Thread: ANOTHER PERSON WHO ALLEGEDLY HAS KNOWLEDGE OF KAVANAUGH ACCUSER’S ASSAULT HAS ‘NO REC

ANOTHER PERSON WHO ALLEGEDLY HAS KNOWLEDGE OF KAVANAUGH ACCUSER’S ASSAULT HAS ‘NO RECOLLECTION’ OF BEING AT PARTY

9/22/2018
Molly Prince

The woman believed to be the “missing” party guest at the high school gathering where Christine Blasey Ford alleges Judge Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her over 35 years ago reportedly has no recollection of the incident, her lawyer said in a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Saturday.

Leland Keyser, a reported longtime friend of Ford’s, denied knowing Kavanaugh or having any knowledge of attending a party with him, according to CNN.

“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,” said Howard Walsh, Keyser’s attorney.

In a Washington Post article, Ford said there were three individuals at the party in addition to herself and Kavanaugh — Mark Judge, Patrick Smyth and another person. Both Judge and Smyth have also denied having any memory or knowledge surrounding the incident. Keyser is believed to be the third person in question.

Kavanaugh has also denied Ford’s accusation.

“I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation,” Kavanaugh said in a statement released by the White House. “I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

http://dailycaller.com/2018/09/22/re...eing-at-party/

Mrs. Ford is either a Wack-O-Doodle nut job or a terrible con artist. Either way, this is over, and the US Senate must proceed to vote to confirm this wonderful man, Brett Kavanaugh, before Friday, so he can be sworn in by Friday and be ready for his important new work on Monday October 1.

The US Senate can not let our country's highest court be manipulated or held hostage like this. It is wrong, you must proceed to a vote and confirm him. Anything other than no longer reflects on him, it reflects on the US Senate.

NOW, GET YOUR JOB DONE and put this nonsense to an immediate end.

THURSDAY: HER TURN...

"Lifelong Friend" Of Kavanaugh Accuser Denies Attending Party Where Alleged Sexual Assault Occurred



Keyser's statement "seemed to eliminate any chance of corroboration of Dr. Blasey’s account"

Sat, 09/22/2018 - 23:07
84 SHARES

A woman believed to have been one of five people at a party some 35 years ago where Christine Blasey Ford claims she was sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh has become the fourth person to deny any recollection of the event.



In a Saturday night email to the Senate Judiciary Committee also received by several news outlets, Leland Ingham Keyser - a "longtime friend" of Blasey Ford's said through her attorney:
"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," said Keyser's attorney Howard Walsh, who has been "engaged in the limited capacity" of corresponding with the committee on behalf of Keyser, according to Politico.

Kavanaugh and Mark Judge - the other teenager allegedly in the room during the alleged sexual assault - have both stated that they have no recollection of the incident, while a third man who Ford claims was at the party - Patrick J. Smyth, also denied any recollection of the event, telling the Judiciary Committee last week in a statement: "I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as 'PJ' who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post," Smyth wrote in his statement. "I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh."
Smyth added: "Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women. To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the Committee may have."

View image on Twitter


The Columbia Bugle @ColumbiaBugle

Replying to @ColumbiaBugle
Shut this down.

Everyone at the party has said they have no idea what Christine Blasey Ford is talking about, even her longtime friend Leland Ingham Keyser!

What are you waiting for Chuck!!! Vote on Monday!!! #ConfirmKavanaugh
10:46 PM - Sep 22, 2018

The Columbia Bugle @ColumbiaBugle

· 1h

Replying to @ColumbiaBugle
4 witnesses (one of Ford’s longtime friends)support Brett Kavanaugh vs Christine Blasey Ford.

Time to end this and move on. #ConfirmBrettKavanaugh

The Columbia Bugle @ColumbiaBugle


The Senate should be negotiating with Ford for a written apology from her to Brett Kavanaugh and his wife and children.
10:52 PM - Sep 22, 2018

• 220
• 72 people are talking about this

On Saturday night, a tentative deal was reached for Ford to testify publicly on Thursday, according to the New York Times.

After a brief call late on Saturday, the woman’s lawyers and aides to Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, planned to talk again Sunday morning to continue the halting negotiations over the conditions of the testimony, according to three people familiar with the call. Aides to Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the committee’s top Democrat, were also involved. -NY Times

The Times notes, however, that Leland Keyser's statement "seemed to eliminate any chance of corroboration of Dr. Blasey’s account by anyone who attended the high school party where she says she was assaulted."
If no deal is reached for Blasey Ford's testimony next week, Sen. Grassley will be left to decide on Sunday whether or not to move ahead with a scheduled vote to confirm Kavanaugh on Monday.
Grassley has engaged in a back-and-forth with Ford's legal team, allowing them to miss several deadlines to continue negotiations. While Grassley may be trying to avoid the appearance of the Judiciary Committee panel of 11 men bullying an female victim alleging sexual assault, many conservatives have expressed frustration at the Chairman's acquiescence to virtually every demand Ford has made.

Law Crime

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...alleged-sexual

I can not believe the US Senate has delayed something as important as the confirmation of a nominee for appointment to the US Supreme Court over the wild unsubstantiated claims of what is clearly either a nut job Wack-O-Doodle or the worst con artist in the the country. She doesn't know when, where, with whom, what year, what season, whose house, what town, what city, what month, what day, who was there, why she was there with 4 boys, why any of this which is not surprising that she couldn't remember it for 36 years, because it didn't happen to begin with. This is some dream, some medication induced nonsense in some really bad therapy session 6 years ago.

Suspicions abound in accusations against Judge Kavanaugh

Accusations presented in a manner to avoid legal liabiity for lying.

September 24, 2018
By Trevor Thomas

Four supposed witnesses identified by Christine Blasey Ford in her accusations against Brett Kavanaugh have ALL refused to corroborate her account of the events from 36+ years ago. In letters to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mark Judge, Patrick Smyth, and now Leland Ingham Keyser have all denied any memory of the party Ford describes, much less any sort-of assault. It’s important to note that, under 18 U.S.C § 1001, letters to the Judiciary Committee are subject to criminal penalty if false.

This law states that,

[W]hoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States knowingly and willfully...makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years...

It seems that somehow, Mrs. Ford may have been made aware of such potential penalties, because we now find out that Ford didn't send her accusing letter to Feinstein but to Rep. Anna G. Eshoo. According to CBS News yesterday,

Eshoo said she met with Ford at her district office “for about an hour and a half” over the summer while Ford described her alleged encounter with Kavanaugh in the early 1980s. She alleges Kavanaugh pinned her down and groped her on a bed at a party while the two were in high school. Kavanaugh has strenuously denied ever doing so and has said he is willing to testify publicly and defend himself.
“My impression of her was she was intelligent. She spoke softly. It was wrenching for her, I think, to tell the story because there's a re-experience when the story is told,” Eshoo said on “Face the Nation” Sunday. “She went into many details and at the end of our conversation I told her that I believed her and that it was important she tell me if, what she wished me to do with information, if in fact she chose another path. And she did. She wanted me to take it down a different pathway, and of course with anonymity and privacy, that’s paramount in sexual abuse allegations or cases because the individuals are terrified.”
Ford later sent Eshoo a letter detailing the allegations, which was also received by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. The committee is considering Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

It is interesting that Eshoo got the letter first. As a member of the U.S. House, she has zero jurisdiction over or authority to investigate presidential nominations. So why would Eshoo not make Mrs. Ford aware of this and have her send the letter to a democrat member of the Senate Judiciary Committee? Perhaps it was because anyone providing false information to a member of the U.S. House would not be covered by 18 U.S.C § 1001, and thus not subject to the legal penalties it prescribes.
Thus Ford may have been trying to avoid the legal consequences of making false statements. Of course, almost certainly she would have not have been aware of such legalese on her own. This raises several questions. For example: Did Rep. Eshoo make Mrs. Ford aware of where her information against Judge Kavanaugh must be sent? Did Rep. Eshoo make Mrs. Ford aware of 18 U.S.C § 1001? Were any other democrats involved with informing Mrs. Ford of how to so proceed with her accusations?
If Mrs. Ford is falsely accusing Mr. Kavanaugh—again, no one has corroborated her accusations, and dozens of women have provided contradictory information on Judge Kavanaugh’s treatment of women—all these questions carry even more weight. In other words, if democrats knowingly conspired with a woman making false accusations, there should be severe legal consequences for all involved.
In other words, it seems there may need to be an FBI investigation into this unsavory affair after all. However, as in the case with the Presidential election and the Russians, the real crimes to be concerned with are not with republicans, but Democrats.
UPDATE: Given the delays democrats have achieved, did ANYONE not see this coming?! The New Yorker is now reporting on a second accusation against Judge Kavanaugh. (He supposedly exposed himself to Deborah Ramirez.) This time it’s a year later, when he was 18 and a freshman at Yale. And again, there's no corroboration. Also, as Paul Mirengoff at Powerline notes, Ramirez told The New Yorker she wasn’t certain what happened until “after six days of talking with her attorney” a former elected Democrat. As Mirengoff points out, “one can do plenty of brain washing in six days.”
From the article:

The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party. The magazine contacted several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh regarding the incident. Many did not respond to interview requests; others declined to comment, or said they did not attend or remember the party.
A friend of Ramirez, who of course refuses to be identified, claims that Ramirez told him of the incident and he is “one hundred per cent sure” that he was told at the time that Kavanaugh was the student who exposed himself to Ramirez. Other Yale students Ramirez identifies as being present when Kavanaugh exposed himself to her refuse to support her account.
In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.”

The New Yorker continues,

The former friend who was married to the male classmate alleged to be involved, and who signed the statement said of Ramirez, “This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn’t see it; I never heard of it happening.” She said she hadn’t spoken with Ramirez for about ten years, but that the two women had been close all through college, and Kavanaugh had remained part of what she called their “larger social circle.” In an initial conversation with The New Yorker, she suggested that Ramirez may have been politically motivated. Later, she said that she did not know if this was the case.

Interesting question: Was the statement made by Ramirez’s classmates made to the Senate Judiciary Committee? If not, will such a statement be made? Again, the interesting scenario of the legal penalties against false statements would carry weight. There’s more in the piece, including classmates who are very sympathetic to Ramirez and her story.
This is politics at its worst folks, and remember, it's ALL about keeping legal across the U.S. the right to kill children in the womb. It takes someone pretty deceived or vicious to stand for such a thing. We should not be surprised at their tactics to defend something so morally indefensible. We need to pray for the truth for all of those involved in these grave matters, and for strength and peace for those standing for the truth, and vote for conservatives (or at least, against liberals) in November!
Trevor Grant Thomas; At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason. www.trevorgrantthomas.com; Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America; thomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...kavanaugh.html

The Kavanaugh Confirmation Circus

Originally Posted by Airbornesapper07

The Kavanaugh Confirmation Circus

I listened to every word and it was words right out of my mouth, I love this woman!!!

I hope more women and men come out and expose this FRAUD!

Investigate into HER background and character over the last 38 years!

Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford was a Big Pharma morning after abortion pill