Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh will turn over calendars to the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1982 that do not show him attending a high school party where Christine Blasey Ford said he sexually attacked her, according to a report on Sunday.
The calendars show that Kavanaugh, then a teenager, was out of town during most of that summer at the beach or with his parents, the New York Times reported, citing someone working on his confirmation hearings.
While at home in suburban Maryland, Kavanaugh’s calendar listed basketball games, movies he went to, football workouts and college interviews.
It mentioned several parties, but the calendar included names of friends other than those identified by Ford, the newspaper said.
It is silly for anyone to have absolute faith in Ford's story.
- Ford cannot remember dates, times, or where the party was.
- Ford claims a female friend, Ms. Leland Keyser, was at the party. Keyser denies being at the party and denies knowing Kavanaugh.
- Ford claims Patrick J. Smyth was at the party. He was accused of nothing but being there. Smyth denied being at the party in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committeee. "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 declared.
- Kanavaugh and Smyth issued strong denials immediately. That is what innocent people do. Guilty parties attack the accuser or make wishy-washy statements.
Ed Whelan posted a detailed who-dun-it thesis.
Whelan apologized for implicating someone by name and he removed the Tweets.
For this, Whelan has been called a crackpot and worse.
A couple of my readers say the story was immediately debunked.
Excuse me, but the story was never debunked.
Whelan apologized for the way he delivered the message, not for what was in it.
That of course does not stop fools and attack dogs.
Descent Into Madness
That Kavanaugh is the victim of mistaken identity was the implausible theory put forward by Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington. On Thursday night he posted (and now has deleted) a long series of tweets, complete with links to Zillow and Google Maps, arguing that Ford had indeed been assaulted — but by a friend of Kavanaugh’s who looked a lot like him. And then he proceeded to name the friend and post his picture. In the long annals of American politics, a lot of people have done a lot of irresponsible things, but for sheer callousness and craziness it’s hard to top an accusation of sexual assault against a specific individual based on, essentially, nothing. This is McCarthyism redux — and if Kavanaugh is revealed to have any connection to the propagation of this loathsome falsehood, he should be voted down overwhelmingly by the Senate.
This makes no sense: Why would Ford “set up” Kavanaugh when the cost of doing so is to have her name dragged through the mud and forced to flee her own home to avoid death threats? If she is setting up Kavanaugh, why would she take (and pass) a polygraph test and insist on an FBI investigation, knowing that lying to the FBI is a federal crime?
It tells you how far the right has descended into madness that this vile accusation did not come from an anonymous blogger on some online bulletin board or from professional conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. It came from someone with sterling establishment credential.
There are a lot of people who will believe his conspiracy theory, despite the recantation, because they are predisposed to believe it. Much of the right has taken leave of its senses. They are willing, even eager, to believe in “alternative facts,” to quote Kellyanne Conway’s infamous phrase, if by doing so it will advance their agenda. Any sin, no matter how grave — even maligning an innocent man on sexual-assault charges — is justified in the name of political expediency. And there is no higher imperative for the right than the confirmation of conservative judges.
Conservatives need to ask themselves a version of Jesus’ question: What shall it profit them if they gain the Supreme Court and suffer the loss of their souls?
Boot's Absurd Straw Man
The inherent lies of Boot's post are blatantly obvious.
Boot posts a straw man. "Why would Ford Setup Kavanuaugh".
Has anyone accused her of that?
Rather, people go way out of their was to assume she believes what she says.
Boot mentioned polygraph tests. Please stop the nonsense. All it proves is that either Ford is a good liar (some people can control their breathing and lie), or that she believes what she is saying.
Second, there is no conspiracy theory proposed by Whelan. That too is made up nonsense by Boot.
Third, no one, and I mean no one has refuted any part of Whelan's thesis.
If anyone has, send it to me, I will gladly write about it. An apology by Whelan for mentioning a person or the way he delivered the message is not the same as refuting the evidence he presented.
Fourth, people have been attacking Whelan because of who produced the report. That is precisely what guilty people and accusers do when the facts are not on their side. Instead of attacking the information presented, they attack the person who compiled the information.
The fact is, the person Whelan implicated has not yet come forward to deny it!
Witch Hunt and Presumption of Guilt
“As Judge Kavanaugh stands to gain the lifetime privilege of serving on the country’s highest court, he has the burden of persuasion. And that is only fair.” Anita Hill, Sept. 18, 2018
“Not only do women like Dr. Ford, who bravely comes forward, need to be heard, but they need to be believed.” Sen. Maize Hirono (D., Hawaii)
As Ms. Hill and Sen. Hirono aver, the Democratic standard for sexual-assault allegations is that they should be accepted as true merely for having been made. The accuser is assumed to be telling the truth because the accuser is a woman. The burden is on Mr. Kavanaugh to prove his innocence. If he cannot do so, then he is unfit to serve on the Court.
The accuser has to prove the allegation in a court of law or in some other venue where the accused can challenge the facts. Otherwise we have a Jacobin system of justice in which “J’accuse” becomes the standard and anyone can be ruined on a whim or a vendetta.
Another core tenet of due process is that an accusation isn’t any more or less credible because of the gender, race, religion or ethnicity of who makes it. A woman can lie, as the Duke lacrosse players will tell you.
A third tenet of due process is the right to cross-examine an accuser. The point is to test an accuser’s facts and credibility, which is why we have an adversarial system. The denial of cross-examination is a major reason that campus panels adjudicating sexual-assault claims have become kangaroo courts.
Solid Theories Tossed
Yet, here we are. Solid theories that ought to be considered are tossed out the window because of who gathered the evidence, rather than questioning the evidence itself.
Here's WaPo's Max Boot again:
The claim that Ford had simply mistaken Kavanaugh for his evil twin was marginally less offensive but even more crazy. Ford immediately shot it down: She said that she knew both Kavanaugh and his doppelganger and “there is zero chance that I would confuse them.”
By Boot's absurd logic it cannot be mistaken identity. Why? Ford says so! This Boot is a real gem.
We must believer her because she says so. Never mind the fact that Ford's statement is not remotely believable.
To say there is "zero" chance smacks of a lie. OK perhaps, like the rest of her story, she believes that too. But we do not even know whether or not she was drunk out her mind at the time.
Regardless, the fact is, cases of mistaken identity are common. When I was in high school and college, I had numerous people tell me there was someone in the area that looked just like me. I was told that at least 20 times. One person showed me a picture of a person in a catalog that even I thought looked like me. And I had people tell me that I was places I was not at.
So yes, I know first hand that mistaken identity is possible. None of it mattered except curiosity. I was hoping to meet the person that looked like me, but it never happened.
Add Boot's article to the growing body of sleazy reporting.
I repeat, the most likely scenario is mistaken identity.
I am willing to change my mind if any evidence suggests otherwise.
There is no such evidence now, nor do I have any reason to believe such evidence is remotely likely.
We have "descent into madness" by growing numbers of people willing to convict an innocent person on virtually no evidence when the overwhelming preponderance of evidence says Kavanaugh is innocent.
Yes indeed, that is the sad reality.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock