Kavanaugh Accuser Comes Forward with 4 People She Says ‘Corroborate’ Her Claim, But There’s 1 Huge Problem


Christine Blasey Ford’s legal team claims to have four people who can corroborate her claim against Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Except, of course, the claim is being hyped and it’s less than it appears to be.

USA Today dropped the claim late Tuesday night. And yet it’s wrong since that’s ‘corroboration’ means either someone saw it, you have evidence or you told someone in close proximity in time.

According to USA Today, they sent the Committee “sworn and signed declarations from four people” to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which they claim corroborate Ford’s claim that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.

Daily Wire reports:

All four people who can “corroborate” her claims were told in the years after her 2012 therapy sessions — where she never used Kavanaugh’s name — about the alleged incident from over 35 years ago.

One of the people listed is her husband, the other three are close friends of hers. USA Today reports:

In her declaration, Adela Gildo-Mazzon said Ford told her about the alleged assault during a June 2013 meal at a restaurant in Mountain View, California, and contacted Ford’s attorneys on Sept. 16 to tell them Ford had confided in her five years ago.
In another declaration, Keith Koegler said Ford revealed the alleged assault to him in 2016, when the two parents were watching their children play in a public place and discussing the “light” sentencing of Stanford University student Brock Turner.

In another declaration, Rebecca White, a neighbor and friend of more than six years, said Ford revealed the alleged assault against her in 2017.
In his declaration, Ford’s husband said he learned of his wife’s experience with sexual assault “around the time we got married” but that she didn’t share details until a couple’s therapy session in 2012.

Except there are problems there too. Only two of the people say she used Kavanaugh’s name, her husband who claims she said it in 2012 after the therapy session and Koegler who says she only said the name in June 2018, after Kennedy’s resignation. Otherwise, she said “a federal judge.”

And the statements don’t change the problems with the allegations that have already been outlined.

1. That all of the four witnesses she claims were at the alleged party say there never was such a party, including her lifelong friend Leland Keyser who claims she never met Brett Kavanaugh and was never at such a party with him.

2. She didn’t tell anyone until she told the therapist in 2012, but she never told the therapist Kavanaugh’s name.

3. That her story of who was at the party and in the room has varied. She told the therapist there were four boys in the room. Then she told the WaPo that that was a mistake that there were two boys in the room, but four boys at the party. But only three boys were ultimately named. No mention is made of Leland Keyser in the WaPo story who the WaPo knew was not supportive of Ford’s claim. Then in her original letter that she sent to Feinstein she said that there were four people at the party besides herself (total).

And Paul Sperry notes some further problems:

4. “Her own immediate family doesn’t appear to be backing her up, either,” Sperry writes. “Her mother, father and two siblings are all conspicuously absent from a letter of support released by a dozen relatives, mostly on her husband’s side of the family.”

5. “In another inconsistency, Ford told The Washington Post she was upset when Trump won in 2016, because Kavanaugh was mentioned as a Supreme Court pick,” Sperry writes. “But Kavanaugh wasn’t added to Trump’s list of possibles until November 2017, a full year later.”

6. She’s saying she ran out of the house and went home, left her friend with boys who just tried to attack her and never told her friend about the incident. And that apparently her friend was never concerned enough about her just disappearing from the party to ask, according to her version of events.

It’s possible that she came to believe it was true after therapy. But that doesn’t mean it is true.

If she doesn’t know where or when it even occurred and the people who she said were there dispute being there or that it even occurred, including her lifelong friend, it’s hard to get around the reality of that. They’re not saying they didn’t see it because maybe it happened at the party out of their sight. They’re saying the party itself never occurred, so it couldn’t have happened.

And there is still no formal statement from her on the record.

Comments are closed.