With Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her 36 year ago reportedly agreeing to testify this week before Senate Judiciary Committee, her story continues to unravel.
Adding to the questionable aspect of her accusations, the circumstances in which U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., came to acquire Ford’s letter detailing the alleged incident is proving to be fishy as can be.
Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist, noted on social media that the letter was first given to Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif, and this will be getting “a lot more scrutiny.”
“In the coming days, Ford’s decision to send a letter to Rep. Anna G. Eshoo, a House member with zero jurisdiction over or authority to investigate presidential nominations, rather than Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has explicit jurisdiction, is going to get a lot more scrutiny,” Davis tweeted.
The tweet cites the Code of Laws of the United States and Davis explains in a follow-up tweet the significance of that.
“A plain reading of 18 USC 1001 suggests that in the matter of a specific presidential nomination pending before the U.S. Senate, statements made to a House member on that matter may not be covered by the statute’s prohibition on false statements.”
A plain reading of 18 USC 1001 suggests that in the matter of a specific presidential nomination pending before the U.S. Senate, statements made to a House member on that matter may not be covered by the statute’s prohibition on false statements. pic.twitter.com/gla8uiBqUE
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) September 23, 2018
In effect, it appears Ford may have been trying to skirt federal law that may hold her accountable for making a false statement by giving the letter directly to Feinstein, who has explicit jurisdiction.
The $64,000 question being, where would Ford acquire such legal savvy?
that she made the statement in a way that would avoid 18USC 1001 liability… and that somehow she knew that this would be the case. Unlikely for a statistics professor.
unless someone told her.
— JasonAten (@JasonAten) September 23, 2018
Meanwhile, yet another witness Ford had placed at the scene denied having any knowledge of the alleged party or incident.
Leland Keyser, a woman reportedly identified by the accuser as one of the five people at the party told the Senate Judiciary Committee she “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,” The New York Times reported.
Two other witnesses Ford placed at the alleged the party, Mark Judge and Patrick Smyth, have also told the committee that they have no recollection of the events.
Of course, the liberal media has a ready reply to this “setback,” as seen when Justin Miller, the national editor of The Daily Beast, dismissed this as a natural occurrence to be expected.
“This isn’t a ‘setback,’ it’s a null. Why would she remember Kavanaugh at a party 36 years ago unless something memorable, literally, happened? Ford remembers, she says, because she was almost raped,” Miller tweeted.
This isn't a "setback," it's a null. Why would she remember Kavanaugh at a party 36 years ago unless something memorable, literally, happened? Ford remembers, she says, because she was almost raped. https://t.co/CkN0UXneP0
— Justin Miller (@justinjm1) September 23, 2018
And he was working overtime in justifying the assertions made by Ford not panning out — though he doesn’t explain why she would have said these things.
Put bluntly: rape and attempted rape are almost always private acts, like consensual sex. Eyewitnesses are almost nonexistent. Corroboration immediately after is rare because victims, many times preyed on people they trusted, don't tell anyone.
— Justin Miller (@justinjm1) September 23, 2018
This narrative being consistent with a statement from Ford’s lawyer, Debra Katz.
Katz said it was “unremarkable that Ms. Keyser does not remember attending a specific gathering 30 years ago at which nothing of consequence happened to her.”
“… It’s also unremarkable that Ms. Keyser does not remember attending a specific gathering 30 years ago at which nothing of consequence happened to her. Dr. Ford of course will never forget this gathering because of what happened to her there.” 2/2
— Nicholas Fandos (@npfandos) September 23, 2018
Just how critical this latest development is to undermining Ford’s allegation can be gauged by how the media is reacting.
In addition to Miller running interference, the Washington Post blatantly declared that Keyser “was close friends with Ford and that she believes Ford’s allegation.”
NEW: A woman who Ford said was at the party says she does not recall being at a gathering with Kavanaugh — but believes Ford's allegation. https://t.co/fgDP6CoGfQ
— Matea Gold (@mateagold) September 23, 2018
But according to Gabriel Malor, an attorney and contributor to The Federalist, that is not true.
He shared the text of Keyser’s letter in a tweet, noting that the woman never said she believed Ford.
This is the text of Keyser's letter. Note that she doesn't tell Judiciary Committee that she believes the allegation, despite disclaiming any memory of attending such a party *or any other party* where Kavanaugh was present. pic.twitter.com/eX5dFV1thr
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) September 23, 2018
Latest posts by Tom Tillison (see all)
- Trump picks White House lawyer to serve as Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery - April 6, 2020
- Trump’s instincts may be right as there’s more we DON’T know about the virus than we DO know - April 6, 2020
- Facebook apologizes after admitting it blocked do-it-yourself mask making efforts - April 6, 2020