Tag Archives: Brett Kavanaugh

How does the lynching of Brett Kavanaugh affect Christian men who want to have an influence?

Brett Kavanaugh, his wife, and his two daughters
Brett Kavanaugh, his wife, and his two daughters

Well, on Friday, I asked one of the atheist senior software engineers I work with how he felt about the Kavanaugh nomination. He told me three things. First, that they shouldn’t give a job that lasts “40 years” to someone who got angry about being accused of being a gang rapist. Second, he had not followed the Kavanaugh news for a week. And third, that Trump was a horrible President, and hadn’t don’t anything right.

Here is a comprehensive summary of the Kavanaugh confirmation process from famous religious liberty defender David French.

Here’s what’s in it:

  • the overall pattern of sensational accusations being made, then unraveling after investigations prove them false
  • the left’s insistence that Kavanaugh disprove the allegations, rather than the accusers having to prove them
  • the left’s claim that Kavanaugh’s defense against the allegations shows that he doesn’t have the temperament for SCOTUS
  • the evidential problems with Christine Ford’s accusation
  • the evidential problems with Deborah Ramirez’s accusation
  • the evidential problems with Julie Swetnick’s accusation
  • the charge that Brett Kavanaugh committed perjury when talking about his drinking and his high school yearbook

Let’s focus on the most credible accusation from Christine Ford:

It’s an assault that verges on attempted rape. But the evidence simply doesn’t support this claim. In fact, her claim is worse than just “uncorroborated,” it’s contradicted – sometimes even by her own testimony and her own evidence. And her behavior since bringing the claim raises further doubts about its veracity.

Consider the following, undisputed facts about her testimony and the evidence she’s provided. Not one of the witnesses that she’s put forward have backed her version of events – not even her own friends. At best they’ve said they have no recollection of the party. Her friend, Leyland Keyser, went further, declaring through her attorney that “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

Moreover, Dr. Ford herself has provided conflicting accounts of her age at the time of the attack and the number of attendees at the party. Even the evidence of the details of the attack isn’t uniform. Her therapists’ notes allegedly indicate that four boys were present, not just Kavanaugh and Judge. She claims these notes are erroneous, but contemporaneous notes of a conversation are almost always far more reliable than a years-later recollection of that same conversation.

Dr. Ford’s conduct since coming forward has also been disturbing. When making a serious claim against another person, it is the obligation of the accuser to come forward with evidence. Instead, she has withheld evidence – including her complete therapists’ notes and the complete polygraph record. She has defied the Senate Judiciary Committee and refused to fully cooperate with its investigation. In a civil litigation context, the persistent refusal to hand over relevant evidence can lead to dismissal of a plaintiff’s claim. In this context, it should at the very least lead to a negative inference about the contents of the withheld evidence.

The article did not cover the sworn statement of Ford’s boyfriend, which directly contradicted her testimony under oath. This would open her up to charges of perjury, if pursued. And the article also didn’t mention how many of her stories meant to delay the confirmation process were falsified after being investigated, e.g. – her fear of flying which kept her from testifying on time.

What the Kavanaugh lynching means for Christian men

I am concerned about what young Christian men will have learned from the false accusations against Kavanaugh. Is it worth it to be sober and chaste in order to do well in school, and get good jobs? Well, the message of the Kavanaugh fiasco is that everything you do can be undone with a few false accusations. If you rise too high, then the secular left can destroy your reputation, your career, get you fired, destroy your finances by forcing you to defend yourself in court, etc. Good degrees and good jobs take a lot of hard work and self-sacrifice, especially in a time when progressives are receiving preferential treatment. Is it worth it to try?

Suppose a young Christian man were clever and avoided all alcohol and sex in high school and college, like I did. Suppose he did two STEM degrees in order to get into a male-dominated field like I did. I’ve worked in FT100 companies that aggressively promoted abortion and gay rights. I saw women who were outspoken proponents of same-sex marriage get promoted over conservatives with real STEM skills. Imagine I were going for a promotion in competition with a leftist woman. She could make up any story she wanted without any evidence in order to get me fired.  This is what the Kavanaugh case clearly shows.

One final point. Is it worth it for a Christian conservative man to get married and have children in an environment like this? If a man is fired from his job on a false charge, it puts a serious strain on his marriage. I am watching what gay activists are doing to Christian business-owners right now. Death threats, vandalism, organizing protests, negative reviews… trying to make it impossible for Christians and conservatives to earn a living. Trying to make it so that their children starve. Christian men who want to have an influence aren’t stupid. They count the cost of every decision before making it. A man who has a wife and kids is simply not as free to be who he really is and say what he really thinks as a man who is unmarried and who uses an alias.

A lot of Christians seem to like to say how great it is that they focus on “spiritual things” while ignoring politics. Well, when those Christians see secular leftists climbing into power and ruling over what Christians can say or do, I hope they will remember that all it takes for evil men to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Every time the secular left puts on a show of intimidation, more and more young Christians will get the message: you can’t win, so don’t try. The secular leftists are fascists – they will use power, threats of violence, and violence itself in order to neutralize the influence of those who make them feel ashamed of what they are doing.

Related posts

Will Christine Ford be charged with perjury after her ex-boyfriend’s sworn testimony?

Brett Kavanaugh, his wife, and his two daughters
Brett Kavanaugh, his wife, and his two daughters

Christine Ford’s ex-boyfriend told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath that he witnessed her coaching a friend on how to take a polygraph. So what? Well, Ford told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she “NEVER” (her words) coached anyone else about polygraphs. Looks like someone is going to be facing perjury charges all right, and not about farting or drinking beer!

First, The Federalist recalls how Ford answered questions about her polygraph at her Senate Judiciary Committee hearing:

At last week’s hearing, Ford was specifically asked by Rachel Mitchell, an experienced sex crimes prosecutor who was hired by the committee to question Ford and Kavanaugh, whether she had advised anyone on how to take a polygraph.

“Have you ever had discussions with anyone, beside your attorneys, on how to take a polygraph?” Mitchell asked.

“Never,” Ford responded.

“And I don’t just mean countermeasures,” Mitchell said, “but I mean just any sort of tips, or anything like that.”

“No,” Ford said.

“[H]ave you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?” Mitchell continued.

“Never,” Ford replied again.

The Federalist article has the full statement.

The Wall Street Journal notes: (it’s pay-walled)

The statement was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Dr. Ford’s lawyers didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The writer’s name was redacted. In the letter to the committee, the writer said that he dated Dr. Ford from 1992 to 1998, found her to be “truthful” and said he had no ill will toward her.

He wrote that she never told him she was a victim of sexual assault or mentioned Judge Kavanaugh’s name.

He said that while they were dating, Dr. Ford lived with a female friend. That person was interviewing for a federal job. The writer said he witnessed Dr. Ford help her friend prepare to take a lie-detector test.

Because of her background in psychology, the writer said, Dr. Ford was able to help her friend understand “what to expect, and how polygraphs worked,” putting her mind at ease about the forthcoming test.

In his letter, Sen. Grassley wrote that Dr. Ford’s testimony at the hearing “raises specific concerns about the reliability of her polygraph examination results. The Senate therefore needs this information.”

National Review adds:

The two dated for six years and Ford never expressed a fear of flying or closed spaces, traits she told the committee she struggles with, he said.

The man also claims Ford lied about and then admitted to charging a credit card they used to share for about $600 of merchandise.

Personally, I don’t believe her story, and now that we have evidence that she perjured herself, I’d like to see her face criminal charges and spend some time in prison.

And I’d like to see her lawyers investigated and disbarred, if they are found guilty. And I want them to explain who is paying their lawyer fees and for Ford’s polygraph. If Ford or Ford’s lawyers are linked to George Soros, then we can certainly do something about George Soros’ influence in America.

And we can have an FBI investigation of Diane Feinstein’s on-staff Chinese spy – and find out what he was doing working for her for 20 years. I’d like that investigation to last as long as the media took smearing Trump with Russia collusion nonsense.

But first, let’s confirm Kavanaugh. This week. I want all the Democrat senators in red states to go on the record on where they stand on Kavanaugh. I want it done before the mid-terms, so everyone in Indiana, Montana, West Virginia, North Dakota, and Missouri are very clear about who they should vote for in the mid-terms.

Note: at the time of writing (Tuesday night) this story had only been reported on National Review, The Federalist, the Washington Examiner, Fox News, the Daily Caller, and other right of center outlets. Not one far-left news media source, e.g. – CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, WaPo, etc. had a thing to say about it. This failure to report happens ALL THE TIME (remember the Gosnell trial?) Remember that next time you are consuming fake news from the progressive mainstream news media. They lie.

I had no idea that there were so many people making decisions based on feelings

Brett Kavanaugh, his wife, and his two daughters
Brett Kavanaugh, his wife, and his two daughters

I’ve been reading about Christine Ford’s accusation against Brett Kavanaugh a lot. Ford hasn’t been able to provide any specific details about when and where this assault happened, or who was present, or how she got to and from the place where it happened.  I listened to a few debates on the facts of the case, and no one on Ford’s side could produce any evidence to back up her story.

Rob Tracinski posted an interesting article at The Federalist. He had been engaging with many people who “believed” in Ford’s story on Twitter.

He writes:

There is only one fundamental dividing line in the reaction to the televised hearings about accusations against Brett Kavanaugh, and it’s not solely a partisan one. It’s the line between those who judged the hearing based on emotions and those who judged it based on reason.

The testimony of Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, added nothing of substance to the claims already reported. She was still unable to place her accusation at a specific time and place, to fill in many of the gaps in her recollections, or to find a single other person supposedly present who could confirm any aspect of her story. It remains a vague claim with no corroborating evidence.

Based on reason and evidence alone, you would have to conclude that we have gotten no farther in the case and are not likely to get any farther.

[…]But evidence and logic are not what we heard about in most of the reactions to the hearings. What we heard about is how the testimony made people feel.

The attack on logic began before the hearings, with commenters pointing to quotes saying the case against Kavanaugh is “plausible” and “believable”—but providing no actual evidence that it actually did happen—then describing this as “compelling.” But “plausible” is the opposite of compelling. Direct evidence compels belief, logically speaking. Someone’s speculations about what might have happened have no logical standing and compel nothing.

Or consider the phrase you probably heard a thousand times today: that Kavanaugh should not be confirmed because he is “credibly accused.” What does that mean? What makes the accusation “credible,” and what evidentiary status does that give it? A vague accusation with no independent corroboration from the very people the accuser herself described as witnesses doesn’t sound all that credible to me.

But you will look in vain for any clear standard of what is “credible.” It is not an evidentiary term but an emotional one. All it means is “this is something I feel like believing.”

People are not judging credibility based on evidence. They are judging based on how the two witnesses made them feel, which is to say that they base it on a purely emotional reaction—a reaction heavily influenced by partisan loyalties that prejudice you for or against the two witnesses.

So we get pure appeals to emotion like this one: “I can’t imagine how many thousands of women, around the world, are in tears as they listen to Christine Blasey Ford’s voice cracking.” Kavanaugh’s voice cracked, too. Does that mean we should also embrace his side of the story?

The ability to jerk tears in the audience does not constitute evidence, and if all important issues are to be resolved by the test of who is a more charismatic speaker, then impartial justice becomes impossible. On this issue, Conor Friedersdorf makes a highly relevant point: “I’ve studied too many criminal trials that sent innocents to jail or that acquitted the guilty to trust that a mass audience can distill whether anyone is telling the truth or not by consulting their gut while watching testimony.”

This was the problem from the very beginning. Everyone was talking about how each of the witnesses “looks” and about what’s “sympathetic”—as if it’s all about the feels, rather than evidence or logic.

One far-left feminist named Ana Marie Cox tweeted that she didn’t believe Kavanaugh’s tears because “the boyfriend that abused me cried a lot”:

When it’s all about feelings, the logic must be bent and twisted to fit. So when Kavanaugh became emotional while describing his young daughter’s reaction to this case, it wasn’t proof of a man who loves his daughter. No, it was proof that he was abuser. Why? Because “The boyfriend that abused me cried a lot.” Get the logic here? Because one man was abusive and cried in an attempt to get sympathy from his victim, then any man who cries is therefore an abuser. This line was repeated a lot, mostly by women citing an abusive man in their own lives, sometimes a father but usually an ex-boyfriend or ex-husband.

Note that whenever a woman has a defective father, that man was chosen by her mother. Her mother is responsible for the choice of this man and the choice to make babies with this man. Similarly, a woman who has a defective ex-boyfriend or ex-husband is responsible for her choice of this boyfriend or this husband. Although women often blame men for treating them badly, in almost every case, the harm results from a woman’s own choices. The choice to drink too much, the choice to go to parties, the choice to pursue an attractive irresponsible bad boy, etc.

NPR posted a poll on the trial, and the poll found that:

  • 32% of men believe Kavanaugh’s account, 28% believe Ford.
  • 35% of women believe Ford’s account, 20% believe Kavanaugh.

Why are so many women opposed to Kavanaugh?

Well, thanks to feminism, many women find it very hard to choose men who are good at commitment, self-sacrifice and marriage roles. Feminists consider the traditional male roles to be “sexist”, so they don’t choose men who can perform the traditional male roles. In pre-feminist times, women looked for men who were chaste, sober, good providers, good with children (e.g. pro-life), serious about religion, serious about moral character, and who put the needs of others first. They chose men who would be good at marriage. But because of feminism, choosing men based on “rigid gender identities” for a “sexist” institution like marriage is simply not done. Men who are good at marriage are “boring”, and the best men are the men who let women be as selfiish as they want to be. So, feminists marry men like Ted Kennedy, Anthony Weiner and Bill Clinton because those men are “feminists” who believe that recreational sex, abortion and no-fault divorce are good things.

I had a female friend who I used to work with in my last job who once showed me a web site filled with pictures of men’s faces. Some of them were normal people, and some of them were crazy. And she proudly told me that she was able to pick which ones were crazy with 100% accuracy. She was so proud of her ability to judge men based on appearances. She had complete confidence in her feelings and intuitions.  In fact, she got some kind of crazy thrill out of making decisions based on her feelings. The freedom to choose without having any evidence was intoxicating to her. Logic? Evidence? Those things were restrictive and would take away her freedom to make herself happy. She married an atheist devotee of Ayn Rand, despite being Catholic herself. And naturally, they divorced. Trying to think through whether a person who extols the virtue of selfishness can enter an institution like marriage is hard work. She decided to just make the decision based on appearances, feelings and intuitions. I’m sure that today she would tell me how untrustworthy, scary and evil all men are, too.

Feminists want to choose men based on how the man makes them feel, rather than by evaluating his suitability for commitment. This plan never works, and it makes these women very, very bitter. In fact, the same women who are believing Ford based on their feelings, without any evidence, are the ones choosing bad men based on their feelings, without any evidence that he is able to do the job of a husband and father. The problem is the same – making decisions with feelings instead of being bound by the evidence.

Moderate senator Lindsey Graham rips Democrats for unfair treatment of Kavanaugh

Brett Kavanaugh, his wife, and his two daughters
Brett Kavanaugh, his wife, and his two daughters

Democrats have accused Kavanaugh of drugging and raping women, participating in gang rapes and operating a gang-rape ring (when he was a high school student). I tweeted a lot about the hearing on Thursday, but the comments of Lindsey Graham, a moderate centrist Republican, was the best response to the Democrat’s charges against Kavanaugh.

First, here is a good sample of how the Democrats questioned Kavanaugh during the hearing, to evaluate his suitability for the Supreme Court of the United States of America: (5 minutes)

Kavanaugh threw up too much, farted too much, etc. when he was 16 years old.

Senator Lindsey Graham also questioned Kavanaugh: (5 minutes)

He’s so angry that his thoughts are all jumbled up. But you can get the basic idea of what he’s saying.

Real Clear Politics had the transcript, here’s some of it:

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): If you wanted an FBI investigation, you could have come to us. What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life, hold this seat open and hope you win in 2020. You’ve said that, not me.

[…]This is the most unethical sham since I’ve been in politics. And if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn’t have done what you’ve done to this guy.

[…]Boy, you all want power. God, I hope you never get it. I hope the American people can see through this sham.

That you knew about it and you held it. You had no intention of protecting Dr. Ford. none. She’s as much of a victim as you are.

God, I hate to say it because these [Democrats] have been my friends, but… [t]his is going to destroy the ability of good people to come forward because of this crap. Your high school yearbook. You have interacted with professional women all your life, not one accusation. You’re supposed to be Bill Cosby when you’re a junior and senior in high school. And all of a sudden you got over it. It’s been my understanding that if you drug women and rape them for two years in high school, you probably don’t stop.

[…]To my Republican colleagues: If you vote no, you are legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics.

I listened to reactions from people like Dana Loesch, Buck Sexton and Matt Walsh to Lindsey Graham on their podcasts, and they were as shocked as  I was. This is the guy who, throughout his career, bent over backwards to cut compromise deals with Democrats in the Senate. He’s been  centrist moderate as a Republican senator. I have nothing good to say about him. I supported his last primary challenger, and was disappointed when Graham won the primary.

So I really have no idea what is going on here – this is the last thing I would have expected from Graham. But it does tell you something about how unfair the Kavanaugh hearings were.

Here is Senator Graham sounding less angry, and more coherent, talking to the news media – the same news media that fawned over his RINO actions for so many years: (5 minutes)

PJ Media summarized the video above:

“I feel ambushed,” Graham told reporters at the conclusion of the hearing this afternoon.

“When it comes to where it happened,” Graham said, “I still don’t know. I don’t know when it happened. She says she’s 100% certain it did happen. I bet you Judge Kavanaugh will say I’m 100% sure I didn’t do it.”

He said the people named by Ford as corroborating witnesses “don’t know what Ms. Ford’s talking about.” In addition, “She can’t tell how she got home and how she got there and that’s the facts I’m left with. A nice lady who has come forward it to tell a hard story that’s uncorroborated.”

“And this is enough, ” he said. “God help anybody else who gets nominated,” Graham continued. “Based on what I heard today, you could not get a search warrant or an arrest warrant because you don’t know the location, you don’t know the time, you don’t have any corroboration.”

Graham said all he heard today was a bunch of speeches from politicians who have politicized the confirmation process..

The South Carolina senator, who has a background as a prosecutor and a judge, said, “I didn’t find her allegations to be corroborated against Mr. Kavanaugh. I don’t doubt something happened to her… but she can’t tell me the house, the city, the month of the year.”

“When you have a emotional accusation and an emotional denial,” he explained, “you use the rule of law, the presumption of innocence attaches to the person accused. You have to give them… time and location. You ask is there anybody to verify this, and when you give hames all of them goes the other way.”

Asked about whether Graham thought there should be a full investigation, the visibly angry Graham said, “If you really believe we needed an investigation for this, why didn’t you tell us in August? The FBI is going to tell us what? What house are they going to go to? What city are they going to go to? Who are they going to talk to because they can’t tell us the month, barely the year.”

“This is all delay” on the part of Democrats, he told reporters. “I’m not going to reward people for playing a political game.” He said Ford “is just as much a victim as, I think, Brett Kavanaugh. Somebody betrayed her trust. And we know who she gave the letter to and the people that betrayed her trust, they owe her an apology.”

There were not enough specific details in Ford’s testimony to warrant a search warrant, an arrest warrant, or any further investigation. In any case, the Democrats had the allegations in July, but they didn’t ask for an investigation then, because they wanted to drag out the confirmation process past the mid-terms.

The Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Kavanaugh is scheduled for Friday morning, a full Senate procedural vote on Saturday, and the full Senate confirmation vote on Tuesday. Already, Bob Corker, who was on the fence about Kavanaugh has tweeted that he will support Kavanaugh. A tweet from a reporter from The Atlantic suggests that Democrat Joe Manchin will do the same. A tweet from a Washington Post reporter Friday morning says Jeff Flake will vote for Kavanaugh. We’re still waiting to hear from center-left Republican senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, as well as red-state Democrats Joe Donelly and Heidi Heitkamp.

More Lindsey Graham on video here. (8 minutes)

Did Christine Ford name Kavanaugh as her attacker before his Supreme Court nomination?

Brett Kavanaugh, his wife, and his two daughters
Brett Kavanaugh, his wife, and his two daughters

I wanted to post something that collects together what we know about Christine Ford’s accusation against Kavanaugh. She released her opening statement for the Thursday hearing on Wednesday night. I read various articles from conservative and liberal sources to ferret out the most interesting details of this case for you. I hope you will enjoy it.

National Review posted about it:

Ford repeats her accusations against Kavanaugh but names no new witnesses and gives no new information. She also confirms that she did not name Kavanaugh as the alleged assailant to anyone “outside of therapy” “until July 2018” when she “saw press reports stating that Brett Kavanaugh was on the “short list” of potential Supreme Court nominees”:

I do not recall each person I spoke to about Brett’s assault, and some friends have reminded me of these conversations since the publication of The Washington Post story on September 16, 2018. But until July 2018, I had never named Mr. Kavanaugh as my attacker outside of therapy.

This all changed in early July 2018. I saw press reports stating that Brett Kavanaugh was on the “short list” of potential Supreme Court nominees. I thought it was my civic duty to relay the information I had about Mr. Kavanaugh’s conduct so that those considering his potential nomination would know about the assault.

This part is important:

Per the Washington Post, Kavanaugh’s name is not in the therapist’s notes:

The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.”

And it concludes:

Which is to say that we have an accusation that has not been corroborated by any of the named witnesses, all of whom have either said that it categorically did not happen, or that they do not know Brett Kavanaugh, or that they have no memory of any such party or event; that is strenuously denied by the accused; and that was not fleshed out to anyone other than the accuser’s husband until the day Kavanaugh’s name became national news.

Ford’s only support comes from sworn affidavits of people who say that she TOLD THEM that she was assaulted. Did she name Kavanaugh to them? I looked over the affidavits. Her husband’s affidavit says that she named Kavanaugh in 2012 to the therapist. But we KNOW from the Washington Post that the therapist’s notes don’t name Kavanaugh, so we don’t have evidence that her husband told the truth. And he’s hardly an unbiased witness. The Keith Koegler affidavit names Kavanaugh, but only from an e-mail he got from Ford on or after June 29, 2018. And two others (Adela Gildo-Mazzon and Rebecca White) don’t mention Kavanaugh by name AT ALL. Just that she said she was attacked.

Remember, all these affidavits prove is that she TOLD THEM about an attack, NOT that the attack actually happened the way she is telling now.

Something else she claimed was also falsified.

The Daily Caller reports:

Ford’s claim that there were “4 boys and a couple of girls” at the party contradicts Ford and her lawyer’s other accounts of how many people were present.

In her letter to Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Ford claimed that there were “four others” present. She also told The Washington Post that there were “four boys at the party” and two — Kavanaugh and his friend, Mark Judge — in the room where the assault allegedly occurred.

Ford’s lawyer, Debra Katz, later told CNN that there were four guys and one other girl at the party.

[…]Since Ford’s allegations were first made public, there have been three different accounts of how many people were at the party she claims to have been assaulted at: four boys, four boys and one girl, and four boys and a couple of girls.

Kavanaugh, Judge and two other alleged party attendees all say they do not recall the party in question or any assault.

One of her named witnesses is her lifelong friend Leland Keyser.

The anti-Trump Weekly Standard notes:

On Saturday night, Leland Ingham Keyser, a classmate of Ford’s at the all-girls school Holton-Arms and her final named witness, denied any recollection of attending a party with Brett Kavanaugh.

“Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford,” lawyer Howard J. Walsh said in a statement sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

CNN reports that “Keyser is a lifelong friend of Ford’s.”

Keyser previously coached golf at Georgetown University and is now executive producer of Bob Beckel’s podcast. Keyser is the ex-wife of Beckel, a former Democratic operative and commentator. A search on OpenSecrets.org reveals Keyser’s only political donation has been to former Democratic senator Byron Dorgan.

What about the polygraph? Well, her lawyers administered a polygraph in August 2018, that consisted of only two questions.

CBS News explains:

Following Ford’s interview she was given a polygraph examination with the following two questions:

  1. Is any part of your statement false?
  2. Did you make up any part of your statement?

Ford answered “no” to both questions.

Kavanaugh was not named in the two-question polygraph test.

Ford’s lawyers are refusing to release details about the polygraph to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A Wall Street Journal columnist tweets:

Kimberley Strassel @KimStrassel Potomac Watch columnist for Wall Street Journal.
Kimberley Strassel is a columnist for Wall Street Journal.

Polygraphs are inadmissible in court because they are considered to be unreliable as evidence.

Could Ford have gotten Kavanaugh mixed up with a different man? Yes! In fact, two men have come forward claiming to be Ford’s attacker.

The Daily Wire reports:

Politico congressional reporter Burgess Everett reported the summary from the Judiciary Committee, which stated: “Committee staff have a second interview with a man who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in the summer of 1982 that is the basis of her allegation. He described his recollection of their interaction in some detail.”

A second Politico reporter, Elana Schor, added that the Judiciary also had a phone interview with a second man who also believed that he may have assaulted Ford in the summer of 1982.

That would explain why she told the people in her affidavits about the attack, but only recently named Kavanaugh as the attacker.