Our Books

If you enjoy this site, please consider purchasing one of our books (as low as $2.99). Click here to visit our Amazon page.

Our Books

Our Books
Books by Trevor Grant Thomas and Michelle Fitzpatrick Thomas

E-Mail Me:

NOTE: MY EMAIL ADDRESS HAS CHANGED! Trevor's new email address: trevorgrantthomas@gmail.com

Latest News/Commentary

Latest News/Commentary:

News/Commentary Archives:

News/Commentary Archives (for the current year; links to previous years archives at the bottom of each page)---PLUS: Trevor's Columns Archived (page linked at the bottom of the table below):

Sunday, September 23, 2018

Suspicions Abound in Ford's Accusations Against Judge Kavanaugh (Update: New Accusations)

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, Ms. 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 today,
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 Ms. 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 Ms. Ford aware of where her information against Judge Kavanaugh must be sent? Did Rep. Eshoo make Ms. Ford aware of 18 U.S.C § 1001? Were any other democrats involved with informing Ms. Ford of how to proceed with her accusations?

If Ms. 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 its 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. Also, according to Guy Benson at Townhall, The New York Times states that they interviewed dozens of people over the past week in, what I'm sure was a desperate attempt to corroborate Ramirez’s story. No one could be found.

The Times also states that, "Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself." Again, it was only after six days of "carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney" (remember, a former elected democrat) that she remembered it was Kavanaugh.

Yeah, this reeks as well. 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!

(See a version of this at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America

No comments:

Post a Comment