“In fact, I have no memory of this alleged incident,” he added. “Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Ford’s letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the matter Dr. Ford describes.” If you don't even think you were there what good does it do you to testify. The left will just vilify you for life. That is a very strong denial. Nothing more is needed.
A strong denial would be ''It never happened'' , not no recollection of this alleged incident. If Kavanah wants to be credible he should discard all political correctness and take a polygraph test. Simple as that.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/lo...lls-msnbc-bet-brett-kavanaugh-wont-confirmed/ "I have a lot of cash..."
She has to show up first Anita. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Anita Hill: How to Get the Kavanaugh Hearings Right By ANITA HILL 11 hrs ago The Kavanaugh hustle There is no way to redo 1991, but there are ways to do better. The facts underlying Christine Blasey Ford’s claim of being sexually assaulted by a young Brett Kavanaugh will continue to be revealed as confirmation proceedings unfold. Yet it’s impossible to miss the parallels between the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing of 2018 and the 1991 confirmation hearing for Justice Clarence Thomas. In 1991, the Senate Judiciary Committee had an opportunity to demonstrate its appreciation for both the seriousness of sexual harassment claims and the need for public confidence in the character of a nominee to the Supreme Court. It failed on both counts. As that same committee, on which sit some of the same members as nearly three decades ago, now moves forward with the Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings, the integrity of the court, the country’s commitment to addressing sexual violence as a matter of public interest, and the lives of the two principal witnesses who will be testifying hang in the balance. Today, the public expects better from our government than we got in 1991, when our representatives performed in ways that gave employers permission to mishandle workplace harassment complaints throughout the following decades. That the Senate Judiciary Committee still lacks a protocol for vetting sexual harassment and assault claims that surface during a confirmation hearing suggests that the committee has learned little from the Thomas hearing, much less the more recent #MeToo movement. With the current heightened awareness of sexual violence comes heightened accountability for our representatives. To do better, the 2018 Senate Judiciary Committee must demonstrate a clear understanding that sexual violence is a social reality to which elected representatives must respond. A fair, neutral and well-thought-out course is the only way to approach Dr. Blasey and Judge Kavanaugh’s upcoming testimony. The details of what that process would look like should be guided by experts who have devoted their careers to understanding sexual violence. The job of the Senate Judiciary Committee is to serve as fact-finders, to better serve the American public, and the weight of the government should not be used to destroy the lives of witnesses who are called to testify. Here are some basic ground rules the committee should follow: Refrain from pitting the public interest in confronting sexual harassment against the need for a fair confirmation hearing. Our interest in the integrity of the Supreme Court and in eliminating sexual misconduct, especially in our public institutions, are entirely compatible. Both are aimed at making sure that our judicial system operates with legitimacy. Select a neutral investigative body with experience in sexual misconduct cases that will investigate the incident in question and present its findings to the committee. Outcomes in such investigations are more reliable and less likely to be perceived as tainted by partisanship. Senators must then rely on the investigators’ conclusions, along with advice from experts, to frame the questions they ask Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey. Again, the senators’ fact-finding roles must guide their behavior. The investigators’ report should frame the hearing, not politics or myths about sexual assault. Do not rush these hearings. Doing so would not only signal that sexual assault accusations are not important — hastily appraising this situation would very likely lead to facts being overlooked that are necessary for the Senate and the public to evaluate. That the committee plans to hold a hearing this coming Monday is discouraging. Simply put, a week’s preparation is not enough time for meaningful inquiry into very serious charges. Finally, refer to Christine Blasey Ford by her name. She was once anonymous, but no longer is. Dr. Blasey is not simply “Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser.” Dr. Blasey is a human being with a life of her own. She deserves the respect of being addressed and treated as a whole person. Process is important, but it cannot erase the difficulty of testifying on national television about the sexual assault that Dr. Blasey says occurred when she was 15 years old. Nor will it negate the fact that as she sits before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dr. Blasey will be outresourced. Encouraging letters from friends and strangers may help, but she cannot match the organized support that Judge Kavanaugh has. Since Dr. Blasey and Judge Kavanaugh have the same obligation to present the truth, this imbalance may not seem fair. But, as Judge Kavanaugh stands to gain the lifetime privilege of serving on the country’s highest court, he has the burden of persuasion. And that is only fair. In 1991, the phrase “they just don’t get it” became a popular way of describing senators’ reaction to sexual violence. With years of hindsight, mounds of evidence of the prevalence and harm that sexual violence causes individuals and our institutions, as well as a Senate with more women than ever, “not getting it” isn’t an option for our elected representatives. In 2018, our senators must get it right. Anita Hill is university professor of Social Policy, Law, and Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass.
Ford wants FBI investigation before testifying You have to admit. What a conniving way To delay confirmation and potentially sink him. Never saw this coming. Will rally Dems to show up in even bigger droves if Kavanaugh is not confirmed before Midterms
https://hillreporter.com/court-empl...out-brett-kavanaugh-but-fear-retaliation-7492 Court Employees Ready To Come Forward About Brett Kavanaugh, But Fear Retaliation At least half a dozen federal court employees have stories to share, says attorney. https://theintercept.com/2018/09/17...ssley-and-dianne-feinstein-neither-responded/ ATTORNEY SENT LETTER TO CHUCK GRASSLEY AND DIANNE FEINSTEIN CLAIMING FEDERAL COURT EMPLOYEES WILLING TO SPEAK ABOUT BRETT KAVANAUGH Sanai references former Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who resigned in December 2017 after 15 women came forward to share their stories of his inappropriate behavior, ranging, the LA Times reports, from showing them pornography without consent and touching them inappropriately. Sanai was an early whistleblower on the case, and says he faced retaliatory behavior from the judge afterward. During some of the years that Kozinski sat as judge, Brett Kavanaugh was his law clerk. During confirmation hearings, he denied any knowledge of Kozinski’s sexually predatory behavior. In his letter, Sanai says this demonstrated Kavanaugh is “either lying or so willfully blind to judicial misconduct that he should not be appointed. Everyone knew, even if everyone did not have personal knowledge.” Cyrus Sanai calls for Congress to place a focus on judges who “made the judiciary safe for Judge Kozinski to satisfy his deviant needs,” saying that if the committee does so, he can guarantee that federal court employees will come forward to share the information they have.
SHE won’t even testify!!! Hahahahhahahahahahaha. This ‘witness’ is doing exactly as he should. Next they will ask YOU to testify.