Reasonable Doubt Or Per Se Defamation? Republicans Throw Chris Garrett Into The Fray [UPDATED]

IMG_0026The unfolding drama over the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford just got even more bizarre as Ed Whelan, president of the conservative Ethics and Public Center (EPPC) released the picture of a remarkably similar looking teenager who could have been the culprit in the alleged attempted rape. While Ford insists that she could not be mistaken, the release of the photo adds a new element to the hearing . . .  and could raise some interesting legal issues after suggesting Chris Garrett (right) could be responsible for the attack.  The problem is that there is not a single scintilla of evidence that has been offered to link Garrett to the alleged assault.  He has simply been drop into these boiling cauldron and the only explanation is his similar looks and home in the area (which is hardly surprising for schoolmates who attended the same school).

Update: Whelan has now issued a statement that “I made an appalling and inexcusable mistake of judgment in posting the tweet thread in a way that identified Kavanaugh’s Georgetown Prep classmate. I take full responsibility for that mistake, and I deeply apologize for it. I realize that does not undo the mistake

On Thursday afternoon, Whelan released the pictures and suggested that the  “Maryland suburban home” might have been Garrett’s, which is also “not too far from the Columbia Country Club.” This advanced the best possible approach for the GOP in the upcoming hearing: that Ford could be telling the truth about the attack but could be mistaken about the attacker.

As shown below, Whelan is clearly implicating Garrett as a Georgetown Prep classmate, friend, and football teammate of Brett Kavanaugh’s.

That of course could be viewed by Garrett as the basis for a defamation or false light tort.  This is an allegation of criminal conduct.  Criminal conduct has long been recognized as a per se category of slander under common law torts as well as such categories as moral turpitude and unchastity or impugning professional reputation.

Garrett is not a public figure so he does not fall under the more generous standard (for accusers) of the actual malice test, requiring a showing of knowing falsity or reckless disregard of the truth.  Of course Whelan can argue that he is merely showing how easy it is to confuse things and people 36 years ago. Yet, the import seems more incriminating in the posts below.

Yet, Whelan added “To be clear, I have no idea what, if anything, did or did not happen in that bedroom at the top of the stairs, and I therefore do not state, imply or insinuate that Garrett or anyone else committed the sexual assault that Ford alleges. Further, if Ford is now mistakenly remembering Garrett to be Kavanaugh, I offer no view whether that mistaken remembrance dates from the gathering or developed at some point in the intervening years.”

That may or may not be enough for Garrett who now finds himself in the middle of a maelstrom as a suspected attempted rapist.

Indeed, Whalen later apology still leaves the many lingering questions for Garrett that could follow him in this career. Consider the response from New York Times columnist Ross Douthat tweeted: “I don’t know Brett Kavanaugh, which has made it easier for me than for conservatives closer to the man to believe he might be guilty. I do know Ed Whelan, which makes me assume there’s more reason to believe the doppelganger theory than just what he just tweeted. We’ll see.”

Ross Douthat


I don’t know Brett Kavanaugh, which has made it easier for me than for conservatives closer to the man to believe he might be guilty. I do know Ed Whelan, which makes me assume there’s more reason to believe the doppelganger theory than just what he just tweeted. We’ll see.



244 thoughts on “Reasonable Doubt Or Per Se Defamation? Republicans Throw Chris Garrett Into The Fray [UPDATED]”

      1. Oky1 is one those redneck losers who wants to believe that all male liberals are ‘gay’. Because in Oky’s little Oklahoma town that’s what they’ve been told.

        1. Note also that the Oky1’s disparagement of those with whom he disagrees is always based on sexuality: disagreeable men are gay; women are sluts. The okie definitely has some issues!

          1. TIN, I hope you won’t mind me piggybacking on your comment with a complete and total non-sequitur. Here it comes:

            I’m seriously worried about Mark Judge. I had a deeply disturbing presentiment yesterday that Mark Judge might be at risk for committing suicide. I hope I’m wrong about that. It would be an absolute disaster. Maybe somebody will come along and remind me just how crazy I’m supposed to be. That’s an open invitation to all of you blawg hounds.

            1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

              Two years earlier, in an ode to “sexy” pulp novels, Judge lamented “social justice warriors” who confuse rape with innocent demonstrations of masculinity. He wrote then of “an ambiguous middle ground, where the woman seems interested and indicates, whether verbally or not, that the man needs to prove himself to her.”

              “If that man is any kind of man, he’ll allow himself to feel the awesome power, the wonderful beauty, of uncontrollable male passion,” Judge continued. To illustrate his point, he linked to a scene from the 1981 film “Body Heat,” in which the hero forcibly breaks into a woman’s home and is rewarded with a kiss

            2. Sorry, but this is fascinating. Another quote from the Mark Judge review of “Hard Case Crime”:

              The simplest explanation for the popularity of Hard Case Crime is that the books, like most pulp fiction and the film noir movies it inspired, are about animus—the Jungian term for male passion.


              Carl Jung wrote about “the shadow,” the part of us that is dark, horny, creative and a bit crazy. In bright and sunny Eisenhower America, crime fiction and film noir were the shadow.

                  1. I guess things have to be spelled out for Diane. Not infrequently she uses words that are too big for her and when given a gentle and quiet hint as provided above she can’t act in a respectable manner.

                    Diane’s quote: “are about animus—the Jungian term for male passion.”

                    anima vs animus Jung

                    animus: masculine part of a womans personality
                    anima: feminine part of a male’s personality

                    1. Mark Judge’s quote. Not L4D’s quote. The citation is clear. There’s even a link to the full text. It’s good to know that Allan is more familiar with Jung than Mark Judge is. Follow the thread first, Allan. The bread crumbs, second.

                    2. “Mark Judge’s quote. Not L4D’s quote. ”

                      Anonymous, I don’t see any quotes in Diane’s statement: “are about animus—the Jungian term for male passion.”. The quotes here are mine copying Diane;s words. If you pull out any book by Jung you will find my definitions of anima and animus to be correct so perhaps it is you that should follow the bread crumbs to the written works of Jung and contain your childish zeal that got you into this jam.

            1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

              In Judge’s telling, it took him years to realize the error of his high school ways. He eventually got sober, rediscovered Catholicism and briefly took a teaching job at Georgetown University.

              Well, then, if Mark Judge truly rediscovered his Catholicism, then L4D’s irrational presentiment about Judge’s risk of suicide are hopefully just that–crazy.

    1. I don’t believe Spartacus (Corey Booker). He was too busy at the time doing it to another woman.

      1. The New Jersey media makes no effort to verify even quite ordinary factoids about Booker even when their dubious quality leaps out at you. Like: his actual palpable residence and his actual employment history.



    Whelan, president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, declined to discuss his since-deleted tweets speculating on who might have assaulted Christine Blasey Ford in the early 1980s or whether he had spoken with other top Republicans about the matter.
    The detailed theory Whelan laid out Thursday evening in a series of tweets that Ford was assaulted by someone else raised questions about whether he coordinated his argument with Republican leaders.

    Whelan has been involved in helping to advise Kavanaugh’s confirmation effort and is close friends with both Kavanaugh and Leonard Leo, head of the Federalist Society who has been helping to spearhead the nomination.

    Late Thursday, Republicans on Capitol Hill and White House officials sought to distance themselves from Whelan’s claims and said they were not aware of his plans to suggest Ford could have been attacked by a former classmate of Kavanaugh.

    At the same time, Kavanaugh and his allies had been privately discussing a defense that would not question whether an incident involving Ford happened, but instead would raise doubts that the attacker was Kavanaugh, The Post reported Thursday.

    Whelan, a former clerk to the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, is a stalwart of the conservative legal establishment. He and Kavanaugh served at the same time in the George W. Bush administration, when Kavanaugh worked in the White House Counsel’s Office and Whelan was the principal deputy assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, according to the biography posted on the website of the center where Whelan works.

    Edited from: “Kavanaugh Ally Says He Did Not Communicate With White House Or Supreme Court Nominee About Theory Of Another Attacker”


    1. There is something darkly comical about the fact that Whelan is president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center!

      Whelan is a good example of conservative ethics.


        Whelan had hinted at an alternative explanation for Ford’s account days earlier on Twitter, piquing the interest of Kavanaugh allies and Senate Republican staffers.

        Matt Whitlock, a spokesman for Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), was among those who called attention on Twitter to Whelan’s promise of information that would refute the charges against the judge.

        Once Whelan laid out his specific theory — including naming a possible other suspect — Whitlock deleted his tweet and distanced himself from the effort. He said in a statement Friday that he did not know what Whelan was planning.

        Edited from same article as above.

        1. The bigger question is with Kavanaugh and Whelan being friends and working together on the nomination how much did Kavanaugh know beforehand about Whelan’s attempt at libel.

          Besides seemingly lying to the Senate and being a partisan hack, Kavanaugh is looking and acting very guilty. the FB of something or other should maybe…….hmmm……….I do not know………what is that word?………oh yea!………….. INVESTIGATE!

          1. WHelan didn’t make any ‘attempt at libel’.

            Kavanaugh is looking and acting very guilty.

            No, partisan Democrats are determined to see him that way. Any ordinary person contemplating an accusation 36 years after the fact where the accuser recalls no secondary details, where crucial bits of the scene are very odd, where the sequence of events does not cohere, aren’t going to take it seriously. That’s aside from the contradictions between the marriage counselor’s notes and the letter to Eshoo and aside from the denials of three men fancied to have been ‘present’.

            1. You’re right in a way. The unethical head of the conservative ethics and public policy center did not just “attempt to libel” he actually did libel Garrett. The lying sack knew ahead of time Garret had no involvement. And after pulling the tweet said “I take full responsibility for that mistake, and I deeply apologize for it. I realize that does not undo the mistake”.

              Whelan is definitely a partisan piece of garbage. But maybe he deserves credit for taking the hit that Kavanaugh prolly knew about this.

              As respects Ford, lets have a full FBI investigation, get everyone on the record and let the facts speak for themselves. Why does an investigation and the truth so scare morally dishonest conservatives.

              1. he actually did libel Garrett.

                The term libel does not mean what you fancy it means.

                1. libel noun
                  li·bel | \ ˈlī-bəl
                  Definition of libel

                  (Entry 1 of 2)

                  1a : a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought

                  b archaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone

                  2a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression

                  b(1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt

                  (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means

                  (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures

                  (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel

                  The above is from merrian-webster. I can add other similar ones as well. Doubt any will utilize the dumbass conservatopia definition I suspect you seek to excuse the sack of shit, Whelan.

                  fancy, fancy, fancy!

                  1. Listen carefully:

                    You have to make a factual assertion about someone which is both false and defamatory. He did neither. His actual factual assertions (about where each person named lived in reference to a particular landmark) are verifiably true. Also true is the assertion that Garrett resembles Kavanaugh.

                    1. Would the Garrett “injury” rise to a level to initiate a civil action. No! He’ll likely be quickly forgotten. That said:

                      “2a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression”

                    2. Since no factual assertions were made about him that are untrue, he has no cause of action. This isn’t that difficult.

      2. Actually Whelan’s only mistake is that he inadvertently implicated another individual but the motive and the evidence was correct. Normally the police would have shown Ford multiple pictures in an unbiased fashion and let her chose which picture if any was the attacker. One reason people sometimes don’t like going to the police is because police methods sometimes reveal the motives of the ones making the complaint. Now this avenue of proof is gone for both Ford and Kavanaugh due to Democrats using Ford as a political weapon. Take note how Whelan admitted his mistake while Democrats double down, triple down and will never admit to their heinous behavior.

  2. Right wingers have no shame. The idea that some vaguely similar appearance casts any doubt whatsoever on the woman’s claims is preposterous. Their political aims are so transparent it is appalling. They clearly will stop at nothing to achieve their goal of overturning not just Roe v Wade but any and all progress made in this country in the past 70 years. It’s funny how right wing extremists always over reach and they repeat the very same mistakes their counterparts made in the past. The pro-slavery crowd rejoiced at the Dred Scott decision sealing their doom which is but one example of an extremist “conservative” minority with disproportionate political power cannot help themselves but to go to far. The Kavanaugh nomination is a good example of how they are careening toward the very same sort of error in their longtime effort to make the Supreme Court a force for social stagnation and conflict along with general backwardness in the USA where the powerful hold all the cards and the “little people” are just supposed to shut up and take it. It always, always, always ends up badly for the right wing extremists. They certainly are no interested in learning from the past but I now wonder if they are incapable as well.

    1. Oh, keep on spinning.

      This woman’s claim could hardly be more dubious. There’s no evidence yet presented other than her claim that she was at all acquainted with Kavanaugh, Judge, or Garrett. One’s default assumption would be that she was not, and, being not, could readily confuse the two.

      1. “keep on spinning.”

        We should only be lucky enough to hear spinning from Horuss. What we are hearing is a non sensical statement that takes us back to slavery without appropriate connections to the facts of the day or to reality. What we heard was an ignorant vent from an ignorant person.

        1. The sand-in-your-face evasion is what’s notable. None of these people seem to have any integrity at all or any conception of fair play beyond ‘gimme what I want’. So were discussing absurdly stale accusations which cannot be verified and which could be quire readily fabricated or misleadingly shaded. And it’s all so very conveeeenient. You’d think someone, somewhere might say, “Ach, we really can’t use this sh!t”, but nooooooo. The culture of the Democratic Party is rotten to the core from the suites to the streets.

    2. Horuss,

      I see you’re very confused & ignorant.

      The wasn’t much of any positive change in US culture the last 70 years just a bunch of promotion of breaking apart family units, wide spread debauchery & Hey Man Just Do It In The Road Man.

      So what was the Capt of the Drunken Sluts Club’s complaint about again?

      The Pro Slavery Dredd Scott Decision was celebrated by the Democratic Party members.

      And you extremist are just worried about you money scams of using Taxpayer Funds to promote murdering the unborn so they/you can Sell the Body Parts like they/You were Selling Body Parts off a 57 Chevy or a Ford Mustang!

      There’s more but this is enough on your claims.

      They/you still remain the Extremist!

    3. Horuss, it would Definitely appear that Dems have NO SHAME, and NOTHING is too
      Low for them to have “Diane Feinstein, at the ’11th Hour, do a Hail Mary Pass’, but SHE FUMBLED.”

      That Ms. Ford IS a Democrat ‘Activist’ is NO SURPRISE, as she has been appearing
      at Protests AGAINST POTUS Trump, etc. with HER puccy hat on; as well, IF you read the Yearbooks, that appeared, but were “Scrubbed, as well as HER Twitter Acct
      and I think Face Book, you would get a BETTER understanding of WHO this Liberal,
      really IS. There was someone who DID Capture the yearbook info @Gateway Pundit, and it bespeaks of HER and her girlfriends drinking/passing out activity, AND their entertaining the Younger boys-“to show them the ropes”, their Sexual Activity, etc.

      Are you as EQUALLY appalled about Democrat, Keith Ellison, who TWO YEARS AGO, attacked AND assaulted his girlfriend, that appears ON TAPES, that were ALSO seen/witnessed by HER OWN SON? Your hypocrisy IS obvious, but let’s also look into the Medical Records of Ellison’s Attacks on THIS woman, who “Has BEEN SILENCED BY CORRUPT DEMOCRATS, BECAUSE THEY ARE CIRCLING

      You may also want to look into Corey Booker’s Past, as “It would appear that the self-described, “SPARTACUS, HAD ROMAN HANDS”



    4. Horuss – have you forgotten that the pro-slavery group were the Democrats? And it took a Civil War and the Civil Rights Act to actually end Democratic controlled slavery in the South.

      1. Paul, do you expect these left leaners to actually know their history. They like to talk as if they are knowledgeable. They aren’t.

    5. “Right wingers have no shame.”

      Republicans have bent over backward to meet Ford’s needs despite the fact that they have not provided the accused with the accusers letter, signed statements or testimony.

      The Dems are shameful exploiting a woman who seems to have problems. They release her name. They don’t bother investigating day 1 quietly. They embroil her and her emotions in politics. They see to it that they smear the good character of anyone in front of them. The Dems have been pigs and that gives pigs a bad name.

      1. They’re still stalling.

        This woman has had two months to cook something up. She engaged a sorosphere attorney and lined up a polygraph, but somehow neglected to prepare a statement.

        The inferior beings who argue for the Democratic Party on these thread are completely unfazed by any feature of this imbroglio and, having nothing to defend, are now hurling witless animadversions at Kavanaugh, Whelan, and various abstractions (‘GOP smear machine’).

    6. You are a tiresome twit, aren’t you? The purpose of a police lineup is to put people with a similar appearance to the accused together to see if the victim can pick out the accused person. More often than not, the victim is unable to pick out the accused and picks… someone of similar appearance to the accused. And we are talking recent crimes, not an alleged event that occurred 36 years ago.

  3. March Wheeler who blogs at emptywheel has an article about three Kavanaugh character witnesses

    A comment summarizes the main point about the three and adds two more

    Peterr says:
    September 21, 2018 at 12:23 pm
    Marcy’s list, expanded:

    Ken “Football Boys will be Football Boys” Starr
    Bill “Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly were framed” Shine
    Donald “Grab ’em by the pussy” Trump
    Rob “My wife had it coming, and so did my other wife” Porter
    Roy “I just like hanging out at the Mall” Moore
    Two thoughts on Marcy’s list:

    “Only the best people . . .” and
    “With friends like these . . .”

    Link to the article with the title


    1. I think i understand now why “To Kill A Mockingbird” has dropped off the syllabus of antiracist propaganda….. it offended the now more-fashionable pc trend that a women can’t make a false accusation

    1. ” There is zero chance that I would confuse them”

      Unless, of course, Garrett had been nominated to the SC.

    2. It is now less certain than it would have been if police showed Ford pictures of a bunch of young men at the school and elsewhere. Her verbal non tangible evidence gets more tarnished as time progresses. That is the fault of her handlers and the Democrats. Place the blame where it should be placed. Don’t be stupid.

      1. The smart money says that in June of this year, she couldn’t have picked Kavanaugh, Judge, Smyth, or Garrett out of a police lineup or out of a photographic lineup with period shots.

      2. Allan…………what I meant was that she and the Dems were and are out to destroy any nominee of Trump’s…..It would not matter if it was another guy from the same school; in fact, For such was atbthatbschoolmat the same time , but maybe it was too risky Tom implicate him.. I don’t know……..just guessing.

        1. Damn! This auto spell check on this iPad rendered most of my reply comment unintelligible!

            1. Paul C…..What I did was type Gorsuch and when I went to type the next word it had changed that to For such
              I didn’t realize until I hit the post button…We can’t figure out the settings on this thing….but it anticipates and fixes what it thinks you meant to say! Spooky!

  4. While I find BK’s categorical denial to be believable, and I have many doubts and questions about Ford’s accusation and how it has been handled, I don’t think Ed Whelan’s tweets, nor Trump’s tweets this morning, were necessary or helpful in garnering support for the Republican’s or Kavanaugh’s case. I think it has angered and catalyzed more women to not only vote, but to come forward and share their own experiences, in support of Ford.

    I’m betting more stories will be brought forward before this is all over, like this one shared on Twitter, which I find credible (unlike Ford’s story thus far)…stories such as this one might be a preview of the sort of testimony we may hear from Ford next week – if it goes forward…

    1. ——————————————->

      I have known men of great character from Georgetown Prep. My son is named after one, another is my daughter’s Godfather. I would trust those men with my life. 1/

      A man either has character or he doesn’t. When one has character, power and wealth cannot diminish that. When one lacks character, power and wealth amplify the damage he leaves in his wake. 2/

      I was sexually assaulted in the mid-80’s at the home of one of Kavanaugh’s schoolmates. The host of that party added his name to this letter to the Judiciary Committee attesting to Kavanaugh’s character. 3/

      This week has been a difficult one for women like me who are forced to relive the spectre of being assaulted by one young man as another watches the door. The pain is compounded by the crucification of Kavanaugh’s accuser in the media, the twittersphere and the U.S. Senate. 4/

      Decades ago, when we were sexually assaulted, we didn’t report it. “Date rape” was barely entering the lexicon. We thought rape and assault were things that happened in parking garages or dark alleys. We didn’t know how to quantify these actions by men in our own peer groups. 5/

      When we were assaulted, we blamed ourselves for drinking excessively or being in the wrong place or trusting the wrong person. We were humiliated and we saw no examples of recourse. We know better now. We want our sons and daughters to know better. 6/

      Here’s the deal about character: if you are not rapey, you don’t sexually assault women. If you are, you might. Can you grow out of being rapey? I hope so. I’d like to believe in redemption. But I do think a rapey past should disqualify you from a seat on the Supreme Court. 7/

      I have seen the signatures of my schoolmates saying Kavanaugh never treated them with disrespect. Perhaps they don’t realize that some men in their social circles did not treat the women on the periphery of those circles with the same reverence as the ones in the center. /8

      I see myself in Dr. Blasey because of our shared experiences. I don’t know if Kavanaugh disrespected women in his youth. I do know that his documented values suggest he does not respect their agency now. I am clearly biased. 9/

      I am biased. The Senate Judiciary Committee is also biased. That is why Blasey and Kavanaugh should be afforded a thorough, nonpartisan investigation, not a rushed political side-show. 10/

      To our elected representatives:
      – rape is non-partisan
      – sexual assault survivors are watching you
      – our children are watching you.
      Are you sure that rape is the hill you want to die on? 11/

      To the man who assaulted me in the basement of that house decades ago:
      I learned this week that there is no statute of limitations for felony sexual assault in Montgomery County, MD.

      I sincerely hope your nights will be as sleepless as mine as I consider my next steps. /end

      Tweets by Casey Mooney
      20 Sep 2018

      1. The top hashtag on twitter right now is


        Check out the postings

        Have you seen an estimate of how many women have been assaulted? Is it as high as half?

        As a white male in HS in the 50’s it has taken years to realize that I was privileged over females. Yes, of course I knew in general, but as I read the novel “The Underground Railroad” I realize how far I was from being in the shoes of slaves..

      2. I have always suspected since the term became fashionable, yes, maybe date rape in the absence of physical compulsion, isnt rape. yes i thought it decades ago in college and i think it more now.

        to be sure there are real rapes where a girl is drunk but raped. we remember the Jody Foster movie. Just because a women is drunk and dressed like a tramp does not mean that she can’t say no. Of course she can! Sex workers can say no too, they have every right. That is not really the issue nor the concern

        A woman doesn’t need to have a black eye to prove she’s been raped. but timely reporting is required for credibility. nothing can change that….. they’re dodging this with accusation against Kavanaugh

        now more broadly: A false “Date rape” can occur when a woman hasn’t been brutally assaulted, but maybe got drunk and can’t remember or feels ashamed, and wants to blame a man for failing to object clearly to his advances.

        The next day she regrets, she feels angry and herself and the other sex partner, maybe she feels on the day after that she was “taken advantage of ” or “he used me” etc., and it snowballs from a poor choice to one where she avoids personal responsibility to manufacturing a lie to herself and others that she did not consent and it was rape

        remember shakespeare, “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”

        how much? i don’t know. Surely not every allegation of “date rape.?” i am not omniscient,. Maybe it is not most, maybe only 1% false accusations, maybe more. Who knows.

        men can feel ashamed of poor sex choices too; but men don’t get to cry rape like this. big double standard. that’s what i suspect, not that I would know much about such things, just sharing my own socalled male chauvinist viewpoint.

        1. Excellent post Mr. Kurtz, and I would like to offer ANOTHER view of Ms.Ford, since apparently HER attorney, Katz “Had Ford’s Yearbooks/Twitter/FaceBook
          accounts “SCRUBBED”…..but, NOT before someone DID capture the books and they are online where I read them @Gateway Pundit.

          To say that these girls WERE very promiscuous is an Understatement, as they also state ‘their Drunken behavior/Passing OUT at Many parties. So the picture of the two in this article DOES show a similarity, but unfortunately there is NOTHING believed IF it is a Republican as Dems THINK they have the RIGHT to accuse, but do NOT look at their OWN. Example:

          As a “Political Junkie” I read and post DAILY for hours, it would be hypocritical for Democrats to “accuse someone that President Trump has appointed, that they had Feinstein who SAT on this supposed letter(but the woman did NOT want to GO PUBLIC???? She Already DID when she sent said Letter of Accusation AGAINST Judge Kavanaugh.

          What Feinstein TRIED to do, was an “11th Hour Attack on this Judge, for a HAIL MARY PASS, but Feinstein FUMBLED.”


          But see HOW this “Hypocrisy of Dems works?- They NEVER want to show Ellison in this way, as HE IS ONE OF THEM… the Hypocrite Democrats-
          Diane Feinstein(who also had a Chinese Driver of 20 Years who was a SPY for the Chinese, as She and Her Husband Made MILLIONS from CHINA, and entertained them in China and in their OWN HOME.


    2. The problem is this non incident can ruin a lot of lives because it wasn’t handled in the usual fashion. Ford is undoubtedly under political and financial pressure to be steadfast in her accusation and more and more names could be added and besmirtched. Normally police quietly investigate so such damage to reputations doesn’t occur. But that is exactly what the Democrats are looking for. Not the truth rather to damage reputations.

      This is disgusting and for this alone the Democrats should be abhored.

  5. Casting suspicion on Garrett is obviously unfair to him if he were in no way involved. But it certainly does raise reasonable doubt as to Kavanaugh’s culpability. Unless, of course, Dr. Ford actually knew K well enough to identify him without any doubt. That’s an issue that I haven’t seen addressed. If Garrett was the assailant, it would explain why the accomplice, Mark Judge refuses to testify. He has issued a statement that it absolutely, unequivocally wasn’t K, but if questioned under oath and asked, “Okay, if it wasn’t K then who was it?” He would have to finger Garrett.

    1. If Garrett was the assailant, it would explain why the accomplice, Mark Judge refuses to testify.

      He hasn’t defied a subpoena or even a request. He’s just indicated he’d prefer not to be questioned by the committee, which is a perfectly reasonable stance to take.

    2. Mark Judge wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary committee with signature. It has the same force as testimony and it is a crime to lie to congress. But I follow your logic. Perhaps IF that theory was true, and if Kavanaugh was innocent maybe Whelan outed him because he felt Garrett should own up to it. Whelan said in another post that by next week Feinstein would be apologizing to Kavanaugh. Strong language if all he had was that proximity of houses theory.

      1. It has the same force as testimony and it is a crime to lie to congress.

        He’s not under oath, so it’s not a conventional perjury charge. Since federal law incorporates criminal penalties for misleading statements of a sort you do not find in state law, there just might be penalties attached to making false statements in a letter. I wouldn’t wager on it, though.

  6. “Ed Whelan

    I made an appalling and inexcusable mistake of judgment in posting the tweet thread in a way that identified Kavanaugh’s Georgetown Prep classmate. I take full responsibility for that mistake, and I deeply apologize for it. I realize that does not undo the mistake.

    7:38 AM – Sep 21, 2018”

    “He has since deleted the tweets.” -from the following link

    “Blasey rejected Whelan’s theory in a statement to The Washington Post, saying that she knew Kavanaugh and the classmate and once visited the latter in the hospital.

    ““There is zero chance that I would confuse them,” she said.”

    Whelan is right about the following: It certain doesn’t “undo the mistake.”

      1. Well, so much for that angle…..

        You’re assuming Blasey is on the level and trustworthy. No reason to make that assumption. At all.

  7. Mr. Whelan’s article gave me chills when I read it, not because of the “reasonable doubt” that the article supposedly creates but because it is incredibly irresponsible. I have handled a number of defamation cases in my career and if Garrett was not involved back then, an experienced plaintiff’s attorney most likely would gladly sign him up. It seems to me that read as a whole, in spite of Mr. Whelan’s attempt at a disclaimer, the article is defamatory. The only defense will be the truth, if the truth supports Garrett’s involvement back then. Although I am only an occasional visitor, I also am concerned that this blog may have stepped into a republication quagmire by quoting Whelan’s article at length and then concluding that the article creates “reasonable doubt” which can be true only if the claims made by Whelan are given substance. There is yet another reason Whelan’s article seems irresponsible to me. Instead of being supportive of Kavanaugh’s nomination the net effect will be to shift the focus from Dr. Ford’s highly doubtful allegations at a time when those claims seem to be on the brink of collapse to Garrett who now will become another “victim” of the Republicans.

    1. That’s a good choice of words; substance. This entire saga lacks substance. It’s a storyline that has a plot, it has an era, it has a protagonist, but it lacks a credible antagonist. It’s like reading an FBI document submitted to congress; so redacted of substance that the entire document is made useless.

    2. “Garrett who now will become another “victim” of the Republicans.”

      Interesting spin that is wrong with a conclusion that is totally wrong. Garrett may become another “victim” of the Democrats. It is the Dems that have had contol of the story and still haven’t even released the letter and refuse to permit Ford to testify in the usual manner.

      It is sickening. Additionally Ford might have a fragile personality which could be harmed by all the political maneuvering of the Democrats. They knew what would happen, they knew how things must be handled. The Dems didn’t care

      1. Allan, I agree with you. My use of the word “victim” was meant to state what I know the Democrats will claim… anything to take the heat off Dr. Ford. Like you I am sickened by the conduct of the Democrats, not only in these confirmation hearings but in many, many ways.

    3. More than likely another victim of the Socialist Extremist Party. Remember them? They used to be Democrats when ‘group of individuals’ now it just means machine parts of The Collective.

    4. I’m not a public figure either….
      but user Mark M said, here, and refused to recant, that I “watch Hannity and bag his balls”

      …. seems like defamation per se to me

      Mark M’s on here manufacturing false quotes and slandering people every day he thinks it’s funny. calls people kkk members and meth addicts yesterday too.

    5. Your analysis, honestlawyermostly seems right on point to me and I agree. In fact, I cannot tell you how disappointed I was in this blog’s decision to quote Attorney,” Ethics and Public Policy President” Whelan’s article. My only question in your analysis stems from your last sentence, I am not so certain Dr. Ford’s allegations are “highly doubtful”. But, I do appreciate your well chosen words.

      1. Faith, thank you for the kind words. Perhaps the phrase “highly doubtful” is too strong but I base that on what appears to me to be a story that is so sketchy and vague that it lacks credibility. Most people remember seriously traumatic events in detail unless the event wipes their memory which I don’t think anyone is suggesting here. I am glad the Whelan post was taken down but most likely the damage already has been done.

  8. Chris Garrett is up in Calgary, Alberta, Canada….Director of Marketing at WP Engine

    He posted 1 comment on his twitter platform.

    By the way, Ed Whelan was a former Scalia law clerk.

  9. What does it mean that Whelan “released” this photo of Garrett? Through what media? Who decided to pay any attention to it? It doesn’t deserve any. Whelan is playing the role of an infowarrior propagandist. If we want to survive as a free society, we have to steel ourselves to IGNORE infowarfare actors, and shame them for trying to pollute the public’s thinking with unverified conspiracy theories. If we can’t IGNORE this crap, Mr. Turley, we’ll be just like Russia has become — a cesspool of conspiratorial lies crafted by professionals trained in the tradecraft of propaganda.

      1. BINGO! I too am looking for WHO would ‘bring in the Big, Bad Russians, and there it was….LOL”

        Again, hope you and others WILL look into Ms. Ford’s Yearbooks that got ‘scrubbed’ by her attorney(apparently) because it does NOT fit with the “Dem Activist, Ford’s narrative.” It IS @Gateway Pundit…..and another place I can’t think of now.”

    1. I agree pbinca. Plus, I was stunned that this site, one I have long trusted for its even handedness and objectivity, would publish those two photos of Garrett and Kavanaugh along with Whelan’s commentary. Very disappointing. Maybe Professor Turley will issue an apology.

  10. This advanced the best possible approach for the GOP in the upcoming hearing: that Ford could be telling the truth about the attack but could be mistaken about the attacker.

    That’s not a ‘good approach’ for anyone. It’s just an argument. There’s no reason to treat this woman with kid gloves (or to drag Garrett into it). Ed Whelan runs a policy shop / advocacy group. He’s not a component of Republican officialdom.

  11. This theory casting this guy as the possible culprit (if there is a culprit) is just as bad as the 36-year-old hit and run by Ford. We’re a frivolous people.

    1. That is what happens when what is supposed to be a usual investigation for office turns into a political attack by Democrats where they act as if the individual committed a crime and they want it treated as such.

      All of this was unecessary but for the Democratic slimy behavior and attempt at character assassination.

  12. You’re really pushing it:

    1. No crime is alleged except a common assault (by a minor)

    2. He doesn’t libel Garrett. He just points out that Garrett could be readily mistaken for Kavanaugh if you weren’t acquainted with them.

    3. Both ‘Justice Holmes’ and the moderator fancy Ed Whelan is properly referred to with plural nouns. (“Republicans”).

    1. The second guy was brought in to provide the escape hatch for Ford. “II could have been mistaken..” Bang she goes home to a fat paycheck and book deal which is of course how this whole thing started . She is after al a left wing extremist herself.

  13. Speculation is just speculation. Until we hear from the lady, we all need to stop. Proof will be in her demeanor, her answers, and attitude. Just like when they interviewed Strzok. He spoke to us loud and clear. Truth will always prevail. So far Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty. We’ll look at his demeanor, answers, and attitude too. As I woman, I wouldn’t be afraid to confront him if he held me down against my will. But, never one to shillyshally, I wouldn’t have waited 36 years. I would have confronted him in school the following Monday morning and kids would have witnessed it. I would have spread it all over school that he was a creep. So far he looks like a choir boy in his picture and no one’s heard of a shady reputation. Interesting. When I was in high school we all knew who the playboys and thugs were and avoided them.

    1. Proof will be in her demeanor, her answers, and attitude.

      There will be no proof in that. There will be dubious and contestable evidence in the semantic content of her statements. The rest is trumpery. The broad is a clinical psychologist and may be quite practiced at presenting herself.

      1. If it is shown on tv, I can see through a fake persona or if she or he is lying. But will the congress be able to? Don’t know, as this is so politicized. It’s not a trial. Proof will have to depend on their answers as there is no evidence. It will definitely come down to a “She said/he said”.

    1. Sad to say, I have seen him

      At least he is shaved so he doesn’t scare me so much that I am willing to give up the constitution

    2. Al O’Heem, are you sure that’s a man? It looks just like me. OMG. What have I done? I plead not guilty by reason of mental defect. And I offer Res Ipsa Loquitur as evidence to prove it.

  14. Eye-witness identification is always suspect. It is a reasonable explanation if we are to believe her fourth or fifth story. It is certainly reasonable doubt.

  15. The Dems have successfully created the monster they wanted. The GOP are allowing them to runaway with the nomination playing right into their hands. Say no more GOP set the day, time and terms, then turn it over to a savvy Female attorney. Guaranteed you do this and she’s a no show. Stay on track.

    1. Except Ford has now banned the use of a female lawyer or any other female doing questioning.

      1. “except Ford has now banned”, What next Ford will insist they not ask her about what happened. I repeat set the day, time, location and have a savvy female lawyer ask all the questions.

  16. Wow……the Republicans are comfortable with smearing some else to protect their boy! This is the new Republican Party.

    1. Oh no, the horror! Republicans need to stop the rope-a-dope defense tactics and start using the Democrats tactics and put them on the ropes and then the mat.

      1. BINGO Olly….I have Always said that “Democrats are Street Fighters, and the Republicans SHOULD LEARN FROM THEM…The Dems use Marxist-Saul Alinsky methods and his 13 Rules from: “RULES FOR RADICALS” one of those rules is ‘take your opponents ideas and Make them YOUR OWN”, also “Use Ridicule against your opponents, as “no one can fight ridicule”

        P.S. Obama taught “Rules for Radicals” to Acorn Thugs, and Hillary wrote her thesis on Alinsky, and had Alinsky as HER mentor/friend Until his death. Alinsky wanted Hillary to work for Him, but she declined as she wanted to join the team,
        “to take down Nixon”… her chagrin, the Supervisor of the Group, FIRED HER, for ‘LYING AND NOT FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION.”

        Sorry for adding this, but as a “Political Junkie, sometimes I just can’t”

  17. Wonder how much Garrett is getting paid to be a surrogate sexual abuser? This smacks of cheap lawyer routines, often seen on cheap TV shows. One would have to go with Ford knowing her attacker: before, during, and after. She thought about it for decades. This is not some dark back alley, confusing, chaotic encounter. This smacks of a Mitch McConnell approach. The same guy that held the people hostage with budget delays, shutting down the government, refusing to accept anything from the White House whether it was good for Americans or not, etc. Really, openly, blatantly, sleazy.

      1. There is nothing funny about this. They are so desperate to have this “man” on the court that they are happy to smear anyone they can. If this man is cooperating with this sham he should be shamed also. It is deeply troubling.

        1. And the ruthless, Machiavellian, scheming Demonrats are similarly, if not more so, desperate to see Kavanaugh go down in flames. He threatens their neo-Marxist plans for this already mortally wounded “republic”.. I have Zero regard or trust in the Progressive machine. If we can’t see the Demonrats for the merciless thugs they are by their outrageous behavior and relentless lying, then there truly is a plague of willful ignorance, dismissiveness sweeping this country. And, in that case, most of us are not good enough to enjoy the blessings of a constitutional republic which the Demonrats are determined to destroy anyway. So, relax, folks. Just quietly go down with the sinking ship and keep cheering on the country’s subverters. Fun.

          1. Jim- BEST POST OF THE DAY. Those who are NOT willing to Fight for our Republic, Our Constitution that protects American Citizens and our Freedoms, are DOOMED, and there IS an effort by “The Globalists, to reduce this Republic and they did so with Soros’ Puppet-Obama for 8 Long Year…as HE almost succeeded in the Marxist Agenda for a “One World Order” where globalists/elitists, Like Soros/Obama’s/Clinton’s/Corrupt Politicos, “BECOME OUR RULING CLASS, AS THEY WANT US TO BE ANSWERABLE TO THE CROOKED U.N. & INTERNATIONAL LAW”…(Of Course THEY ARE OUR RULERS, and WE, the PEONS.”

            President Trump was Elected by “We the People” who ARE paying attention, as like him, we of Course, KNEW that America was in Danger under Obama, and ALL HIS CORRUPT INTEL DIRECTORS, who have damaged this nation beyond belief, as they were his “Enablers”…IF we are to survive, then “Patriots NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT POTUS TRUMP IS WHO SERVES AMERICA, NOT “The Democrat Enemies, that NOW, include Socialists/Marxists/Communists who are ONLY worried about Amassing their OWN PERSONAL FORTUNES/POWER/CONTROL….
            Over Patriotic Americans.

            Sorry for going long here, but I KNOW you get it…hope ALL Republicans

            1. “Those who are NOT willing to Fight for our Republic,” that would be most rethugs lawmakers including tRump, nutso, what is your point.

          2. Your imbicilic tirade was amusing; yet you never came close to asking yourself the most important question: “what is that ticking sound?”

            this is to “but if they impeach the buffoon, pastor pence will hold services, I guess” jimmie

          1. when will it end? maybe when men all go gay or cut their balls off and pretend to be women…..that’s happening a lot now i hear, no wonder, american women sound like raving lunatics on social media…. i generally don’t follow it much but i took a look and it was a madhouse.

            amazonian uprising. … maybe it’s time to warn the boys

            Cautions for young men… not prophecies but warnings:

            DO NOT GET MARRIED, lest one day you will be divorced and vampire will suck your money-blood till you are a dry husk

            DO NOT HAVE SEX, lest you will be blamed, manipulated, accused, entrapped, and maybe sickened by promiscuous diseased females

            DO NOT SOCIALIZE WITH WOMEN, lest if you fail to agree with them then you are called a male chauvinist pig, sexist, harasser, etc.

            Young men, it may be a lonely road, but think with the big head first….. and remember a pretty face and ten minutes of bliss may mean a lifetime of hurt……….

            and they wonder why the west is undergoing “Demographic decline” compared to the Muslims and third world populationS. one word: FEMINISM

            1. Haha. Very rich. Please post more material Just. Like. This.

              this is to “does anybody know about these mail-order Russian brides?” kurtzie

    1. When did the goverrnment shut down? Answer: NEVER. It’s a stupid comment. But well within your limited intellectual abilities.

Comments are closed.