“[Creepy Porn Lawyer] appears to be fishing for whether Kavanaugh was present at any such party.“
That’s what I thought too. Reading the numbered questions that CPL demands, they’re taking this angle: what if BK did not partake, but “suspected” they happened and said nothing?
They’re desperately throwing sh*t against the wall, based on what likely generally happened around BK in his day, and seeing what will stick.
Back then, there were rumors of these “trains” at frat houses. And it’s doubtful any brother there would, or could, stop them. They would likely appear consensual.
If he was around that, what’s the strategy to defend?
In my opinion, the most effective thing the Senate Republicans can is to draw a line on the process.
McConnell and Grassley should publicly take the position that disputed memories of the doings of drunk teenagers at parties 35 or more years ago are not sufficiently reliable to be the basis of serious hearings of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee.
They should add that in light of the fact that all other persons named by Christine Blasey Ford as present at the teenage drinking party 36 or so years ago have, under penalty of felony, failed to corroborate her allegation, the Chairman is cancelling the hearing.
They can point out that Ms. Blasey Ford is free to pursue remedies with Maryland law enforcement against Judge Kavanaugh if she wishes, or give her account to the media.
They should say that regardless, the Committee will proceed to its originally scheduled vote on Monday, September 24 with a full vote in the Senate in time to seat Justice Kavanaugh at the start of the October Term.