The Case against Kavanaugh Is Collapsing

cap case KavanaughA very strange thing happened over the weekend: If you follow Twitter closely, you’ll notice that the debate over Brett Kavanaugh moved significantly from the central question of last Thursday’s hearing — did he commit sexual assault? — to a raging debate over whether he lied about high-school slang, college drinking, and inside jokes, and whether he was just too “angry” to be a Supreme Court judge.

This torrent of commentary (most of it silly, including competing, furious arguments about how people described anal sex in 1982) obscures an important development: The sexual-assault claims against Kavanaugh are in a state of collapse.

Let’s deal with the easiest issue first. The day before the hearing, Michael Avenatti released a “declaration” by a client, a woman named Julie Swetnick, claiming that she saw Kavanaugh “waiting his turn” for gang rapes after facilitating them by spiking or drugging the punch at high-school parties. She claimed that she went to multiple such parties and was gang raped at one of them, though she would only assert that Kavanaugh was present on that occasion.

The claim against Kavanaugh was transparently absurd. The idea that a person would repeatedly attend gang-rape parties and that the existence of these parties (which would presumably generate multiple victims and bystander-witnesses) remained utterly secret for decades is nonsense. But left-wing Twitter took up the claims with a vengeance, dragging anyone who dared express doubt through the mud. After all, didn’t the Catholic Church scandals prove that crimes could be concealed? Didn’t Sixteen Candles have a subplot about a drunk male geek sleeping with a drunk popular girl? (Yes, that was an actual article in Vox.)

But then the Wall Street Journal did some actual reporting, “contacting dozens of former classmates and colleagues,” only to find it “couldn’t reach anyone with knowledge of [Swetnick’s] allegations.” Moreover, “no friends have come forward to publicly support her claims.” Again, she alleged repeated gang rapes. Yet there are still no other witnesses.

It also turns out that a former employer, a company called WebTrends, once sued Swetnick for defamation and fraud. Among other things, it contended that Swetnick engaged in sexually inappropriate conduct and then, “in a transparent effort to divert attention from her own inappropriate behavior,” made uncorroborated sexual-harassment complaints against the two men who accused her of such behavior.

The case was never adjudicated, but it’s just one reason that the commentariat should be hesitant to credit lurid allegations from an unknown individual. Shouldn’t there be a modicum of due diligence before leaping to the conclusion that a man is a rapist?

Meanwhile, Deborah Ramirez’s allegation — that Kavanaugh exposed himself at a party at Yale — remains essentially where it was last week, uncorroborated and difficult to believe. She was drinking heavily at the time. She confesses that her memory contains “gaps.” She even told other classmates that she wasn’t certain it was Kavanaugh. No one else could even confirm he was at the party where the incident allegedly occurred.

For a brief moment after the hearing, Democrats believed that one of Kavanaugh’s calendar entries corroborated Ford’s story. A July 1, 1982, note says, “Go to Timmy’s for Skis w/Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi.” According to the Democratic theory, because Ford testified that “Skis” was short for “brewskis” (beer), and because Mark Judge and “PJ” were allegedly at the party where Ford claimed she was assaulted, this could be the documentary evidence that the party took place.

Interestingly, no Democratic senator explored this theory with Kavanaugh while he was testifying, and Ford’s team never raised it, either. It was left to be floated after Kavanaugh was off the stand. And now legions of Democrats are presenting it as “corroboration.”

It’s nothing of the sort. First and most important, “Timmy’s” house was ten miles from the country club Ford has described as in proximity to the party, and it did not meet the description of the house that Ford offered in her testimony. Second, the lineup of attendees does not mention a single female and is substantially different from the one she has described. And finally, the lineup includes “Squi,” the nickname for Chris Garrett, a boy Ford was (according to her testimony) seeing at the time. It would be odd indeed to remember a party’s attendees and forget that one of them was your then-boyfriend.

In other words, for the July 1 theory to be correct, Ford’s previous testimony would have to be substantially incorrect. The theory is so thin that even a CNN analysis described it as “circumstantial, at best.”

No responsible lawyer would bring even a civil case on the facts described above, and civil cases must meet only the lowest burden of proof. Believe women? Believe men? No. Believe evidence. It’s possible that the FBI investigation will uncover additional material facts. It’s also possible that the investigation will leave us back where we started — with entirely insufficient evidence to prove even one of the terrible claims against a person who was once one of the most-respected public servants in America.

No responsible journalistic outlet should have run the story. And without more evidence, no fair-minded person should believe it today.

Which brings us to Christine Blasey Ford. Yesterday, Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell released a memorandum to all Republican senators summarizing Ford’s evidence against Kavanaugh. I’d urge you to read the entire thing. Democrats are describing it as a “partisan document,” but it refers to multiple, undisputed facts that should cause even Ford’s most zealous defenders to pause and reevaluate her claims.

Ford has no corroborating witnesses, and even the friend she says was at the party in question has denied being there or knowing Kavanaugh at all. She doesn’t know who invited her to the party, where it took place, how she got there, or how she got home after, by her account, Kavanaugh attacked her. But the problems go beyond gaps in memory. She has offered substantially different accounts about when the attack occurred (she’s previously said it happened in the “mid Eighties,” in her “late teens,” and in the “Eighties.” Now she’s saying it happened in 1982, when she was 15) and how it occurred (her therapist’s notes conflict with her story of the attack, and she has offered different accounts about who attended the party).

All of these inconsistencies and omissions are important. None of them help her case.

Reprinted with permission from - National Review - by David French

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Sign Up Today
Read more articles by Outside Contributor
Notify of
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
1 year ago

About Judge Kavanaugh and the his anger. I wouldn’t give two cents for a man that wouldn’t stand up when his family, reputation and legacy are attacked unjustly.

Virginia Scott
1 year ago

Anyone who can giggle through her rememberance of this alledged incident and never really saying anything of substance is seriously in need of her therapist (not to mention her “Go Fund Me account”, Her payday for these allegations.) Light on in the bedroom or lights off? Fully dressed with a one piece bathing suit under her clothes, give me a break from the lies. However, her life is changed. Now she is a millionaire based on lies and being a giggly little timid “school girl” who is afraid to fly and was terrified by going before the committee. Her laughter… Read more »

1 year ago

What I find of great interest and frankly down right hypocrisy is that Booker who has admitted groping girls in high school is allowed to sit on this committee in judgement of this man. Also, Blumenthal who has lied about having been a combat vet. in Viet Nam sits on the committee. I thought it was made a federal crime to make such claims. Then of course Diane Feinstein. who sat on Ford’s letter for 45 days only to reveal it at the very last moment. The Republicans rather than to look like a bunch of baboons questioning this poor… Read more »

Paul W
1 year ago

Case?! They never had a case. They had an accuser. That’s all. An accusation isn’t evidence. No evidence…NO CASE.

Joseph Shary
1 year ago

Interesting point about Squi—-also interesting is that Ford was never asked why she did not warn her female pal who she says was at the beer party. Does not make sense to not warn her pal of two viscous drunken rapists, unless of course the entire incident was fabricated by Ford

Anthony Green
1 year ago

They (Democrats) NEVER had anything on Kavanaygh to begin with. Anyone with any common sense (leaves most Democrats out) knew this whole situation was/is a sham. They (Dems) are trying everything to keep Kavanaugh from being confirmed. The Dems are going to be the reasoning for the Cival War which is about to happen. Laugh all you want-it is coming.

Donald Tucker
1 year ago

The case of Dr. Ford is perplexing to many. Here’s my two cents , for what it is worth. In 1982 we were just becoming aware of AIDS and HIV. People in that era talked a lot more about doing it as opposed to those who were actually doing it; the 1970’s were over and there was a new paradigm for sex. I lived through and distinctly remember the hysteria that surrounded the McMartin Pre-School abuse case as well as the one in Spokane, Washington. Both cases were a big sham; thank you unethical psychologists. We still didn’t understand false… Read more »

Rhoda Minger
1 year ago

The inconsistencies in Dr. Ford’s statements, the fact that her legal expenses are being funded by a “Go Fund Me” page that per her testimony she didn’t know what it was or who or how it was set up, and the flaws in facts from the notes from her therapist (that were given to the press but could not be discussed at her hearing) make everything she utters a lie! I am a 77 year old woman who in all my years has never seen the Senate act so irresponsibly and with my tax payers money….. wish there would be… Read more »

1 year ago

Bottom-line: it’s all caca de toro!

1 year ago

I don’t know about you but when I was assaulted I remember every detail. Where I was, who did it, what happened and also the exact year it happened. I also reported it to my superiors and was made a laughing stock. I also had two witnesses that collaborated my incidence, was examined by a doctor and had evidence and my superiors didn’t contact the police about it just made me a laughing stock. Also the superiors of the establishment tried to sue me because when he did it I hauled off and slugged the guy out of unconscious response.… Read more »

Marlaen Fisher
1 year ago

The democrat’s are now trying to make Judge Kavanaugh out to be an alcoholic. Why is Dr Ford’s character not being investigated. Maybe she is an alcoholic. Maybe she was so drunk she does not clearly and accurately remember what happened. Maybe she was promiscuous, not that it makes sexual assault okay, but it makes a statement about her character. If the incident happened when in high school maybe she didn’t tell anyone because she was not suppose to be at the Party and was drunk and didn’t want her parents to find out.

1 year ago

Help me out with all the supposed gang rapes. Were 100% of these via anal penetration? If not, and there were countless episodes, why not one report of pregnancy?

1 year ago

I hope the American people put all of this into perspective when heading for the polls in November. While I certainly agree that any person who has been subjected to sexual assault should be heard, it is also incumbent upon the “victim” to TELL SOMEBODY!! She should have told a parent—where were they, by the way?— (Dr. Ford was only 15 when this happened, or 16 or 17…), a close friend, or, preferably, law enforcement. The only way to prove a case AND TO PROTECT OTHER POTENTIAL VICTIMS is to collect evidence and testimony at the time of the incident.… Read more »

1 year ago

Brett Kavanaugh must be confirmed

Jean Garelick
1 year ago

This is terrible and the Dems should be embarrassed and if he could sue them for defamation of character. Everyone who has defamed his name. He should be a supreme court judge, GOD BE WITH HIM, FOR HE KNOWS HE WILL BE A GREAT JUDGE

Ed Bowers
1 year ago

After watching her testimony I have no doubt that something happened to Dr. Ford. But that is as far as I can go believing her. A family member of mine was sexually assaulted when he was 9, he is now 61. He remembers VIVIDLY every thing that happened, every detail. And the time span isn’t 36 years it’s 52 years. I also have no doubt that Judge Kavanaugh was NOT involved in any of the allegations put forth. Time to stop the circus and vote him on to the Supreme Court!

1 year ago

The whole story-line is bogus. An attempt to delay nomination until after the midterms. Problem is either way Kavanaugh gets nominated and becomes a Supreme Court justice. I honestly cannot see many independents voting in a Democrat, after this display of dishonesty.The democrats are like the Borg, a collective that is mind controlled, worker bees for the Queen if you will.

1 year ago

The only way we can shut these Parasites down is to Vote them out!

1 year ago

I believe that this comes down to one person, her boyfriend. She said there were four boys there and she named three of them. Find her boyfriend and I think you will get all the answers. I think he took her to the house and they had there good time and then he took her home. She is not talking about him because she is protecting him because he was having sex with a miner. The rest of her story is a fabrication of what has happened.

Willie Ryan
1 year ago

I wonder how much money see is going to get for trying to destroy a great mans reputation this is all from the democrats and I hope people can see how evel and low they will go just to get there way I pray people see the truth this is a joke and nobody is laughing.this is why people need to vote republican in November.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x