All four of the people Christine Blasey Ford says were at the party in question deny being there, including a female Democrat.

Two big developments overnight may be the most significant developments so far in the story told by Christine Blasey Ford about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh:

FIRST. A woman Ford alleged was at the party in question, Leland Keyser, went on record through her attorney denying being at any such Party or knowing Brett Kavanaugh in high school. That mean all four people Ford alleged were at the party in addition to herself have denied Ford’s story. We covered the details in a late update to yesterday’s post.

The Weekly Standard has a report:

Christine Blasey Ford has claimed that four other people attended a small gathering at which she was allegedly assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh. Three of those people, PJ Smyth, Mark Judge, and Kavanaugh, have already denied any recollection of attending such a party. On Saturday night, Leland Ingham Keyser, a classmate of Ford’s at the all-girls school Holton-Arms and her final named witness, denied any recollection of attending a party with Brett Kavanaugh. “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford,” lawyer Howard J. Walsh said in a statement sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. CNN reports that ” Keyser is a lifelong friend of Ford’s.” Keyser previously coached golf at Georgetown University and is now executive producer of Bob Beckel’s podcast. Keyser is the ex-wife of Beckel, a former Democratic operative and commentator. A search on OpenSecrets.org reveals Keyser’s only political donation has been to former Democratic senator Byron Dorgan.

Democrats will stand by Ford because this never has been about Ford or her proof, it’s about stopping Kavanaugh with “whatever it takes” (quoting Chuck Schumer).

Byron York has a good post on how believing is all that matters, For Democrats in Ford-Kavanaugh fight, believing is enough:

So what do Democrats do, with so little to go on? For some, the answer is faith…. Now, out of the Democrats’ faith comes a new argument: It doesn’t matter whether Ford’s charge is true. It is credible. And that is enough, because even a credible allegation — no word on who defines what that means — disqualifies Kavanaugh for a seat on the Supreme Court. “The truth is, I believe her,” Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand said. “She has a credible allegation against Judge Kavanaugh.” Some academic Ford supporters lent their scholarly credentials to the credible-is-enough argument. “The existence of credible allegations against Judge Kavanaugh should be disqualifying,” wrote Cardozo Law School professor Kate Shaw in the New York Times. “If members of the Senate conclude that a credible accusation of sexual misconduct has been made against Judge Kavanaugh, that should be enough to disqualify him.” In The Atlantic, Brookings Institution scholar Benjamin Wittes took the argument to its illogical extreme. Because of the political sensitivity of the situation, Wittes wrote, Kavanaugh “cannot…seek to discredit a woman who purports to have suffered a sexual assault at his hands.” “Even if [Kavanaugh] believes himself innocent, even if he is innocent,” Wittes concluded, “the better part of valor is to get out now.” That is, to withdraw his nomination. So there it is: Ford’s supporters believe in her because they believe in her. They think a credible allegation is enough to disqualify Kavanaugh. And even if that allegation is not, in fact, true — even if Kavanaugh is innocent — he is still disqualified. In the current battle, Kavanaugh’s opposition is essentially faith-based, trying to create an environment in which there is no way he can win.

#MeToo, the movement weaponized against Kavanaugh, has become a religion where the accusation by a woman must be believed regardless of the evidence. What we have seen develop over the past several years with kangaroo courts on campus now is the governing philosophy of the Democrat Party.

SECOND. As York pointed out, all we have to go on so far as to evidence supporting Ford is what was told in the initial Washington Post story that revealed Ford’s identity. Ford and her attorneys cooperated with WaPo in launching that story.

But it turns out WaPo was not entirely truthful in its presentation. Kimberley Strassel obtained a key email, and explained the deception in a Twitter thread:

1) More big breaking news, which further undercuts the Ford accusation, as well as media handling of it. A source has given me the email that WaPo reporter Emma Brown sent to Mark Judge, one person Ford claims was at the party. This email is dated Sunday, Sept. 16, 2018 2) The email wants a comment from him. The subsequent story would reveal Christine Ford’s name, and give details of the supposed “assault.” 3) One part of the email to Judge reads: “In addition to Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, whom she called acquaintances she knew from past socializing, she recalls that her friend Leland (last name then was Ingham, now Keyser) was at the house and a friend of the boys named PJ.” 4) This matters for two big reasons–Ford’s credibility and WaPo’s. The subsequent WaPo story would go on to cite Ford’s name and details, and also list notes from a therapist that Ford told this to in 2012. Read carefully what WaPo reports, the same day it emails Judge: 5) “The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.” 6) Wait, say what? WaPo reports publicly that Ford says it was “four boys,”even after WaPo reporter tells Judge that Ford had told her it was three boys and a girl. 7) So first, huge problem: This was just a week ago, and we have Ford giving two different accounts of who was present. Four boys. No, three boys, one girl. Either way, therapist notes from 2012 definitively say four boys, which Ford didn’t dispute. But now… a girl! 8) Other problem: WaPo’s reporting. Reporter has for a week had the names of those Ford listed as present. One is a woman. Yet it writes a story saying FOUR BOYS. Why? Maybe a mistake. But if so, why did WaPo never correct that narrative? 9) What, you can’t find Keyser? She has lived in the DC area a long time. The paper had no trouble tracking down the other two men (btw, who also denied such party). And why not publish Keyser’s name? It published the other men’s names. 10) In its most recent update tonight, WaPo writes: “Before her name became public, Ford told The Post she did not think Keyser would remember the party because nothing remarkable had happened there, as far as Keyser was aware.” 11) Wow. “Before her name became public, Ford told…” That is WaPo admitting that it had the name, and had Ford’s response to what would clearly be a Keyser denial, but NEVER PUT IT OUT THERE. Again, why? A lot of people have a lot questions to answer.

So WaPo withheld evidence that, had it been made public with the initial report, might have cast doubt on the credibility of the accusation.

As of this writing, there is no final agreement between Ford and the Judiciary Committee as to the terms of her appearance. So while Thursday is the designated date, there is no actual agreement to show up and testify under oath to a story contradicted by every single person other than herself who allegedly was at the party in question.

At this rate, Crystal Mangum may end up being the only one to back up Ford's story https://t.co/PhBS0BhgPD — Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) September 23, 2018

Ford provided 5 people who she says can corroborate her story.

Smyth: Denies it under penalty of perjury.

Judge: Denies it under penalty of perjury.

Kavanaugh: Denies it under penalty of perjury.

Keyser: Denies it under penalty of perjury.

Ford: Refuses to testify under oath. — Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) September 23, 2018

Will she show up?

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

UPDATES

Amy Chu Responds To Attacks On Her Because She Supports Kavanaugh

Part of the Total Personal War on Kavanaugh has been to try to destroy people considered friendly or favorable to him. One of those people was “Tiger Mom” and Yale Law Professor Amy Chu. HuffPo circulated a story based on the claim of a single unnamed student that Chu and her fellow law professor husband Jed Rubenfeld told students interested in clerking for Kavanaugh that Kavanaugh required a “certain look” in female applicants and that they had to look like models. There now is a formal Yale Law School investigation of Chu’s husband.

Chu has been in the hospital for weeks, but now finally has responded:

As some of you may know, there have been stories about me in the recent news cycle. All the claims are outrageous and 100% false. Here is a statement I released to the Yale Law School community: pic.twitter.com/sAiL5Fbv30 — Amy Chua (@amychua) September 22, 2018

NBC News has the story:

The prominent Yale professor reported to have advised prospective female clerks of Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh to dress a certain way issued a statement on Saturday calling the allegations, “outrageous” and “100% false.” Amy Chua, a vocal supporter of Kavanaugh, denied allegations that she advised women on their physical appearance to help them land the prestigious clerkship. “I always tell students to prep insanely hard — that substance is the most important thing,” Chua defended in an email to the school’s law community. “I advise them to read every opinion, including dissents, the judge has ever written as well as important recent cases from the circuit and Supreme Court.” The law school professor, who is also known for her best-selling book on parenting titled “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother,” was alleged to have told students that it was “not an accident” that all female clerks on Kavanaugh’s staff “looked like models,” according to The Guardian on Thursday. In her email on Saturday, she said that she advises “students, male and female, to dress professionally — not too casually — and to avoid inappropriate clothing. I remind them that they are interviewing with a member of the judiciary.”

When this is over, and hopefully that will be soon, we need to reevaluate how we approach Democrats and #TheResistance. These are bad people who seek to destroy lives not just of their political opponents, but of anyone deemed friendly to or supportive of their political opponents. It’s total war for them.

Hearing 10 a.m. Thursday (Title Updated)

Apparently an agreement has been reached for the hearing to commence at 10 a.m. on Thursday, with the accuser to go first followed by Kavanaugh. But not all details have been worked out so far.

JUST IN: "We committed to moving forward with an open hearing on Thursday Sept 27 at 10:00 am," according to statement released by Kavanaugh accuser's attorneys pic.twitter.com/LdXkzmYEbo — NBC News (@NBCNews) September 23, 2018

Dems to Grill Kavanaugh on High School Drinking. Seriously.

From the Washington Examiner, Democrats poised to grill Brett Kavanaugh on drinking, partying in high school:

Democrats are poised to ask questions about the drinking culture of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s high school when the judge faces the Senate Judiciary Committee following a sexual misconduct allegation. “We want to hear — I would be wanting to hear what kind of environment it was in high school,” Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, said Sunday during an interview with CNN’s “State of the Union.” “Apparently, there was a lot of drinking and partying going on,” she continued. “This is why we need an investigation. We need an independent investigation that lays all of that out for us, so there’s at least some chance of some outside entity, like the FBI, doing an investigation.”

Mystery 6th Partygoer?

In response to Kimberley Strassel’s Twitter thread (above) about the WaPo initial article, a WaPo reporter has disputed the math, and suggests there were 6 people at the party, not 5. That would contradict Ford’s letter to her congresswoman, at least so much of it as has been released:

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

All five people are now accounted for, including Ford, and all the other four named by Ford or her attorneys deny being there.

But now WaPo is claiming there were six people. Here’s the thread between Aaron Blake and Strassel. Blake is referencing this NPR interview with one of Ford’s attorneys, Lisa Banks:

“BANKS: OK. Well, I think much as was reported in The Washington Post, which was accurate. When in high school, Ms. Blasey was at a party in the early summer around her junior year, before her junior year, where she ran into or was there with four boys, two girls. Two of the boys were Brett Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge. Those at the party were drinking. She describes Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge as stumbling drunk.” (Emphasis added.)

So now there were six people? Is that why Ford has been delaying, to try to track down partygoer No. 6?

I would not be surprised by anything that happens between now and the Thursday hearing.

The Judge Has Calendars

NY Times reports:

Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh has calendars from the summer of 1982 that he plans to hand over to the Senate Judiciary Committee that do not show a party consistent with the description of his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, according to someone working for his confirmation. The calendars do not disprove Dr. Blasey’s allegations, Judge Kavanaugh’s team acknowledged. He could have attended a party that he did not list. But his team will argue to the senators that the calendars provide no corroboration for her account of a small gathering at a house where he allegedly pinned her to a bed and tried to remove her clothing. The calendars show, according to the person working for his confirmation, that he was out of town much of the summer at the beach or away with his parents. When he was at home, the calendars list his basketball games, movie outings, football workouts and college interviews. A few parties are mentioned but include names of friends other than those identified by Dr. Blasey.

Another woman?

This is the reason Ford’s team has been stalling. They’ve been hoping, and probably working on finding, someone else to make an accusation.

Drudge teases it:

Here’s the story (emphasis added):

As Senate Republicans press for a swift vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Senate Democrats are investigating a new allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. The claim dates to the 1983-84 academic school year, when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale University. The offices of at least four Democratic senators have received information about the allegation, and at least two have begun investigating it. Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote. The Democratic Senate offices reviewing the allegations believe that they merit further investigation. “This is another serious, credible, and disturbing allegation against Brett Kavanaugh. It should be fully investigated,” Senator Mazie Hirono, of Hawaii, said. An aide in one of the other Senate offices added, “These allegations seem credible, and we’re taking them very seriously. If established, they’re clearly disqualifying.” The woman at the center of the story, Deborah Ramirez, who is fifty-three, attended Yale with Kavanaugh, where she studied sociology and psychology. Later, she spent years working for an organization that supports victims of domestic violence. The New Yorker contacted Ramirez after learning of her possible involvement in an incident involving Kavanaugh. The allegation was conveyed to Democratic senators by a civil-rights lawyer. For Ramirez, the sudden attention has been unwelcome, and prompted difficult choices. She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” she said. In a statement, Kavanaugh wrote, “This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen. The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so. This is a smear, plain and simple. I look forward to testifying on Thursday about the truth, and defending my good name–and the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime building–against these last-minute allegations.” The White House spokesperson Kerri Kupec said the Administration stood by Kavanaugh. “This 35-year-old, uncorroborated claim is the latest in a coordinated smear campaign by the Democrats designed to tear down a good man. This claim is denied by all who were said to be present and is wholly inconsistent with what many women and men who knew Judge Kavanaugh at the time in college say. The White House stands firmly behind Judge Kavanaugh.”



