Cristina King Miranda, who is a High School classmate of Dr. Christina Blasey Ford and has signed onto a letter of support for her which now includes 700 alumnae members tweeted that the incident between Dr. Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh when they were teenagers at a party was “talked about for days” at school afterward.
Ms Miranda has since deleted her tweet in response to media requests.
However this was after she posted a letter on facebook which detailed the fact that Kavanaugh’s alleged assault was common knowledge around the school.
And that letter is captured in a screen grab here.
She wrote.
Christine Blasey Ford was a year or so behind me, I remember her. This incident did happen. Many of us heard about it in school and Christine’s recollection should be more than enough for us to truly, deeply know that the accusation is true. We are all in some way from time, at least me, Christine, and I applaud her courage and her dignity. The drinking ensconced in the puritanism and hypocrisy of that elite, privileged, mostly white, Catholic, Washington society, was completely out of control. I recall having a few parties at my house and having to call the cops once on my own party. We were teenagers and did really stupid, abusive, dangerous things. Nobody has the moral authority over anyone else no matter what elite school or college or brilliant career and beautiful family he or she may now have.
Dr. Ford’s attorney has said she will not testify unless the FBI does an investigation of this incident, however both Trump and Senator Grassley essentially say that the FBI will not be involved in this examination — which is a stalemate.
Meanwhile Fox News is airing a report that claims that Ford could have “beaten” the polygraph which she passed if she just so happened to be a “psychopath.”
Results of a polygraph provided to The Washington Post indicated that Ford was telling the truth when she said Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and groped her.
ox News on Wednesday published an article suggesting that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, could have beaten a polygraph test if she is a “psychopath or sociopath.”
An article published on the FoxNews.com website on Wednesday attempted to undermine Ford and the polygraph test. According to the report, Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham both feature segments refuting Ford’s polygraph results.
“Without mentioning any particular instances, one former senior FBI agent said polygraphs would have difficulty detecting deception by sociopaths, psychopaths and committed liars lacking a ‘conscience,'” Fox News argued in the article.
This is contrasted with Kavanaugh who repeatedly and wrongfully mis-characterized his own rulings and opinions under oath, ridiculously claimed he didn’t know that emails he received had been stolen from Senate Democrats, claimed he hadn’t “handling” the confirmation process for a controversial judge — when he had — and also claimed he had nothing to do with the Bush era torture and surveillance programs when he did.
Brett Kavanaugh lied.
The best estimate is that he lied five times: about whether he received documents while he worked at the White House that had been purloined from Senate Democratic staff; about his knowledge of the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program; about whether he was involved in formulating any aspects of torture policy; and about his role in the nomination of two controversial Bush-era judicial appointees.
The first matter, of the documents stolen by Republican operative Manuel Miranda from the Senate Judiciary Committee, he lied not only last week, but also back in the 2000s when he was first nominated to the federal bench and Democratic senators asked him about it then. If you missed this piece in Slate last week by Lisa Graves, who was a Democratic Senate staffer at the time, go back and read it. He lied then about whether he had seen such documents. Last week, asked whether he suspected the documents were pilfered, he said no. As Graves notes, these emails were about very sensitive matters; sometimes Senate staffers from the two parties do share their research, but not on the matters in question, as Kavanaugh would surely have known.
Perjury? I don’t know. The bar for perjury is high. But by any common-sense definition of the word, Kavanaugh lied. And lied a lot. Senator Pat Leahy, usually a man of rhetorical restraint, tweeted: "Untruthful testimony, under oath and on the record."
27 years ago when David Brock was a right-wing hatchet man working for the American Spectator and Richard Mellon-Sciafe while being a close acquaintance of Kavanaugh who was part of his dark inner circle which included Laura Ingraham and Dinesh D'Souza, he wrote about Judge Anita Hill that she was “a little bit slutty and a little bit nutty” when she challenged the confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas — which he now considers a monstrous statement after he finally broke away from that right-wing cabal after he came out as a gay man.
In all of the media looking backwards to the hearings feature Hill, rarely to they mention that in 2010 after Thomas' wife left a rude message on Hill's answering machine demanding an apology and to know why she "lied" about her husband, Thomas' ex-girlfriend from that time came forward and confirmed Hill's story.
You’re Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court is back in session, and everyone’s caught up on their Law & Order reruns. It’s been nineteen years since Anita Hill testified about your expert questioning of the origin of pubic hairs on Coke cans, and life is looking pretty good. That is, until your wife, Ginni, decides to take the heat off herself for her tea-party speeches against Washington elites and put it back on unsuspecting Brandeis professor Anita Hill with a (surprise!) Saturday-morning phone call demanding an apology. Now, Lillian McEwen, a former assistant U.S. attorney and your girlfriend at the time of the confirmation, is shopping around a memoir about your penchant for discussing pornography, your vocal admiration for amply endowed female co-workers, and your “hobby” for scouting potential partners in the office — much of which corroborates testimony given during the sexual-harassment hearings. Maybe you should have put a statute of limitations on career-shattering allegations.
It looks like the Reich-wing is re-running that same tired playbook that was used on Hill, which for generations would have women who spoke up committed to asylums, or going back further, burned at the stake for “witch-craft.”
Sadly, we haven’t really progressed all that far forward since those times if people like Dr. Ford and Cristina King can be so easily attacked, threatened, smeared and silenced.