Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, November 07, 2018

A report released by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Saturday included the account of a man who said he had a consensual encounter with Dr. Christine Blasey Ford in the early 1980s, which mirrored in multiple respects the allegation of sexual misconduct she brought against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The report overall found no credible evidence of sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"According to the report, committee investigators interviewed a man -- whose name was redacted -- the day before Ford testified. This man related that when he was a 19-year-old college student he visited Washington, D.C., over spring break and kissed a girl he thought was Ford."

Sort of like the redaction of "Saudi Arabia" in the 9-11 report. Redacting should be redefined to lying. His name should be made public if he wants to infer she lied.

#1 | Posted by danni at 2018-11-07 11:03 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Jeff already posted this garbage.

#2 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-11-07 11:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Kissing is the same as sexual assault to Reich wingers.

#3 | Posted by bored at 2018-11-07 11:13 AM | Reply

Laura,

I don't recall ever posting this.

#4 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-07 11:19 AM | Reply

#4

Relax Jeff, Laura has a crush on you, let her down easy.

#5 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-11-07 11:36 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

This guy's story is as verifiable as Dr Ford's story. Which is to say, not at all.

#WeBelieve

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-07 11:47 AM | Reply

Kissing is the same as sexual assault to Reich wingers.

#3 | POSTED BY BORED AT 2018-11-07 11:13 AM

According to the JC report, the sworn statement by this gentleman tracks her allegations pretty closely:

BLANK stated that when he was a 19 year-old college student, he visited D.C. over spring break and kissed a girl he believes was Dr. Ford. He said that the kiss happened in the bedroom of a house which was about a 15-to 20 minute walk from the Van Ness Metro, that Dr. Ford was wearing a swimsuit under her clothing, and that the kissing ended when a friend jumped on them as a joke. BLANK said that the woman initiated the kissing and that he did not force himself on her.
JC Report at 8

This account is similar to the testimony Ford offered before the Senate Judiciary Committee in at least three ways:

1. The witness said the encounter took place in a bedroom of a house near the Van Ness Metro station, which is at the border of Washington, D.C., and Montgomery County, where Ford said the alleged incident with Kavanaugh happened;

2. The witness also said Ford was wearing a bathing suit under her clothing; and

3. The witness stated that their kissing ended when a second man jumped on the bed.

Don't forget, this is under penalty of felony so this witness truly has nothing to gain by telling this to the JC investigators.

#7 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-11-07 11:48 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sort of like the redaction of "Saudi Arabia" in the 9-11 report. Redacting should be redefined to lying. - #1 | Posted by Danni at 2018-11-07 11:03 AM

Why did you skip the last administration lying, as you define it, and go back to #43?
The Obama administration released a redacted version of President Barack Obama's once-secret policy on drone strikes abroad following a freedom of information lawsuit filed last year
www.reuters.com

#8 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-11-07 11:49 AM | Reply

Righto,

I'm waiting for this guy to name witnesses. Based upon what I've read so far, he has yet to do so.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-07 11:49 AM | Reply

This witness needs to be identified so that he can be interviewed by journalists and so people who know him can testify to his character. Anonymous witnesses are as useless as anonymous accusers.

#10 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-11-07 11:52 AM | Reply

"3. The witness stated that their kissing ended when a second man jumped on the bed."

He also needs to name the second man.

#11 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-11-07 11:53 AM | Reply

This witness needs to be identified so that he can be interviewed by journalists and so people who know him can testify to his character. Anonymous witnesses are as useless as anonymous accusers.

#10 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2018-11-07 11:52 AM

Yeah, that's exactly what this guy needs, to have is reputation dragged through the mud by the MSM. I thought you all wanted a professional investigation instead of a media frenzy.

Thanks for showing your true colors.

#12 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-11-07 11:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Anonymous witnesses are as useless as anonymous accusers

Wrong. The investigators know who exactly he is and received a sworn statement from him under penalty of felony, as opposed to the so called "anonymous" accusers (who are also now known to the investigators) who recanted and are now under DOJ investigation.

#13 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-11-07 11:58 AM | Reply

to have is => to have his

#14 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-11-07 11:58 AM | Reply

If the right is going to use his story to challenge Ford's in the court of public opinion, then his name needs to be made public. I would have loved a real FBI investigation, but since we didn't get that, competent journalists like Farrow and Mayer (among others) should vet his story for the public. You were good with them doing that in high profile cases like Weinstein's, but not now? It is you who have revealed your true colors, not me. I have been consistent in saying accusers and witnesses who remain anonymous must be discounted until such time as they decide to come forward publically.

#15 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-11-07 12:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I thought you all wanted a professional investigation instead of a media frenzy.

#12 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-11-07 11:55 AMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

I'd love one.

When does it start?

#16 | Posted by Zed at 2018-11-07 12:03 PM | Reply

I'd love one.
When does it start?

#16 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2018-11-07 12:03 PM

Read the 28 page report that I linked in #7, with 45 witness interviews and 25 sworn statements and let us know what is missing.

#17 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-11-07 12:05 PM | Reply

I remember who does bad things to me. Have you ever met someone of even average intelligence who doesn't?

But somehow Dr.Ford doesn't?

Senator Grassley got personally stung by Ford's testimony somehow. I'd really like to know how.

#18 | Posted by Zed at 2018-11-07 12:07 PM | Reply

#15

Gal, have you even looked at the report? I have now read everything but the exhibits, it discusses the FBI investigations in detail and shows that the last FBI investigation was far more extensive than anything that the media told you to believe.

#19 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-11-07 12:07 PM | Reply

Read the 28 page report that I linked in #7, with 45 witness interviews and 25 sworn statements and let us know what is missing.

#17 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-11-07 12:05 PM |

Read my #18 for a start on what's missing. Common sense?

#20 | Posted by Zed at 2018-11-07 12:07 PM | Reply

"Read the 28 page report that I linked in #7"

That link is to another DR thread.

#21 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-07 12:09 PM | Reply

An objective, neutral or at least bipartisan report is what is missing.

#22 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-11-07 12:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#21

Sorry, it must have stripped out, here it is

#23 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-11-07 12:22 PM | Reply

An objective, neutral or at least bipartisan report is what is missing.

Notice I am not talking about the conclusions, which are partisan, but the evidence itself, sworn statements under penalty of felony.

You can draw your own conclusions from that.

#24 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-11-07 12:24 PM | Reply

You can draw your own conclusions from that.

#24 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-11-07 12:24

That the conclusions drawn are suspect?

#25 | Posted by Zed at 2018-11-07 12:27 PM | Reply

"That the conclusions drawn are suspect?"

At least as good as a Devin Nunes investigation.

#26 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-07 12:27 PM | Reply

If two people try to rape me, I'm going to know who the hell they are. If you want to assert Dr. Ford lied, do that. The idea she was mistaken about the man on top of her is absurd.

#27 | Posted by Zed at 2018-11-07 12:28 PM | Reply

"sworn statements under penalty of felony."

Who got to ask the questions those sworn statements were answering?

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-07 12:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Notice I am not talking about the conclusions, which are partisan, but the evidence itself, sworn statements under penalty of felony.
You can draw your own conclusions from that."

Didn't Grassley ask that some people who provided sworn testimony to be investigated? A sworn statement alone is a start but not enough without a follow up investigation.

#29 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-11-07 12:42 PM | Reply

"sworn statements under penalty of felony."

Only if Grassley refers them to the FBI to be investigated, which he would never do to someone who he thought was helping Kav and hurting Ford and which anyone providing a sworn testimony would know.

#30 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-11-07 12:45 PM | Reply

Ford has become the new Hillary's Emails for you nutters. An unhinged obsession.

#31 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-11-07 12:50 PM | Reply

"If two people try to rape me, I'm going to know who the hell they are"

You'd probably say the same thing about getting into a fist fight with someone. I got into one in middle school a couple months after transferring in. We got into a fight after gym class over something stupid. Teacher came in as he was leaving and asked who else was in it, and I named the kid. Turns out I'd called out the wrong kid. In having been new and learning who's who, I'd incorrectly mixed up two kids. I was damn certain at the time who it was though, until I'd learned quickly after that I'd confused the two.

Now, do a google search on eyewitness misidentification of attacker. A lot of links to scholarly articles. I'm not saying she is wrong, but I am surprised how certain everyone is that THEY would know.

#32 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2018-11-07 01:00 PM | Reply

"The Obama administration released a redacted version of President Barack Obama's once-secret policy on drone strikes abroad following a freedom of information lawsuit filed last year "

Because that was an ongoing program which required personnel on the ground to direct it who would be placed at risk were specific information about targets released. The other thing was a major attack back in 2001 on an American city. ARe you going to try to compare those two things? Ridiculous. Come to think of it, I shouldn't have wasted the minute it took to respond to such a ridiculous comparison.

#33 | Posted by danni at 2018-11-07 01:00 PM | Reply

As I noted earlier, nothing short of a full media frenzy will satisfy the truly partisan.

I do find it interesting, however, that no Dems on the JC have publicly (to my knowledge) denounced this report.

Tammy Bruce: 'Crickets' From Dems After Senate Report on Kavanaugh Allegations

#34 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-11-07 01:02 PM | Reply

"As I noted earlier, nothing short of a full media frenzy will satisfy the truly partisan."

Asking this guy to talk to Farrow and Mayer hardly constitutes a full media frenzy. Despite the hardships, I thought Ford needed to testify in public. Same goes for this guy, but since there is no hearing for him to attend, he needs to submit himself to reputable journalistic scrutiny if he wants to be taken seriously.

#35 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-11-07 01:06 PM | Reply

Asking this guy to talk to Farrow and Mayer hardly constitutes a full media frenzy.

LOL, and once his name is out there, I sure that it will go no further...right? After all, the media is all about respecting people's privacy on something as salacious as this.

/s

#36 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-11-07 01:17 PM | Reply

"After all, the media is all about respecting people's privacy on something as salacious as this."

It would seem to me that he had to have spoken to someone involved to volunteer his information and attempt to discredit Ford. He opened himself up for scrutiny when he did that, it's only fair. She is facing her scrutiny, why shouldn't he if he basically wants to call her a liar.

#37 | Posted by danni at 2018-11-07 01:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"After all, the media is all about respecting people's privacy on something as salacious as this."

Sorry, whether you are an accuser or a witness, if you want to insert yourself into a high profile story like this one, you have to go public. Look, if someone came out tomorrow claiming to support Ford's story but refusing to go public, that witness, too, should be discounted until such time as s/he is willing to be named and publicly counted.

#38 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-11-07 01:31 PM | Reply

"/s"

Your sarcasm is a defense, but in this case a weak one.

#39 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-11-07 01:32 PM | Reply

"As I noted earlier, nothing short of a full media frenzy will satisfy the truly partisan."

I noticed you didn't answer my question:

Who got to ask the questions those sworn statements were answering?

#40 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-07 08:23 PM | Reply

I'm not saying she is wrong, but I am surprised how certain everyone is that THEY would know.

#32 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2018-11-07 01:00 PM | Reply

The human brain is wired to remember punishment, and pain. Dr. Ford touched on PRECISELY that point during testimony. The big word she used must have gone over some heads.

I and she would no sooner forget someone who attacked us as Donald Trump would forget who insulted him. Since we're talking about memory.

#41 | Posted by Zed at 2018-11-09 09:35 AM | Reply

Jesus, this is rich. Combat veterans dream about who/what hurt them in excruciatingly real nightmares, often nightly.

If you're going to challenge the quality of Dr. Ford's memory, challenge that of the drunk. You remember him? He sits on the Supreme Court.

#42 | Posted by Zed at 2018-11-09 09:38 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort