The fourth and final person that Christine Blasey Ford said knew of, or saw a teenaged Brett Kavanaugh sexually assault her is now saying that they cannot back up her story. That means every witness that Ford claimed saw the attack is calling this Democrat plant a liar.
Every single day more evidence comes forward to show that this woman’s accusations are lies. And yet, the Republicans keep playing footsie with this crook as if she has a valid case against Judge Kavanaugh.
This accuser has made varying statements about how many people were in the room back in 1982 when a teenaged Kavanaugh is supposed to have tried to force himself on her at a party.
In her first accounts of this supposed attack there were five people in the room. Then it became just three. At one point it was four other boys in the room, later she claimed one of the witnesses was a woman. That she can’t even keep straight who supposedly witnessed this “attack” is telling enough.
But, now we find that even the other woman that Ford claims had knowledge of the attack is refuting the accuser’s proclamations.
According to Fox News:
Another person claimed by Christine Blasey Ford to have attended a gathering decades ago during which, Ford claims, she was sexually assaulted by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has denied any recollection of having attended the party.
In an email to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Saturday, Leland Ingham Keyser, a former classmate of Ford’s at the Holton-Arms all-girls school in Maryland, said she doesn’t know Kavanaugh or remember being at the party with him.
“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 III of Bethesda, Md., conveyed in an email to the committee that was obtained by Fox News.
All five witnesses Dr. Ford places at scene have weighed in, now all but Ford say the incident didn’t happen. The four she names besides herself contradict her. Last witness, Leland Keyser, says she doesn’t know #Kavanaughhttps://t.co/A0rprHEXgv #TeaParty #IStandWithBrett
— Jenny Beth Martin (@jennybethm) September 23, 2018
Indeed, as Kimberly Strassel noted in a series of well framed tweets, Ford has been all over the map on just who she said was in the room at the time of the purported attack.
Here is the full text of Strassel’s assessment:
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
The email wants a comment from him. The subsequent story would reveal Christine Ford’s name, and give details of the supposed “assault.”
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.”
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:
“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.”
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.”
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.
The progression pretty much proves that Ford really has no evidence, and that her “memory” does not lead to credible accusations.
Of course, this isn’t the only evidence that this woman is lying — and knows she is lying.
We’ve just learned that Ford gave her “letter” making her accusations not to Senator Dianne Feinstein, as has been previously reported, but to California Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo. It was Eshoo, in turn, who handed the letter to Feinstein.
Why is this significant? Because we now learn that this chain of handoffs was done to avoid legal entanglements for Ford. Now, if her story was true, why did she employ such arcane legal wrangling to avoid entanglements?
Further, how did a psychology professor even know of these very arcane legal terms? Clearly, as far back as last July, she was getting high powered legal advice about this caper and from that we can see that this was a carefully plotted political attack, not just an aggrieved woman hoping to be heard.
Sean Davis noted the significance of this chain of handoffs:
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. pic.twitter.com/oLG0IndQTL
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) September 23, 2018
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 other words, Ford somehow knew of this little known fact that if she had told Feinstein directly of her story she could have been open for prosecution if she was found to be a liar. So, how is it that she knew that if she passed the info to a congressperson first and then if the congressperson passed it to the senator, the accuser could not be prosecuted as having lied to a senator! It is awfully suspicious that a mere college professor would know this arcane law!
All the above evidence adds up to the fact that this whole thing has been a carefully orchestrated political campaign to discredit Judge Kavanaugh and delay a Trump nomination.
This is not the story of a poor woman who was attacked by a sexual predator. This is the story of a liar making up false stories in a political campaign.
Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston.