Kavanaugh’s ex-classmate tells senators he won't testify

The Hill ^ | 09/18/18 | Michael Burke

[yesthatjallen]

The former classmate of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, who was said to have been in the room when Kavanaugh allegedly sexually assaulted a woman decades ago, has told senators he will not testify at next week's hearing.

Mark Judge wrote in a brief letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) that he "did not ask to be involved in this matter nor did anyone ask me to be involved."

"In fact, I have no memory of this alleged incident," he wrote.

Christine Blasey Ford has said that Judge was in the room at a high school party in the 1980s when Kavanaugh held her down on a bed and tried to remove her clothing. According to Ford, Judge pulled Kavanaugh off of her while he was attempting to take off her swimsuit.

Senate Democrats earlier Tuesday called on Judge to testify at the hearing scheduled for Monday.

[Gahanna Bob]

I could believe Ms. Ford if she were accusing a Kennedy.

[nopardons]

One would think so; at the least talked about the "party" and who was there.

I went to parties, when I was in high school, and I bet that everyone else, here, did too. It wasn't just girls who talked about them later; boys did too. And my parents would ask if I had had a good time, who was there, etc.; it was just what "normal" people did.

[Fai Mao]

“- what axe does Ford have to grind? Why subject herself to this crap?”

What ax did Juanita Broadrick have to grind? The Democrats - INCLUDING The PIAPS vilified and threatened her. They used the Arkansaw state troopers to harass her. They killed her house cat to shut her up. Your friends in the press attack her and make the false claim that she is just making it up. Bill Clinton is accused of FORCIBLE RAPE BY AT LEAST 7 WOMEN but that does not matter to demonrats.

Juanita Broderick went to the hospital. She filed a police report - the next day - She’s been chasing Bill Clinton for nearly 50 years. But you and s***=bags like like you don’t care.

If Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Dodd, and several others well-known demondogs can do similar crimes and it doesn’t matter simply because they espouse the proper politics as far as you are concerned then I don’t care what anybody does to democratic women.

When you start putting demonrats in jail for far, far more better-documented, not just he said/she said situations then I might listen. Until then this woman is lying.

This woman is a Democrat. Democrats, by virtue of surrendering all semblance of polity and virtue, have forfeited any right to be trusted or believed. You, if you are a Democrat are an evil, lying, deceitful, ignorant, racist, bigoted, violent person. This is a lie simply because you don’t care about the crimes the Democrats do.

[KevinB]

... including Rush and Hannity, for heaven’s sake, who are jumping up and down and pretending to take this woman’s accusations seriously and calling for a “fair hearing.”

Rush said over and over again today that he believes the woman is making it up. Granting the opportunity for a hearing is just about optics. It takes away the ability of the Dems to claim that Republicans don't take claims of sexual assault seriously. If she refuses to appear, or really looks like a fool if she does appear it's over.

[laplata]

lol

[aMorePerfectUnion]

As far as worrying about being prosecuted for perjury, when has that ever happened to a liberal who lies in front of Congress?

Strategery at work here.

Kavanaugh hired a defamation attorney. A woman attorney.

If this accuser testifies under oath, examined by the attorney, it is likely the attorney will set her up for a civil defamation case, as well as making her look like an idiot.

Judge K just tells the truth and is surrounded by women who know his character.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

If she falsely testifies that Judge assaulted her, she may have a serious problem with a civil lawsuit for defamation.

. . . and precisely how would someone prove the negative which her story demands that Kavenaugh do?

This is a simple case of an accusation which is vague enough to be unfalsifiable and also unverifiable. The truth doesn’t matter in this case for the simple reason that the truth will never be definitively determined.

The truth is that, given the vagueness of all allegations/notes of the alleged incident, it is likely that Ms. Ford doesn’t really know either.

If the truth doesn’t matter, the only thing to go by is the objective fact that there is no fairness at all in forcing Kavenaugh to prove a negative. You can interview and investigate ’til kingdom come but you will never know the truth. The allegation has to be ignored. If it actually is true, so what? We’ll never actually know - and “what difference, at this point, does it make?”

[Antipolitico]

Well, just yesterday I was at a luncheon where a member of the Judiciary Committee was there, mentioning the smear (my words). I went up later to said person and stated that this affair was a bunch of baloney and the Republicans had better fight back against this! I got the impression “said person” agreed with me!

[StAnDeliver]

HE DOESN'T HAVE TO. SHE HAS IMPEACHED HER TESTIMONY.

"From colleague Connor Marley. Feinstein on Ford. [Feinstein] says Ford "is a woman that has been, I think, profoundly impacted, on this..I can't say that everything [Christine Blasey Ford] is truthful. I don't know." --Chad Pergram, 2:00 PM - 18 Sep 2018

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

[Steely Tom]

Strategery at work here.

Kavanaugh hired a defamation attorney. A woman attorney.

I hadn't heard that, and I certainly hope it's true.

Although if he has hired a defamation attorney, I would expect the Democrats to start screaming that he's trying to intimidate his accuser.

[Jim Noble]

This guy would be stone cold crazy to appear before a Congressional committee, now or ever.

He is a private citizen and has every right to be left alone.

[sanjuanbob]

Two things I’ve read about Chrissie

1) she was a drinker
2) she used alcohol

[Do_Tar]

There were 2 boys and her.
Or there were 4 boys and her in the room.
Wait. There were 2 boys and her in the room and 2 other boys in some house.
Or, there were 4 boys in the house and 2 girls.
Well maybe 3 girls.

[heights]

Why should be Testify to some crazy Women’s lunatic Fantasy?

[KevinB]

Some guy who went to Landon at the same time Blasey was at Holton Arms, Landon’s sister school, has posted that she was a well-known slut whose nickname was Christine “Blosey.”

[Lisbon1940]

You don’t need a character like this for a character witness. Even his last name is a problem.

[RainMan]

My first wife used to remember things that never happened, or were never said, or never even thought, and then used that to build a narrative to 3rd parties to gain sympathy for herself. In reality, she was later diagnosed delusional for remembering things that never happened or said, and paranoid for remembering things that nobody else ever thought. There is a strong correlation with her memories and the fact that she is now my EX-WIFE.

The classic example was when walking thru a shopping mall, if lets say 150 feet in front of me a young gal with a tight blouse on and came walking out of a shop. Even if I never saw her, immediately my EX would blurt out (loud enough for others to hear) "I see how you are looking at her, you want to F**k her don't you?" to which my response would be "What!!! Who? Huh?"

Before I learned better, I would try to calm her down, apologize for things I never did, etc. Later, I learned to avoid confrontation by learning to walk without looking up. It took me years to unlearn that habit.

The object lesson that I learned from all this was simple. NEVER give an inch. Never acknowledge that something "might" have happened. Never try to spare her feelings. Call her a liar right from the start. Put HER on the defensive, and make her attempt to back up her claim. Do it both in private and in public. Shame her if she even attempts to damage my reputation with her slander.

IMHO, the Republicans need to treat the Democrats as if they are delusional and paranoid, and take the same aggressive tactics I did, because THEY WORK.

Imagine the meltdown on the left if Grassley stood up and said, the charges are not credible. They are 35 years past when the event happened, and there is no memory of exactly when or where they might have occurred. There no witnesses to corroborate the accusation, and no evidence that they occurred. The accuser cannot even claim a good memory of what "may have" occurred, because she has changed her story multiple times. Furthermore, the act claimed was not an illegal act. She was NOT raped, even by her own admission. She was not imprisoned, because by her own admission she got out of the room.

What is known is this. The accuser is an activist for the Democrat Party. What is known is that the Senator that brought this forward had these accusations prior to the Interviews and Committee hearings, and chose not to share them until the vote was scheduled. This leaves us to conclude only one thing, and that is that this is not a serious, credible allegation, but rather and attempt at delaying a vote on an unsubstantiated, and unsubstantiable claim by a Senator that is desperate to get a nominee that she does not agree with thrown out, and she knows that without dirty tricks like this, the nominee will be confirmed. The claim will therefore not be investigated further, the vote shall be Thursday as previously scheduled.

[Islander2]

[Does she at least remember why she was wearing a one-piece swimsuit under her clothes?] since this happened in Winter.

[CottonBall]

I think so too. The left will try to smear him and put words in his mouth. The old rule of thumb applies, do not testify unless you know what they are going to ask you. If you have a choice that is.

[OddLane]

She wants to be a matter in the anti-Trump cause.