Things aren’t looking for the woman that has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of attempted rape in 1982.
A letter was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee from the attorney of the man that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford identified as ‘PJ’ and was present at the party where Kavanaugh allegedly attempted to rape her.
Patrick J. Smyth, the man that Blasey Ford claims was present at the small, drunken gathering in 1982, says that he has no knowledge of the party or ‘improper conduct’ by Brett Kavanaugh.
Smyth is the second friend of Kavanaugh to claim to have no knowledge of the party where Blasey Ford alleges the drunken groping took place.
Mark Judge, a conservative writer, was identified by Blasey Ford as the other person that was in the room at the time. Judge has written about his teenage alcoholism, but says that he has no recollection of the party, the events as Blasey Ford has presented them, or any untoward behavior by Kavanaugh.
Dr. Blasy Ford claims that it was a house party, but the exact date, location, number of attendees, or the circumstances for the gathering have still not been settled in her accounts. Even the details that have come out have been contradicted in her letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, her account to the Washington Post, and the notes taken by her therapist in 2012. This could simply be due to the events occurring 35 years ago, or it could be something more nefarious.
Dr. Blasey Ford had named 5 people who attended the party, and of those, 3 — Kavanaugh, Judge, and now Smyth — have denied any knowledge of it.
So far, the only one to that has come forward that was in attendance at the party is Christine Blasey Ford.
CNN obtained a letter from Patrick J. Smyth, a Georgetown Prep alum who graduated in Kavanaugh’s class, to Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). The letter was penned after Ford apparently identified Smyth as “PJ” – another teenager who was one of around five people at a drunken gathering in a Montgomery County, Maryland, home in or around 1982.
“I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post,” the letter, penned by Smyth’s attorney, Eric Bruce, reads. “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”
Smyth has remained friends with Kavanaugh over the years and had previously sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee voicing his support for the nominee, stating that Kavanaugh is ‘singularly qualified to be an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.‘
The new letter also includes statements vouching for Kavanaugh’s integrity and a request for anonymity. The letter was leaked to CNN, however.
Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women.
To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the Committee may have.
The circumstances surrounding these allegations raise a lot of alarm bells — it was done at the 11th hour, Sen. Feinstein apparently sat on the letter for months, it was presented after Judge Kavanaugh had completed his testimony, and it reeks of the same kind of treatment that Clarence Thomas received in 1991.
Despite that, Kavanaugh has agreed to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee again to address the 35-year old allegations.
Up until last night, so was Dr. Blasey Ford.
A letter from her lawyer, Debra Katz, was sent out yesterday evening, and Dr. Blasey Ford has decided that she will only testify after a full investigation by the FBI.
An investigation into a party that she doesn’t know the address of, on a date she can’t specify, with unknown attendees, 35 years ago, and where the other two people in the room and yet another she claims was at the party say that they have no idea what the heck she’s talking about.
And now, the Chief Political Analyst at ABC is suggesting that we toss out the presumption of innocence.
You know, ’cause it’s 2018 or something.
Enough with the “he said, she said” storyline. If this is he said, she said, then let’s believe the she in these scenarios. She has nothing to gain, and everything to lose. For 250 years we have believed the he in these scenarios. Enough is enough.
— Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) September 17, 2018
The evidence so far is that the man in question is innocent and this is a smear campaign to keep him from the Supreme Court.