Congress, Media, Politics

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.

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

  1. For Kavanaugh to be able to make that statement about not being at the party with absolute certainty, when she was unsure of the date/location. He would have to have never attended a house party during his entire high school term?

    1. Maybe he never attended a house party where the parents weren’t at home and there were only 5 people present. That does not exclude him from attending any house parties, genius.

    2. enigma – I think he doesn’t know her and that would be the go to answer. He also knows what his behavior pattern was so if he was not molesting any girl w/o her permission at any house, it wasn’t him. 😉

      1. In addition to making statements about his behavior (assuming he can remember, his friend certainly drank his way through those years according to his own book). He claimed he “wasn’t at the party” which is a hard claim to credibly make without knowing what specific party was being talked about. Also, the behavior described didn’t require that he knew her, only that she was present.
        I don’t know what happened, I do feel Kavanaugh has shown no problem with perjuring himself, first to get a Federal judgeship and secondly a Supreme Court seat. Reviews of his testimony in 2004 and 2006 compared to the emails that have come out confirm to most nonpartisans that he lied.

        1. (assuming he can remember, his friend certainly drank his way through those years according to his own book)

          The incapacity of several posters to tell the difference between Brett Kavanaugh, who has since he completed his schooling at age 25 been a perfectly functional (high-achieving) adult and Mark Gauvreau Judge, who has had serious problems in living and has written about some of them, would be amusing if one did not suspect it was deliberate. The newspapers keep quoting the same passage about Kavanaugh from Judge’s 1997 memoir. It should have occurred to you that they keep quoting that passage, because that’s the only appearance Kavanaugh makes in the book.

          1. There may be a case to be made that Kavanaugh is a much different man now. That isn’t the case he’s making. He say’s definitively he “wasn’t there.” The question now becomes one of credibility and there are recent instances where a reasonable person could conclude he lied under oath in 2004, 2006, and 2018.
            Regarding Mr. Judge, I would only say the description of him being “falling down drunk” is not inconsistant with his selfdescription of himself during the time in question.

            1. there are recent instances where a reasonable person could conclude he lied under oath in 2004, 2006, and 2018.

              No, there are instances that a partisan Democrat can spin it by cropping quotations.

            2. enigma – Judge would also know if Kavanaugh was falling down drunk with him. It appears that the only time it happened was once (if the book is based on friends) in the backseat of a car.

              1. Paul – Can a man who suffered from alcoholic blackouts be relied upon for his memory? He’s refusing to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, must be that under oath thing?

                1. enigma – I would not testify under oath to these idiots. You have to be Caesar’s wife.

                  1. Republicans face an awkward problem in the sense they have no female senators to question Dr Ford. An all-male panel may not look so good. But that’s the Republican party; ‘men wanting to take away women’s rights’.

          2. Wrong! Kavanaugh was heavily involved with Kozinski, who was forced to resign due to sexual harassment. In fact several people who work in the federal courts have volunteered to testify as to Kavanaughs behavior in the workplace.

          3. Not likely that Kavernaugh and Juge were all that different if they hung together and Kavanaugh is even mentioned in Juge’s book. In high school, partiers hang with partiers, geeks with geeks, jocks with jocks, etc.

            1. Jerry, it seems that your youth was not filled with diversity. When people are young they also experiment with different people and different ideas.

        2. I do feel Kavanaugh has shown no problem with perjuring himself,

          Your feelz don’t matter. Partisan Democrats like Russell Feingold traffick in the same discredited memes because they haven’t any non spurious complaints.

        3. Enigma:
          Detail the statements made by the nominee made under oath at a time when he knew that the factual allegations contained in those statements were false.

        4. enigma – perjury is where somebody else tries to find it. It is hard to prove a negative. I don’t believe anyone anymore. And now DiFi is backing away. Hmmmm???????

  2. Let me get this straight. We have a teenage boy at a party lying in bed with a girl and he tried to get to home plate? My God of all the unheard of crap. What teenage boy tries this stuff?

    1. I believe the practice officially ended in the early 70’s when according to issac, we evolved away from our nature. So clearly Kavanaugh violated not only Ford but the laws of nature. [sarc off]

    2. The accusation is that he and another boy pulled her into a bedroom and he covered her mouth to keep her from screaming while trying to undress her. A slight difference between that and “lying in bed with a girl.”

      1. He wasn’t lying “in” bed; the accusation is that both men pulled her into a room and K pinned her on the bed and tried to remove her clothes. He put his hand over her mouth so others wouldn’t hear her yelling for help, and the other male locked the door and turned up the music. This goes well beyond making out or groping. This was a calculated attack, and K’s friend was a participant, which explains why he’s refusing to testify. He’s covering his own butt and he’s not willing to lie under oath for his ol’ buddy Kavanaugh. Come Monday, he’ll probably be hiding out in Mexico with a bottle of tequila.

        1. TIN, you are drawing firm conclusions without any evidence yet on the other side there is loads of evidence demonstrating Kavanaugh to be a gentleman and a person unlikely to commit such an act unless you are claiming all men are guilty.

          1. What’s interesting is the number of supposed lawyers who comment here who have none of the precision, discipline, thoroughness, and forensic skill you expect of actual working lawyers.

            1. DSS, Absolutely. They might have actual degrees but they sound like they never practiced law and if they did they were pigeonholed in a very particular part of law that didn’t require very broad thinking. Some of them sound as if their degrees might have been online and that they never passed the Bar. They don’t even approach things like a real lawyer should.

            2. That has puzzled me since I started following this blog in 2011. If I were to identify a common denominator among those commenting here, the only thing everyone of them seem to have in common (other than a degree) is knowing how the law can be manipulated to their advantage.

              Maybe they are ethical, reasonable, logical in their respective professions and this forum is their sandbox to express their other personal beliefs. If that were true however, I would expect at a minimum that reason and logic would still prevail. The fact it doesn’t may be more of a reflection of how absurd their personal beliefs are.

        2. which explains why he’s refusing to testify. He’s covering his own butt and he’s not willing to lie under oath for his ol’ buddy Kavanaugh.

          He’s a private citizen who knows nothing of Blasey or her ‘event’. Of course he doesn’t want to be in front of a congressional inquiry. It’s unpleasant and he’s not an attention whore.

    3. garyonlinecom – no one, and I mean no one, in my social circle every even tried to get to first base. The horror, the horror. /sarc off

          1. Paul C. Schulte…… I just read that. Gorsuch is the same age give or take. a year…..and went to Georgetown Prep.

          2. I’m not interested in rumors. Is there an actual cite to a credible source or are you gossip girls just blowin’ more smoke out your azzes?

      1. Cindy, I also recently heard that Ford won’t testify until the FBI investigates. The FBI won’t investigate because it isn’t a federal crime.

        Very quickly they will have to add that the home the incident occurred in was on the border so the home was in two states (interstate) making it a federal crime. However, when Ford states that two state location she won’t remember which states they were. 🙂

        1. Allan……thanks so much. We went to a dinner in a neighboring town this afternoon……..just got home to find that all hell has broken loose..LOL
          I don’t have Sirius radio in my car……so were out of the loop. It’s amazing how quickly news changes!

          1. Paul, it never happened so the statute of limitations never existed. The false narrative is not something that can be investigated. Date, time, place, eyewitnesses etc.

            1. There’s more evidence that God exists than Ford has provided demonstrating this incident happened. If it happens that the full weight of the government will be brought forth to investigate this, then Christians should use this precedent in defense of restoring teaching the Bible in public schools.

        3. The FBI routinely performs background checks of judicial nominees, cabinet nominees and federal employees. The FBI has done six background investigations of Kavanaugh over the years. They didn’t investigate this allegation because they didn’t know about it. Bottom line, the FBI will investigate it if the Trump tells them to.

          1. They have nothing to investigate. She can sign a godforsken affidavit if she cares to. So can BK and so can Mark Gauvreau Judge.

          2. This allegation doesn’t even pass the laugh test. The FBI has nothing to investigate and Ford provides a generic account that makes an investigation impossible. The only tangible piece of evidence is Ford and she seems to be carrying a lot of baggage that leads to the conclusion that this is more about politics than a 35 year old claim. I feel sorry for her for she may have been affected by a sexual incident and might actually believe her claim. If that is the case she is being used like a weapon against innocents.

            How does one go about investigating any crime without a date, witnesses, location or any memory that has verifiable fact associated with it especially when the names mentioned deny it ever occurred?

          3. TIN, the quicker she testifies the more time the FBI has to investigate (though I don’t think any right thinking person thinks this episode to be proximate enough to change any of the facts on the ground) any claims that are tangible and provide a basis for investigation.

  4. GRASSLEY AND DIANNE FEINSTEIN CLAIMING FEDERAL COURT EMPLOYEES WILLING TO SPEAK ABOUT BRETT KAVANAUGH

    Ryan Grim
    September 17 2018, 2:31 p.m.

    https://theintercept.com/2018/09/17/cyrus-sanai-federal-court-employees-attempted-to-come-forward-to-chuck-grassley-and-dianne-feinstein-neither-responded/

    “Kavanaugh’s credibility has also been called into question by his denial that he ever exploited information stolen from Senate Democrats during previous confirmation fights. Emails subsequently revealed that he did.”

    1. Thanks, Anonymous. I heard an NPR story this morning which noted that Feinstein had been criticized for her handling of this matter not by Republicans, but by other Democrats. This story helps put that in perspective.

      For the record, Feinstein is on the ballot for reelection this November despite her age, 86. The California state Democratic party has actually endorsed her challenger, another Democrat. New rules now allow the top finishers from primaries to run against each other.

      1. It’s not an age issue. The challenger is a socialist Hispanic and far to the left of Feinstein. He is appealing to a different demographic. Feinstein is a liberal, but also a law and order traditionalist who appeals to a shrinking demographic group. A much younger socialist Hispanic is the new political face of the dem party in CA.

    2. https://pando.com/…/julian-assange-chides-glenn-greenwald-slams-pierre-omidyar-an…

      Jul 9, 2014 – But he then goes on to criticize the Intercept and Pierre Omidyar, citing what … And Pierre Omidyar is one of the founders—is the founder of eBay and … has extensive connections with Soros, and can broadly be described as .”

      And there is Peter Hills connection with international Socialism and George Soros. One of the ruling class of Progressive Socialism and through them the Democrat Party or whatever name it’s using.

      Didn’t take long to track that one down when they get arrogant and drop to many clues. In this case

      In this case “The Intercept” was sufficient.

  5. The Democrats will soon be questioning Kavanaugh about the accusations against him. They will be engaging the services of the world’s leading expert on such allegations: Mike Byron Nifong. Mr. Nifong will get to the bottom of this case, as he always has in the past.

  6. The madness of the modern left is a wonderful spectacle. We’re going to see two fifty-somethings testify, with all eyes watching, about what happened at a high school party thirty-five years ago! And the accusation was withheld until the very last second. You have to laugh at the absurdity of it all. Next week will produce some good comedy.

    1. Make both of them take it live with expert questioners on either side. I would go for that.

    2. Liberty2nd – Ford should take a polygraph on national tv and I will write the questions.

    3. Don’t bother to have Feinstein take one. She belongs to one of the groups that consistently beats the machine.

  8. “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 think this is hyperbolic. Just being an honest Judge that believes in the Constitution is enough for an attempted coup d’grace by the left. It stinks and is detrimental to society but what do leftists care?

    1. You would know that the “attempted rape apologist” would pipe in with some hannity “wisdom.” So sorry for your loss, thanks for playing.

      this is to “ya know, she prolly asked for it, or something” allan / allen

  9. There is a fundamental question that, if you are drunk out of your mind, and did something you later don’t remember, are you still responsible for having done it?

    It would be interesting for Kavanaugh to also take a lie detector test. If it turns out they BOTH are likely telling the truth, what then?

    1. The accuser and the accused would both have to take the test using an FBI examiner in order to be fair. If they both “tell the truth” then stop using lie detector tests.

      1. PH you Ivan,

        It’s your client not mine making the legal challenge!!!.

        It’s your client’s phk’in story, make your case or stfu & go away! 10,9.8,7, …..

        oh, that’s right, bye! see ya!

        LOL:)

    3. Legally you are responsible for any actions that are the result of the voluntary consumption of intoxicants. But this isn’t a criminal case, this is a job interview. The Senate doesn’t have to prove anything. They can vote against promoting K to the SCOTUS simply because they’re uncomfortable about the whole situation. If he’s innocent, it’s really crappy, but nobody is entitled to a seat on the Supreme Court. If he’s guilty, he’ll still have a prominent position as a judge on the D.C. Circuit. It could very well be that both the accuser and the accused could pass a lie detector test if both strongly believe their stories. The accuser has already passed a lie detector test, and she is demanding an FBI investigation. A person who is knowingly fabricating would not insist on an FBI investigation. So she obviously believes that Kavanaugh and Mark Judge were her attackers, whether they actually were, or whether it is a case of mistaken identity.

      1. TIN – the question that Ford “passed” on the polygraph was did she believe the summary was accurate. That is a lot different than really passing a polygraph and being asked about the specifics, one by one.

        1. Also, what the polygraph result shows is that her response did not include certain physiological markers. It cannot tell you if she believes what she said to the examiner.

      2. A person who is knowingly fabricating would not insist on an FBI investigation.

        Of course they would. She’s demanding the FBI investigate an alleged incident at an unknown location, in an unknown year, involving drunk teenagers and forcible groping…from 35 years ago. Hell, they might have to recuse every FBI agent if they were asked if they had engaged in similar behavior. Anyway, why not demand the FBI investigate something that cannot be investigated? Even if they tried, the end result would be they cannot confirm anything more than some people might have been there, some people might have been drinking and Ford believes something happened. Case closed.

      3. A person who is knowingly fabricating would not insist on an FBI investigation.

        They certainly would if they’re stalling. An “FBI” investigation cannot hurt her unless she demonstrably lies to them under oath. There isn’t any other evidence bar the objections of the men she’s accused, an that won’t sustain a charge of having lied to investigators.

        Why not surprise us and say something about this case that isn’t blatantly fraudulent?

  10. First let me say she is not claiming he raped her. Her claim is he man handled her and felt her up. If the cops had been called at the time they all would have gone to jail for underage drinking .
    If we start ruining people’s lives for things they did in high school decades after the fact there won’t be anybody working.Since this came out I have thought of a CEO,2 lawyers and several politicians I could smear .Most people learn self control grow up and lead normal lives.

      1. “I never groped any girls in HS. Guess I missed out on all the fun.”

        Jay S, You never touched a girl? Hmmm.

        Grope: rummage, feel, touch

        Not all groping is unwanted.

      2. Not even by the 1st Grade? Wow!

        Reminds me of that song…. to all the gals I’ve loved before.

        1. Oh I’m sorry Jay S, I might to by the 10th grade or somewhere in between.

          I can’t recall where or when but I’m positive there was a gal & Kav was with me.

          Yes, I know what I said yesterday, but I’m say this today & I haven’t a clue what the story will be next Monday. LOL;)

    2. If the cops had been called at the time they all would have gone to jail for underage drinking .

      Citations, I would think, arrest perhaps, not jail. Maryland’s drinking laws in that era were odd: the drinking age was 18 for those born prior to 1 July 1964 and 21 for those born after.

      1. Maybe the parent whose house this was at has culpability.

        Police frequently just have the kids get rid of the alcohol. What school dorm didn’t have alcohol even in places that were dry and the age was 21.

    3. Very good comment here by Jeanne. Was the woman drinking as well? So. You were an underage drinker and now you bitch about it all these years later.

          2. Marky Mark Mark – that would have been my dream. Girl, after girl, after girl. However, it was not to be. Thanks for the thought though. 😉

            1. Yeah cuz there’s only one Mark M in the whole wide world. This is for @TheRealMarkM. Hahaha.🐈

            2. your false and defamatory remarks like the one where you said I ‘watched hannity and bagged his balls”

              varlet begone

      2. Your name that includes “witch” is entirely fitting for one of your ilk.

        Salem witch trials 1692 and you make no more sense than they did.

    5. What happened on that night is now not as relevant as the nominee’s bald denials of even being present. Can you read?

      this is to “well, I pretty much just believe what my good friend hannity thinks” jeannie

    1. anonymous:

      I read the article you linked. You should, too.

      The concern is that Judge Pickering, nominated in 2001, solicited letters of support from lawyers, including those who had cases pending before him in a breach of ethics. Russ Feingold asked Kavanaugh if he knew beforehand that Pickering planned to solicit those letters. His answer, no. He was not the one primarily handling that nomination.

      Feingold then lays out his cards with the victorious air of a royal flush. There are emails showing that Kavanaugh “coordinated meetings with and about Pickering; that he drafted remarks, letters to people on the Hill and at least one op-ed for then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales about Pickering; that he advised Gonzales on Pickering strategy; and much more.” Based on this, he claims “Kavanaugh appeared to be the primary person handling Pickering’s nomination, at least by 2003, and was heavily involved in pushing for his confirmation as early as March 2002…Others may have been involved, but Kavanaugh played a decisive leadership role in managing Pickering’s nomination and then lied to me about it.” First, the nomination was in 2001. He asked Kavanaugh if he knew beforehand that Pickering planned to solicit letters. The emails showed he was coordinating meetings…in 2002. A) that a year after the nomination. B) What is his evidence that he was the primary one handling the nomination? Coordinating meetings? How the heck would Feingold know how many people handled the nomination and who was lead?

      The other “smoking gun” is where Feingold accused Kavanaugh of receiving stolen emailed documents in 2004, when Manuel Miranda was caught downloading files from Democrat computers. He asked Kavanaugh if he received stolen files in his 2004 nomination hearing, and he said, no, he had never knowingly received stolen files. Aha! Feingold produced an email with the subject line “spying” in which Barbara Ledeen emailed Kavanaugh that she had a mole on the left who told her the Group of 9 formed a campaign fund with $3 million from Warren Buffet and $20 million from Planned Parenthood. Therefore, they need to get their nominee through because they cannot beat that kind of big money.” Kavanaugh forwarded the email to Gonzales.

      Does Feingold not understand that the email contained no stolen documents? That every campaign gets leaked information? That Trump’s administration has a lot of leakers that the Left gleefully embraces? The document warns of a democratic big money campaign; it does NOT have stolen files from a Democratic computer.

      This is the proof that Russ Feingold provided to prove that Kavanaugh lied under oath? And you forwarded it? Did you read it? Because it most emphatically does not prove that Kavanaugh lied at all.

      1. Excellent.

        Warning to the leftists on the blog: When you quote one of our Congressional leaders on a hot political issue beware, they lie through their teeth. [That goes for both sides of the aisle.] For most of them their ethics are so low that they cannot believe an ethical person that stands before them.

        1. Allanonsense.

          (Karen and Allan apparently have lots of time to waste. I stopped reading their comments a long time ago.)

  13. Sure he denies it. But if this were the only falsehood in all of his testimony, that would be one thing. But he lied repeatedly throughout. He has zero credibility. Not that the GOP members give a shit.

    1. JFK, RFK, WJC and BHO were philandering, women-abusing, man-slaughtering, rapist, pot-smoking, cocaine snorting, bi-sexual

      criminals.

      Liberal democrat communists had no problem putting them in high office.

      1. Ask Obama about the murder of Donald Young.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V6SokexKqQ

        Larry Sinclair stated that Obama smoked crack cocaine, had homosexual relations with him and implied that Obama had homosexual relations with a “Donald Young” who was murdered on Dec. 23, 2007, and was the openly gay choir director for Reverend Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ. Is this true? Did CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PMSNBC, HLN or other outlets of the MSM report this? Why has America not heard this news? Why was the photo of Obama enjoying a visit with Louis Farrakhan not displayed in the MSM?

    2. But he lied repeatedly throughout.

      This is the latest Democratic meme. Specifics absent or doctored.

        1. Feingold’s contention that has already been discredited. The substantive issue is unimportant in any case.

      2. TSTD – the lack of critical reasoning in both Feingold’s penning the article, and anyone promoting it, is absurd.

        See my comments above.

    3. Then why don’t the Democrats make the assault on Kavanaugh about the relevant issues with which they disagree and leave the outrageously irrelevant 40-year-old unprovable sexual assault allegations out of it?

    4. JWBurdick:

      Read Feingold’s article again. Or for the first time. See my comments above.

  14. America “The Jerry Springer Show.”

    – The Obama Coup D’etat in America.

    – Abject corruption at the FBI/Intel in support of the Obama Coup D’etat in America.

    – Obama Coup D’etat in America “brown shirts” being allowed to turn a Supreme Court nomination into a circus.

    How long will America persist in a state of incoherence and hysteria before a communist dictator (i.e. Obama) assumes control?

    Now you know why the Founders established a restricted-vote republic.

    President Trump must issue a Marital Law Proclamation, repeal the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th amendments and rescind and abrogate

    every aspect of the socially engineered, redistributionist welfare state by executive order and re-implement the literal “manifest tenor” of

    the Constitution.

  15. I’m sure I haven’t raped anyone, but I am also positive that there are probably plenty of people I’ve met whom I’ve forgotten completely about 36 years later.

    I am surprised he didn’t say he doesn’t remember knowing her, or something like that, that would still allow for them to have crossed paths at some point. We all forget people like that.

    Did she say that she knew Kavanaugh at the party? How did she know it was him? Were they friends? A gathering of 5 is a small affair, usually between friends, or perhaps someone brings a person new to the group.

    Did she know him at the time? Or did she see him on the news in 2012, and that triggered her repressed memory, and she had a “that’s him!” moment? The former is a sure ID, the latter could be mistaken identity.

    1. His friends whom he’s known for decades would also know if he was friends with Ford.

      Perhaps Kavanaugh is saying that he didn’t go to that party where he raped anyone. Maybe he attended a party at that house at some point, but not a party where he raped anyone.

      Since she cannot remember the location, or date, or time, or who else was there besides K’s friend, who has no memory of this, then how in the world would she prove if K was lying about having been there? If she has proof, then why hasn’t she provided it?

  16. I’ll confess my sins about a teenage house party

    Back then it wasn’t booze. I walked into a room at the house party & everyone was zoned out. They were all sitting on the floor male, female in circular order. I was spiked with something & started coming on. It was magic mushrooms, psilocybin mushrooms. They all looked at me, then asked me to sit down. A thunder storm rolled in with lots of lighting, thunder, wind & rain. The party people then blamed the thunder storm on me.

    1. Jerry – was it because you had brought on storms before or you broke up the seating pattern or????/

    2. Jerry, good story, man. Did you hear Paul McCartney’s story about his teenage house party with John Lennon and friends? It goes like this:

      “It was just a group of us,” he said. “And instead of just getting roaring drunk and partying — I don’t even know if we were staying over or anything — we were all just in these chairs, and the lights were out, and somebody started masturbating, so we all did.”

      Then people started shouting out names for “inspiration” — until Lennon killed the mood and they let it be.

      “We were just, ‘Brigitte Bardot!’ ‘Whoo!’ and then everyone would thrash a bit more,” McCartney told the mag. “I think it was John sort of said, ‘Winston Churchill!’”

      https://pagesix.com/2018/09/11/paul-mccartney-and-john-lennon-once-masturbated-together/

  17. All signs point to corrupted memory syndrome.
    It is a well known phenomena where people remember events that didn’t occur, or occurred very differently.
    That is what happens when you let 30 odd years go by before pulling up memories on something you now believe to be traumatic.
    Even if she first mentioned it to someone in 2012, why the looong wait?
    If something traumatic happens, usually some mention of it made to someone somewhere within a short time, like within a year?

    1. Not necessarily. Telling someone risks it “getting out” through gossip. Who wants to be known as a victim? I want to be known for what I choose to do — not what someone did to me against my will. Unless you are planning to seek justice or restitution though the CJS (or civil courts), your options are limited:
      1. Try to forget about it and just move on
      2. Tell only a highly trusted relative (like parent) who’ll keep their mouth shut
      3. Write down your account, and mail it to yourself or your lawyer with instructions
      “Do not open except upon my demise or my explicit written order”.

      It’s surprising more people don’t choose Option 3. You get a contemporaneous account, and lifelong privacy.

      1. B. Kavanaugh’s mother presided over a foreclosure action against her parents. If they’d know of any history their daughter had with the judge’s son, it’s a reasonable wager they’d have asked for her recusal. Ralph Blasey was a lawyer, btw.

        1. Kavanaugh’s mother dismissed the foreclosure petition after the Blasey’s obtained re-financing for their house.

          NO REVENGE MOTIVE.

          1. The question isn’t a revenge motive. The question is why the Blaseys acceded to a hearing before a judge whose son had history with their daughter. The answer is, they had no clue he had any history with their daughter. Which would be consistent with the thesis that, in fact, Kavanaugh had no history with young Miss Blasey.

          2. Kind of strange that a BigLaw attorney 62 years of age was in arrears on his mortgage payments. For a man born in 1934, he didn’t have a large brood of kids (3, as far as I can tell, the youngest of whom would have completed her undergraduate degree six years earlier).

            1. Well Trump went through several bankruptcies and he was supposedly a billionaire. And it would seem that young Professor Ford never told her parents. What’s more, said parents may not have even been present in Mrs Kavanaugh’s court. The dismissal of that petition might have been a routine review requiring no court appearance.

              1. Peter, if you listen to what people tell you, you will understand the concepts of ‘equity capital’, ‘limited liability’ and the distinction between personal and corporate assets. Neither Donald Trump nor the Trump Organization has ever declared bankruptcy. The Trump Organization was an equity investor in a corporation operating a set of properties in Atlantic City. It was that company which sought reorganization (4x) before the Trump Organization gave up and sold the properties.

                1. DSS, I seem to remember you or someone else explaining this to Peter before. Perhaps Peter has no ability to remember things.

                2. Spastic, there are a lot of disgruntled contractors in Atlantic City that Hillary ‘should have’ invited to the debates. They all think Trump stiffed them and abused bankruptcy laws.

                  Now you can go round and round and round saying that ‘technically neither Trump nor his company declared bankruptcy”. But we know how that works. Hedge Funds routinely use bankruptcy laws to their advantage. But that doesn’t mean the Funds go bankrupt. Nor does it mean the Fund Manager goes bankrupt. It just means that some corporation they set up went bankrupt.

              2. …And again Peter loses control over what the argument is all about along with revealing his lack of understanding behind bankruptcies.

          3. The pot thickens and Peter screws up his understanding of the point behind DSS’s comment.

      1. No, her account of the incident includes references to drunkenness. No grand reason to believe BK or MJ was even there.

  18. I don’t care if he pissed on her – he was in high school, and it has NOTHING to do with current events.

    1. It does have an impact on teens who pay attention to the news. They’re still in high school. They have to navigate alcohol consumption. They have to navigate dating, pairing off, making out and sex. Hopefully, they’ll keep these two pursuits 100% separate.

  19. Enough info was shared for him to say this if he never attended a party at any private house. If Judge Kalvanaugh is sure of his past behavior he knows there is no there, there.

    1. One problem….his drinking-partying buddy from those high school years at Georgetown Prep wrote a memoir called “Wasted: Tales from a Gen X Drunk”. The author was Mark Judge, named by Christine Ford as the other boy in the bedroom where forceably groped by Kavanaugh. The book is totally damaging to Mark’s recall of events from that time…he was an admitted alcoholic from the age of 14, and the event in question took place 3 years later. In the book, he regales how his friend “Bart” or “Barf” Kavanaugh threw up in a car stupor drunk.

      This opens the possibility that Kavanaugh could have forgotten (or never committed to memory) incidents he participated in while in a drunken blackout.

      1. He wasn’t an alcoholic from the age of 14. He drank from the age of 14.

        That Brett Kavanaugh got sick on liquor is quite unremarkable. My mother, who had no problem with alcohol at any time in her life, had occasions of that. So did I, and I haven’t touched the stuff in 30 years. Kavanaugh’s trajectory since 1982 is inconsistent with any problems in living. Where are the citations, the car accidents, the criminal charges, the disgruntled girlfriends, the educational milestones missed, the asylum visits, the times in rehab programs, the gaps in the resume? They are not there. He finished his schooling on time at age 25 and has been consistently employed since 1990. The only oddity in his life is that he married late.

        Kavanaugh was a chum of Judge. He wasn’t addled by Judge’s problems.

        1. Good point. I have not read the book. Did it say that Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker in high school, or he was drunk that one time in the anecdote? In any case, there is no history of the trouble that alcoholics get into as adults. He’s been through 3 FBI investigations in his various clearances and jobs, and passed all of them.

          I was curious about what getting drunk was like, so I drank Jack Daniels. It tasted awful, but I figured it would get the job done quickly. Boy did it. I got so sick on Jack Daniels in my experiment, I could not understand why anyone would voluntarily get drunk. For many years, the barest smell of Jack Daniels would make me ill. And yet, I never got into drinking or abusing alcohol.

          What I discovered is that I have an extremely low tolerance for alcohol. I can notice a slight difference on half a glass of wine, and I’m giggly tipsy on a single glass. Wine tastings have to be planned to the smallest detail in advance – which ones I’ll taste and how much, or I’ll end up getting another case of desert wine, which I hate. And probably singing. They had this great winery herb farm combo in CA where I forgot to stick to the whites. I cannot consume more than a glass total. By the end, I has happily singing in the nursery, buying so many herbs they had to provide me with a wagon, (I lived in an apartment and did not have a garden), and our designated driver was steering me. It was just a wine tasting, but they did have a nice range. My favorite was the one called Il Fiasco!

          1. Again, the book was Mark Gauvreau Judge’s memoir of his own life. Kavanaugh was a character therein. I’ve been familiar with Judge for 15 years or so and recall the book, but not had a copy. The papers keep referring to the same passage, so I’m guessing that his association with Kavanaugh takes up little space therein. For a variety of reasons, I doubt the two have spent much time around each other in 25 or 30 years.

      2. So, basically, all 3 of them could have been drunk in a he-said-she-said scenario 36 years ago.

        What the heck do you make of that? Which inebriated person was telling the truth? How do you tell?

        If he acted this way when he was drinking, then there will be other stories of similar behavior.

  20. I can’t help but think this could produce a Pence scenario. You know get rid of Trump and who’s the next guy in line.
    If BK, is passed on or removes himself, I can imagine our current Spite Master In Chief will go with a squeeky clean Atila The Hun of a nominee.
    The Dems just don’t think this stuff thru.

    1. Bob Ueckerlele – the Dems are hoping if they stop this one, they will control the Senate for the next one. Although, Dick Morris sees the Reps picking up 6 seats.

    2. yep that’s right. just wait if Kavanaugh drops. Then probably we will get someone less qualified but a lot tougher

      but Kavanaugh may be tougher than he looks. The slanderers say he’s a drunken Irishman. Well, it’s a trope, but the Fighting Irish aren’t weak!

      1. So the drunk Irish dude should pull out the race card like Clarence Thomas (“This is a high-tech lynching!”) Only with Kavanaugh it will be: “This is a high-tech potato famine!”

Comments are closed.