The democrats may rue this day. The mask fell off. All who looked saw into their black evil hearts.

That would be interesting. Maybe that’s why she sold her Phoenix house. I was hoping she would be a possible replacement for McCain.
* * *
I would support her in either state.
Would vote for her if I could.

I’ve always thought she was straight up lying, but I thought it was to cover her tracks on some infidelity against her own marriage…”I’m sorry I cheated darling but it was that Kavanaugh kid that messed me up!”

But now…total set up. She was cultivated from the inside & “handled” like a spy or mole would be. The intersecting lawyers & friends with Deep State links are the “tell.” The cascade of lies & inconsistencies simply indicate that the Left was counting on the “believe the woman & rage” narrative to make Kavanaugh or enough Rs fold to win this one. They underestimated the Judge, his wife & the rest of the country, and the investigation poked holes in all their balloons.

I really hope someone loses their bar license or goes to jail on this one. Anita Hill was bad enough. This is so far beyond the pale that I’m not convinced tar & feathers would fix it.
* * *
And we didn’t even get the tar and feathers with Hill.
(I would not wish that hellish torture on anyone however, so — metaphor only.)

Besides underestimating Judge (Justice!) Kavanaugh, they (and we) also underestimated Grassley, Graham, and possibly Collins (you go, girl !!), but I think if Kavanaugh or Trump had backed off even a little bit, the GOP would have folded (we need more such intemperate judges, in my opinion, when the intemperance is in pursuit of justice — or even of mercy).

The other thing they did wrong was assume that Ford’s “witnesses” would either waffle or pile on, most likely the former, under the belief that all of them had some “defect” that the lawyers / handlers could exploit.

As many people supporting Kavanaugh have suggested, Judge was the first “witness” solely because of his book: it was a not-unreasonable speculation that he would hem and haw and admit that he was so soused most of the time that he just didn’t remember. BUT that speculation depended on their conviction that Kavanaugh was, in fact, very often a roving-hand play-boy drunkard, so that Judge would just guess that even if he personally didn’t remember that one time Ford alleged, well, good ol’ Bart O’K might have done it anyway. Any such hedging would be all the “corroboration” the target Senators & the public needed (the mob clearly doesn’t’ care).

But because Kavanaugh wasn’t a RHPBD at all, there was no “pool” of incidents which Judge might assume held this one particular fish. Hence the unequivocal NO.

Not sewing up Keyser’s testimony from the beginning was also a mistake. She could easily, it seems to me, have been cajoled into “remembering” the event that Ford alleged, but they forgot to bring her in at the beginning (an oversight that Ramirez tried, and failed, to avoid). Apparently she is a woman of very strong moral fiber, unwilling to swear to something that she has no memory or knowledge of, whether true or false, or else (like Judge) simply doesn’t believe Brett K was made in the same mold as the “attackers” that Ford described.

PJ Smyth is kind of an anomaly: why include him at all? I don’t really remember all the specualtions about him. Ford, deprived of his corroboration, dismissed him (and Keyser) as simply “not being aware” of the awful ordeal she had endured. But why was he expected to support her in the first place?
However, she also didn’t get him signed on before dragging him in, so see the argument for Mark Judge again.

Did something really happen to Ford that she tried to fasten on Kavanaugh?
Short of a real recovered memory or a confession, I doubt we will ever know.
There are reams written about “why” people make false accusations, and some broad categories, but everyone puts their own unique spin on the origin of their stories.

In the fictionalized thriller that I intend to write, thinly disguising all the names (or, alternatively, writing a factual expose and making up the conversations, as that seems to be the mode du jour), the scenario would include the fact that her parents and siblings did not sign onto the letter of support from her in-laws (if that changed, I haven’t seen anything), and thus know something about her history and character that no one else has revealed.

Or she’s just lying, start to finish.

And I would be supremely disappointed if there are not some expulsions from the associated attorney’s bar associations over this.

Two of them, one of whom he was on bad terms with at the time. About half of what Roche had to say has been discredited (and seemed out of place even absent new information about period slang in DC). What’s interesting about Roche is that since 1984, he’s changed careers once, he’s lived in at least three different cities, he’s worked for four companies to which he admits (there are 13 years missing from his LinkedIn profile), and yet he goes out of his way to grass up a man with whom he had some petty disputes 34 years ago. What sort of a person holds grudges that long?

That would be interesting. Maybe that’s why she sold her Phoenix house. I was hoping she would be a possible replacement for McCain.