https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/22/politics/kavanaugh-ford-accuser-nomination/

Senate Judiciary Committee contacts Ford's friend about party

By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter

Updated 0139 GMT (0939 HKT) September 23, 2018

Washington (CNN)As the Senate Judiciary Committee staff negotiates with attorneys for Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of a past sexual assault, over a potential hearing on Thursday, Republican staffers are working to interview those who may have information about the alleged incident.

CNN has learned that the committee has reached out to a longtime friend of Ford named Leland Ingham Keyser.

On Saturday night, her lawyer, Howard Walsh, released a statement to CNN and the Senate Judiciary Committee..

"Simply put," Walsh said, "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."

The lawyer acknowledged to CNN that Keyser is a lifelong friend of Ford's. Keyser is the latest person alleged to be at the party to say she has no recollection of it.

"I understand that you have been identified as an individual who was in attendance at a party that occurred circa 1982 described in a recent Washington Post article," a committee staffer wrote Keyser earlier this week.

Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the allegations, telling sources he was "flabbergasted" when he learned of them.

"This is a completely and totally false allegation," he said after Ford came forward. "I have never done anything like what the accuser describes — to her or to anyone."

In addition, two others have issued statements.

"I have no memory of this alleged incident," said Mark Judge in a September 18 letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said he did not recall the party and never saw Brett Kavanaugh act in the matter Ford describes.

In addition, Patrick J. Smyth issued 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 said in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "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."

"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."

CNN's Clare Foran contributed to this report.

The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.

1. Brett Kavanaugh

2. Mark Judge

3. Patrick. J. (P.J.) Smyth

4. Leland Keyser

In contrast, consider Harvey Winestein. One woman came forward claiming assault, and soon after, a few dozen followed with their own claims. The sheer numbers of claims against Weinstein makes one conclude the high likelihood of his guilt.

In the same way, the complete LACK of any claims mirroring Ford's allegations, combined with dozens of women who have gone on record affirming Kavanaugh as a good man, make it easy to conclude that Ford's allegations are false. Not that she's necessarily lying. As I've speculated, it's possible she was indeed assaulted somewhere, some time, in the manner she claims, but that the perpetrator was not Kavanaugh, but someone else entirely that she either incorrectly believed at the time was Kavanaugh OR though the many years that passed, created a false memory that it was him.

In any event, if she's putting forth names of witnesses and all the witnesses claim to have no knowledge of what she expects, it doesn't look good for her claims at all.

Whatever trauma she did experience with this attack, if it happened at all, might be nothing compared to what she will go through if her story falls apart in the national spotlight. She might really want to go to New Zealand then, and I wouldn't blame her.

if it happened at all

It is all an illusion. The claptrap is designed to be an illusion, too. It is all a distraction from the REAL issues confronting America.

She was not an eye witness, but Ford said she had knowledge of th the party and assault.

Ford admitted not telling anyone of the alleged assault. If Leland Keyser wasn't an eye witness, how would she know what happened?

Moot point. She denies everything.

I'm waiting for the Democrats to start complaining -- "Why are these white male Republicans forcing this poor woman to public testify on national television about a minor, playful incident that happened 36 years ago when she was in high school?"

I'm waiting ...

I assume you attended high school at some point in your life. Let me remind you that these institutions have the greatest GOSSIP in the world and if there was any misconduct by a student with so many attending the event, the information would have been spread far and wide.

But the GOSSIP never happened. All involved people, whether real or imagined, have absolutely no knowledge of the event with the exception of Ford, herself.

This BS is just smoke and mirrors to get your attention off of the REAL stuff facing America. The tick-tock of the debt clock continues .....

She was not an eye witness, but Ford said she had knowledge of the party and assault.

Ford admitted not telling anyone of the alleged assault. If Leland Keyser wasn't an eye witness, how would she know what happened?

But also:

"Simply put," Walsh said, "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."

This indicates Ms. Keyser was asked about her recollection of being at the party.

The following series of Kimberley Strassel twitches(?) from Twitchy via Liberty Daily provides a good exploration of the changing story and how WaPo handled it.

https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2018/09/23/game-over-kimberley-strassel-shares-wapo-reporters-email-further-discrediting-ford-and-the-media/

GAME OVER! Kimberley Strassel shares WaPo reporter’s email further DISCREDITING Ford (and the media!)

Posted at 8:49 am on September 23, 2018 by Sam J.

Things seem to be getting worse and worse for Christine Blasey Ford.

And for the Democrats.

Ford’s allegations have almost completely faded in the zoo this whole process has become, Republicans bending over backward to accommodate Ford so she can testify, Ford hemming and hawing through her team of obviously biased and politically powerful attorneys, witnesses denying her story (one doesn’t even KNOW Kavanaugh) …

It’s a serious mess.

Kimberley Strassel shared even more details from a WaPo reporter’s email she received from a source that further discredits and undercuts Ford’s claims:

Kimberley Strassel
@KimStrassel

1) 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

10:47 PM - Sep 22, 2018

A week ago.

Kimberley Strassel
@KimStrassel

Replying to @KimStrassel

2) The email wants a comment from him. The subsequent story would reveal Christine Ford's name, and give details of the supposed "assault."

10:47 PM - Sep 22, 2018

- - - - - - - - - -

Kimberley Strassel
@KimStrassel

Replying to @KimStrassel

3) 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."

10:47 PM - Sep 22, 2018

WaPo knew who this other witness was over a week ago.

Key point here.

Kimberley Strassel
@KimStrassel

Replying to @KimStrassel

4) 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:

10:47 PM - Sep 22, 2018

- - - - - - - - - -

Kimberley Strassel
@KimStrassel

Replying to @KimStrassel

5) "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.”

10:47 PM - Sep 22, 2018

Hrm.

Kimberley Strassel
@KimStrassel

Replying to @KimStrassel

6) 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.

10:47 PM - Sep 22, 2018

Say what indeed.

Kimberley Strassel
@KimStrassel

Replying to @KimStrassel

7) 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!

10:47 PM - Sep 22, 2018

It’s hard to stick with one account when you’re not telling the truth.

Kimberley Strassel
@KimStrassel

Replying to @KimStrassel

8) 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?

10:47 PM - Sep 22, 2018

Because like others in traditional media, WaPo cares more about the narrative than the actual story.

Kimberley Strassel
@KimStrassel

Replying to @KimStrassel

9) 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.

10:47 PM - Sep 22, 2018

- - - - - - - - - -

Kimberley Strassel
@KimStrassel

Replying to @KimStrassel

10) 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."

10:47 PM - Sep 22, 2018

Wait, what now?

Kimberley Strassel
@KimStrassel

Replying to @KimStrassel

11) 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.

10:47 PM - Sep 22, 2018

All we can do at this point is just shake our heads.

Christine Blasey Ford is going to get hammered at the hearing....

I am still of the opinion Blasey Ford will not testify.

The way this is going, someone's going to request she get a psychiatric examination.

Someone has to ask if the only people there were Kavanaugh, Judge, Smyth and Keyser, was the party at some random stranger's house where nobody was home?

I am still of the opinion Blasey Ford will not testify.

A few days ago, I would have agreed. But given the Republican concessions, she's come too far to back out. What (legitimate) excuse does she have?

Not testifying would be the biggest political cheap shot I've ever witnessed. Assuming Trump gets an opportunity to appoint a third justice, that nomination should got straight to a full Senate vote. No hearings. No more circuses. No nothing.

Someone has to ask if the only people there were Kavanaugh, Judge, Smyth and Keyser, was the party at some random stranger's house where nobody was home?

I agree. No one has come forward saying there was a small (pool?) party at their house in the Summer of '82?

But given the Republican concessions, she's come too far to back out. What (legitimate) excuse does she have?

Her car broke down. She had a break down and just can't. She does not not need a legitimate reason to not testify.

For political reasons, Kavanaugh won't sue for defamation, but Judge, Smyth and/or Keyser may do so. Thus far, not a word has been issued to the public over the signature of Ford. Not one public word has bee uttered by Ford.

I am still of the opinion Blasey Ford will not testify.

Who the fuck cares about your opinion concerning her future actions?

No one has come forward saying there was a small (pool?) party at their house in the Summer of '82?

Not THAT party, as described by Ford. Nobody claims to own the alleged crime scene. Even Ford claimed she did not know where it was or who owned it.

Only one person has been named, he as a theoretical possibility, as conjecture by Ed Whelan, not by Ford, and Whelan apologized the next day for naming the individual. The named individual, Chris Garrett, is one of the alums who signed a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee attesting to Kavanaugh's good character.

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1042965763613777921/photo/1 [Ltr to Committee]

I am unaware of any Garrett response to the Whelan conjecture.

" Assuming Trump gets an opportunity to appoint a third justice, that nomination should got straight to a full Senate vote. No hearings. No more circuses. No nothing. "

I agree. Hearing just gives the leftists a stage to conduct their hysterical theatrics. If they do as you say, the leftists will make a huge stink, aided by the leftists in the media. I think / hope it works against them in the mid terms !!!

Hearing just gives the leftists a stage to conduct their hysterical theatrics.

It's obvious from this confirmation hearing the Democrat's minds were made up before Kavanaugh testified. He changed no one's opinion.

The Democrats are simply looking for any reason to justify their "no" vote.

Even Ford claimed she did not know where it was or who owned it.

She's 15. How did she get home? She can't drive and she can't have someone come to pick her up since she doesn't know where she is.

She's 15. How did she get home?

"She" said she left the house and went home. Maybe she walked.

So no one at the party in the house lived there? How do you do that?

Treat it as a non-issue and ignore it. So what? They forgot to mention any resident of the house and their math is terrible. That does not excuse rape.

It is easy to do a lot of stuff the way this came about.

It appears Ford did not write the letter, and she definitely did not send it to Feinstein. The letter appears to have been written by a law professor affiliated with Stanford, and it was given to Rep. Eshoo. Eshoo's staff hand delivered the letter (or a copy?) to Feinstein.

Communicating to Rep. Eshoo, and Eshoo communicating to Feinstein may sidestep 18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally, concerning communication of false statements. Feinstein is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee with jurisdiction over the nomination, Representative Eshoo has no jurisdiction over the nomination process.

Four guys, three gals and a guy. Easy. Leland Keyser looks like a man's name, not that Ford would mistake her lifetime friend for a man. But a lawyer drafting the letter, and only seeing the name on a page, might well do so.

It appears Ford lawyered up before anything got started.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://theintercept.com/2018/09/12/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-dianne-feinstein/

Dianne Feinstein Withholding Brett Kavanaugh Document From Fellow Judiciary Committee Democrats

Ryan Grim
The Intercept
September 12, 2018, 4:24 p.m.

[...]

The letter took a circuitous route to Feinstein, the top-ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. It purportedly describes an incident that was relayed to someone affiliated with Stanford University, who authored the letter and sent it to Rep. Anna Eshoo, a Democrat who represents the area.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/13/feinstein-kavanaugh-investigation-letter-822902

Feinstein asks feds to investigate Kavanaugh claims in letter

By BURGESS EVERETT and EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE

09/13/2018 01:47 PM EDT

Updated 09/13/2018 02:47 PM EDT

[...]

Senators and aides have been chattering about the details of the letter for the last week, including that it was written by a Stanford Law professor and sent to Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), who then forwarded it to Feinstein. A spokesperson for Eshoo said that the office would not comment due to a "confidentiality policy regarding constituent issues."

https://www.kqed.org/news/11692960/rep-eshoo-kavanaugh-accusers-decision-to-go-public-a-tremendous-act-of-courage

Rep. Eshoo: Kavanaugh Accuser's Decision to Go Public a 'Tremendous Act of Courage'

KQED News Staff and Wires
Published on Sep 17

[...]

Michael Krasny: When you received this letter, and she is in your district, what was your first response? And you were told by her that she wanted it to be confidential and she certainly wanted to be anonymous, right?

Rep. Anna Eshoo: Well, Dr. Ford is my constituent. She contacted my office. We certainly followed up with her, and I met with her for an extended period of time in July. I thought that it was important to listen very well to her story, which she wanted to share with me, and she did. And it was also important for me to emphasize to her that she tell me what she wished me to do with it, or that she was simply confiding in me and wanted to know the story of what had taken place earlier in her life. Privacy is so essential for individuals that have undergone or been subjected to any kind of sexual assault. And so she was the one that made the decision that she wanted this to move in a pathway that she thought would be helpful. And so I contacted Sen. Feinstein because ... Dr. Ford is her constituent as well. And Sen. Feinstein is also, as you know, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. And so she wrote a letter. We made sure that it was hand delivered to Sen. Feinstein's office, and then it was in Sen. Feinstein's hands.

Second paragraph, first line in different font size from the rest of the letter.

Ford's "signature" is typed in.

"She" said she left the house and went home. Maybe she walked.

Which narrows the search.

Second paragraph, first line in different font size from the rest of the letter.

Wait a minute! I recognize that font from Obama's birth certificate. It may have done on the same typewriter! Note how the e's are slightly slanted? And the f's are smudged?

That's it. I'm convinced this is a fake.

It is all a distraction from the REAL issues confronting America.

Why doesn't any reliable source inform us taxcpayers that the national disgraceful deficit is actually $60 trillion?

Why doesn't any reliable source inform us taxcpayers [sic] that the national disgraceful deficit is actually $60 trillion?

LF is just a teenie-weenie, itsy-bitsy chit-chat channel and here YOU STAND ALONE claiming $60T? How do you have such remarkable precision of data and skills to calculate that same data as it is JUST A FUCKING estimate, even by the best officials?

No one across the nation has a grasp of the mountain of debt placed on the backs of US Citizens. Much of it is SECRET; not even Congress knows much when they submit a budget; it is a guesstimate.