Last night we found out that the last of the possible witnesses to the alleged groping of Christine Ford by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh some 37 years ago has denied that she either knew Kavanaugh or was at a party such as that described by Ford.
NEWS: Attorney for Leland Keyser, who Dr Ford says was at the party where the alleged incident with Kavanaugh occurred says “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.” pic.twitter.com/l2F0s396IK
— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) September 23, 2018
If you are keeping count, this now makes four people who were alleged to have been at this party who have denied under penalty of perjury that they were there. The only remaining person making the claim is Christine Ford who has yet to make a formal statement, in person or via attorney, to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
This is how Ford’s legal team is treating the newest revelation:
Ford's lawyer just said Leland Keyser, a witness that Ford's team named, has faulty memory. This from an accuser who can't even give the place or the year of the alleged sexual assault incident. You can't make this stuff up. pic.twitter.com/RJRIa9t8XB
— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) September 23, 2018
By that logic, we can conclude that Kavanaugh and Mark Judge and Patrick Smyth are probably telling the truth, too, if “nothing of consequence” is a reason for not remembering an event (and I think it is).
Take a moment and consider this. Ford’s team is saying that what happened to her was so consequential, so momentous, that she can’t remember the year, the month, whose house she was at, how she got to the party, or how she got home. And because she can’t remember those events, that is completely consistent with her telling the truth. On the other hand, when Leland Keyser can’t remember the events it is an indication that nothing important happened to her so she wouldn’t be expected to remember. So apparently, not remembering an event can be proof that either something or nothing happened there. Except when it involves men, and their memories are lies.
In my last post on the subject, I point out how the “nothing of consequence” exception doesn’t apply to Keyser. She and Ford were friends. They were at a party together with three drunken potential rapists of the male persuasion. Ford absconds from the party without telling her and leaves her alone with three teenage boys. Don’t you think this would have registered with Keyser unless Ford running away from drunken parties was so common that she didn’t pay attention?
Right now, the only “memory” in this allegation is Ford “remembering” an incident that absolutely no one else remembers. Were these facts applied to any other crime, like murder, we’d have dismissed Ford out of hand by now as a crank if not an outright fraud. But, in the case of Ford, we are bending over backward to give credence to a story that seems more improbable and outrageous day by day.
Carl Sandburg once said, “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.” That’s where we are.
I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.