However, he knows deep down that he is manipulating behavior, rationalizing, and is not acting innocently.

      The incidence of one-time sexual misconduct while drunk is very common among young men. It’s a learning experience. Much better if their parents could explain to them the primate impulses that take over when seriously drunk and in the company of the opposite sex. Much better if we taught young people that they become potential monsters near the point of passing out from drinking. Until this happens, young people have to learn the hard way.

      But, please, understand that 1-time sexual misconduct is an unfortunate aspect of most young people’s transition to maturity.

      1. pbinca – according to Ms Ford Kavanaugh was roaring drunk as was his friend. She says nothing about her alcohol consumption. I again ask my question. Was she the neighborhood bicycle? What was she doing alone with 4 (count them four) teen boys?

        1. PCS: Do you really need to attack a woman who comes forward and reports sexual assault as a slut? You can choose to believe her or not believe her, but why the uncalled for personal attacks on someone you don’t even know? Do you think Professor Turley wants his blog to be a place where victims of sex crimes are trashed as sluts and liars? Society is supposed to be past that. At least show some respect to the host of this blog. It’s supposed to be a place where people express their views with a sense of civility and decorum.

          1. TIN – Ms Ford’s story is all over the place. According to the therapist notes, it was four guys and she was in her late teens. She says the therapist got it wrong and it was Kavanaugh and it was some unknown summer when she was maybe 15. Okay. What is a 15 year old girl doing in a house alone with 4 guys who are all 2 years older than she is? She cannot remember the house, she cannot remember the date, she cannot remember how she got home or how she got there. It was a “repressed memory.” Repressed memories are highly suspect to begin with. And now it appears she sent a letter offering to testify that Gorsuch did the same thing to her. So, my question is: was she the neighborhood bicycle? When I was growing up, if she had done that, she would have been considered the neighborhood bicycle. It is a yes or no answer.

            1. PCS: You obviously grew up in a different time and place. This centered around very wealthy prep school kids with prominent parents in the wealthiest, highest educated suburb in the U.S. Pool parties were, and are, very common in the summer. And her lawyer said on CNN tonight that there was another girl there. And it was her lawyer, a prominent D.C. attorney, who had her take a lie detector test before agreeing to take the case, because the lawyer wasn’t about the risk her own reputation and that of her firm on an unverified story from an unknown person. The attorney had her tested by a retired FBI polygraph examiner and also checked her professional references. She has a solid background, as does her husband. You might not agree with her allegations, but calling her a slut is both legally defamatory and could get you kicked off this blog.

              1. Ben Dover – I have not called her anything. I have asked a question that I think needs to be answered. And according to first reports it was 4 boys attacking her in her late teens. Then it was Brett with Judge watching with 2 boys in the unfindable house and she is maybe 15. Now they have added a girl. And what is the question that she passed on the polygraph? Oh, and who does her attorney work with? And did she send a letter offering to do the same thing to Gorsuch? And how reliable is a “repressed memory”?

          2. TIN, Turn things the opposite way and look at how you portrayed Kavanaugh. Had this evidence been turned over appropriately when it was received it could have been investigated along with the usual background check. Nothing would have come of it but the woman’s dignity would have been preserved. It is entirely possible that as wrong as she is this woman may have false memories so I feel sorry for her, but once the issue becomes a political weapon she cannot be protected in an appropriate fashion. I believe this story to be untrue whether she believes it or not, but the way she has been used is harmful to real women’s rights and hurtful to those women that have been raped and could do nothing about it.

  17. Betting she doesn’t agree to Monday hearing…Dems may have miscalculated when Reps called their bluff…they preferred handing off to a vague fbi investigation while they stir the pot in the media and hope Reps lose their nerve

Leave a Reply