Profile picture
Seth Abramson @SethAbramson
, 111 tweets, 19 min read Read on Twitter
(THREAD) The GOP claim that there's no corroboration of Dr. Ford's allegation that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her is a lie. Corroborating evidence—evidence that tends to support a proposition—already exists. I'll detail as much of it as I can. I hope you'll read on and RETWEET.
1/ The GOP falsely claims "corroborating evidence" only exists when you have an innocent bystander at the scene of the crime who can later tell law enforcement, "I saw it all." You almost *never* have that sort of evidence in a sex crime—and that's *not* what corroboration means.
2/ Corroboration is any fact that is "probative" with respect to a given proposition—meaning, it tends to *support* a given proposition. Any fact known to law enforcement that tends to support the proposition that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Dr. Ford is "corroborating evidence."
3/ This thread is intended to underscore that (a) there is a veritable *mountain* of corroborating evidence that "tends to support the proposition" that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Dr. Ford, and (b) the GOP needs to *stop lying* about the definition of "corroborating evidence."
4/ Please remember that, with an allegation of a serious sex crime, the "standard of proof" for Kavanaugh being denied a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court is *not* "beyond a reasonable doubt." At *most*, it is "probable cause"—because this is a job interview, not a trial.
5/ "Probable cause" means, broadly, "reasonable grounds." In other words, at *most* Senators would need to have "reasonable grounds" to believe Dr. Ford was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh in order to vote against his nomination to the Supreme Court. That's a *very* low standard.
6/ So let's start there: if any Senator says "I believe Dr. Ford," even in the absence of any other evidence—and there's *lots* of corroborating evidence—they'd *have* to vote *against* Kavanaugh's nomination, because if you *believe* Dr. Ford you think probable cause is present.
7/ So given that this is a job interview, and given that probable cause is the *minimum* standard (for a sex crime) any good-faith employer would employ—as it means the job candidate *could* be arrested for the offense—no one can say "I believe Dr. Ford" and vote *for* Kavanaugh.
8/ But let's move on from that, and remember that when a sexual assault allegation is made law enforcement can't presume anything about the allegation in looking for corroborating evidence—evidence that tends to support the allegation—including whether the people know each other.
9/ So that's where we begin. Did Dr. Ford know Kavanaugh in 1982? Yes, CORROBORATED. Kavanaugh admits he may have met her, as he admits he went to parties girls from Dr. Ford's school attended. The schools were near one another and the social milieu of the area encompassed both.
10/ But it goes beyond that. Dr. Ford knowing Kavanaugh is also CORROBORATED because in 1982 Ford was *dating Kavanaugh's friend*, a fact Kavanaugh failed to mention in his testimony—and as we'll see, Kavanaugh *omissions* can corroborate Dr. Ford's claims if they are suspicious.
11/ But it goes beyond that. Dr. Ford was even able to say, beyond that Kavanaugh knew Chris Garrett—the guy she was going out with—that she *also* knew *other* people who Kavanaugh confirmed under oath he was friends with, like P.J. Smyth and Mark Judge. So, more CORROBORATION.
12/ But it goes beyond that. Dr. Ford was able to confirm—even more specifically than who Kavanaugh was *friends* with—who his *1982 drinking buddies* were, as her claim that Smyth and Judge were Kavanaugh's drinking buddies was CORROBORATED by Kavanaugh's own personal calendars.
13/ But it goes beyond that. What if Dr. Ford had been in Kavanaugh's social milieu, knew who his friends were, and knew who his 1982 drinking buddies were, but had *no* idea about his drinking *habits*? Well, fortunately she *does*: her knowledge of those habits is CORROBORATED.
14/ Dr. Ford's testimony on Kavanaugh's summer 1982 drinking habits is CORROBORATED due to Mark Judge's memoir, Wasted, which describes the drinking habits of Judge's high school friends, including Kavanaugh (styled in the book as "Bart O'Kavanaugh" instead of "Brett Kavanaugh").
15/ Here too we get additional CORROBORATION by Kavanaugh's testimonial omissions or evasions. Kavanaugh *falsely claimed* that Mark Judge's memoir of his drinking was a "fiction" (i.e. a novel, not a memoir) and that he used variations of his friends' names as a literary device.
16/ How about the general location where Dr. Ford said the event happened? Given that law enforcement can't assume two people even knew one another, they'd want to know if Kavanaugh lived in and/or frequented the area and spaces Dr. Ford claimed in 1982. Did he? Yes—CORROBORATED.
17/ In his calendar, Kavanaugh admitted to frequenting the *same country club* as Dr. Ford in 1982—Columbia—and the location she described was a *very* easy traveling distance from the houses of the people Dr. Ford said were present on the day of the assault, including Kavanaugh.
18/ But how does law enforcement know that the *month* she implies this happened (July 1982) is plausible? What if Kavanaugh *wasn't in the area* that month? Well, CORROBORATED, the month is plausible on *many* grounds and Kavanaugh was *absolutely* in the area during that month.
19/ Dr. Ford says "6 to 8 weeks" after the sexual assault she saw Mark Judge working at Safeway. Judge's memoir says he was working at Safeway in August 1982—6 to 8 weeks after early July, a month in which Kavanaugh's calendar says he was partying with those Dr. Ford said he was.
20/ But it goes way beyond that. Dr. Ford's allegation that the event happened in early July 1982 is CORROBORATED by Kavanaugh's own calendar, which *specifically notes* him partying with the guy Ford was going out with (Garrett, or "Squi") and Smyth and Judge on July 1, 1982.
21/ Here we have more CORROBORATION via a Kavanaugh *deception*. Ed Whelan, working apparently with the White House and Kavanaugh—indirectly, if not directly—tried to convince America that Chris Garrett assaulted Ford *without revealing that Garrett was going out with Ford then*.
22/ Specifically, Whelan claimed—without telling America that Ford was going out with Garrett ("Squi") at the time—that perhaps Dr. Ford didn't know Garrett or Kavanaugh very well in 1982, and therefore might not have been able to tell them apart. A lie. Thus, more CORROBORATION.
23/ But wait, you might say: Dr. Ford didn't say *Garrett* was at the house, though Kavanaugh wrote that on July 1, 1982 he was planning to party with Garrett (along with others who *were* at the house, according to Dr. Ford). How is this possible? Actually, very, *very* easily.
24/ Dr. Ford's testimony was that this was a pre-party gathering that was not itself a party—that is, a "pre-loading" opportunity (a chance for Judge and Ford to start drinking in preparation for the real party). Is that consistent with the social milieu of that area at the time?
25/ Yes—CORROBORATED. The Washington Post reported in early '90 on a letter written by 7 local-area private-school headmasters—including the headmaster at Kavanaugh's school—at the end of the 80s. They described parties with hundreds of students, "fighting," and "sexual license."
26/ So Dr. Ford's description of the intimate, early-evening gathering as a "pre-party"—with the older students, like Kavanaugh, planning on attending a far larger party later on (where perhaps Garrett would've been)—was consistent with the party culture in the area at that time.
27/ Dr. Ford gave a *layout* for the house in question, which means if the FBI interviews several witnesses who partied with Kavanaugh at the time (including Judge and Smyth) they might be able to confirm the house. Plus, Kavanaugh's calendar *says* where he went on July 1, 1982.
28/ But Kavanaugh also describes Kavanaugh and Judge acting in a very *specific* way toward women: sexual assault while drunk. Is there CORROBORATION for that very serious claim? Yes, there is CORROBORATION. Judge's girlfriend confirms he *spoke of being engaged in such conduct*.
29/ Is Trump letting the FBI speak to Judge's girlfriend? Are GOP senators? Is right-wing media *urging* it? Given that all three—Trump and GOP senators/media—are crowing about "no corroboration," surely they *want* the FBI to talk to Judge's girlfriend? No—they're forbidding it.
30/ OK—but maybe that's because it's too attenuated? That is, Dr. Ford *does* allege Judge as a co-assailant, but perhaps Trump, GOP senators and right-wing media only want to know if *Kavanaugh* acted aggressively toward women? Is there CORROBORATION of *that* claim by Dr. Ford?
31/ Yes—there's CORROBORATION. Not only have *at least* five high school and Yale classmates of Kavanaugh's (including *friends* of his) publicly confirmed Dr. Ford correctly stated his drinking habits, *two* women—Ramirez and Swetnick—say he was sexually aggressive toward women.
32/ The GOP is permitting the FBI to speak to *one* of the two women—Deborah Ramirez—who says Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her by hitting her with his penis. Moreover, she has a *list of witnesses* who will *confirm* Kavanaugh acted in this sexually aggressive—and illegal—manner.
33/ Is Trump allowing the FBI to speak to those witnesses who confirm what Ramirez says? *No*—he's forbidding it. And in hearing that, please *remember* that if Ramirez's account is true not *only* is it a new criminal allegation against Kavanaugh, it's CORROBORATION of Dr. Ford.
34/ The second witness who CORROBORATES Dr. Ford's claim Kavanaugh was sexually aggressive to women a) at parties, b) at a very particular time in his life, and c) not in the form of rape or other sex crimes but sexual assault-by-groping, is Julie Swetnick. She CORROBORATES Ford.
35/ Swetnick—who Trump is *forbidding* the FBI from speaking to—does *not* allege that Kavanaugh "raped" anyone, and that *lie* about her *sworn affidavit* has been spread by Republicans, including Republican senators, in an effort to "pre-discredit" what she *actually* alleges.
36/ In fact, Swetnick's allegations are CORROBORATED by Kavanaugh's claims of virginity in high school—as Swetnick *explicitly* says that Kavanaugh's actions did *not* involve sex even when he was surrounded by people who *were* looking to have sex. She *agrees* with him on that.
37/ Were Swetnick lying, she might've said Kavanaugh had sex in high school—not expecting he'd say under oath he was a virgin then. But *no*, her allegations were of (a) heavy drinking, (b) carelessness about women's safety, and (c) groping—*identical to Dr. Ford's allegations*.
38/ Swetnick—who's had *multiple security clearances in her life* and *gave an affidavit under penalty of perjury*—has seen her claims of sexual assault dismissed by the GOP because they don't like her attorney.

Read that sentence again. That's *not* how American justice works.
39/ Swetnick—I have to clarify this because the GOP has repeatedly lied about it on TV (including *senators* lying about it)—says Kavanaugh would get really drunk and grope women at parties. He also put alcohol in communal party drinks. That's the sum and substance of her claims.
40/ Swetnick is *perfectly clear* that Kavanaugh *didn't* have sex at any party, *didn't* rape anyone, and *wasn't* present as anyone was raped. What she *said* is at the parties Kavanaugh attended, was drunk at, and *groped women* at—*elsewhere* at those parties—women got raped.
41/ Her sworn affidavit alleges Kavanaugh a) sexually assaulted women by groping (as Dr. Ford said—so, CORROBORATION), b) drank to ridiculous excess (as Dr. Ford said—so, CORROBORATION) and c) spiked drinks though it made things unsafe for women (CORROBORATION of his *attitude*).
42/ So when Kavanaugh falsely said under oath Swetnick's allegation was "from the Twilight Zone"; falsely said under oath Swetnick was alleging he was in a "gang"; and falsely said under oath that Swetnick alleged he raped her, *all those claims* were CORROBORATION by deception.
43/ Moreover, when GOP pols and right-wing media said Swetnick's allegation was that Kavanaugh raped her, they lied; and when they said she was disqualified from reporting a sex crime because her lawyer also represented—wait for it—the *president's ex-girlfriend*, it was obscene.
44/ By the same token, when Kavanaugh falsely claimed *ten-plus times*—*each time under oath and before Congress*—that Leland Ingham Keyser and P.J. Smyth had "refuted" what Dr. Ford said happened inside that bedroom, that was CORROBORATION by perjury—a *major* evidentiary tell.
45/ Dr. Ford's testimony was also CORROBORATED when Cristina Banks—a high school classmate—revealed that she heard rumors after the month of the incident that something had happened between someone from her school and someone from Kavanaugh's school. The GOP lied about her claim.
46/ Because Banks said she "believed" Dr. Ford—and expressed such a belief in Ford's testimony that she gave her *opinion* that the assault "did happen"—GOP operatives painted her later statement (*consistent with her first one*) that she had no *direct* evidence as a retraction.
47/ Because any *one* piece of CORROBORATION need not be *conclusive*—indeed you almost *never* find a *single* piece of corroboration that is all by itself dispositive of guilt, though it happens—a high school rumor testified to under oath *is* a piece of CORROBORATING evidence.
48/ Will the FBI interview Banks? No—Trump forbids it. He can do that because his minions have falsely portrayed Banks' effort to offer the FBI valuable rumor evidence that something happened right around that time—not direct evidence, which she never said she had—as "retracted."
49/ Another major form of CORROBORATION in the law is known as "prior disclosure"—meaning, disclosure of a sex crime before the first time one goes to law enforcement, or (as here) the first time one's critics could plausibly claim that one (as an accuser) had an ulterior motive.
50/ Is there "prior disclosure" CORROBORATION? Yes, there is. Dr. Ford disclosed to her therapist—who Trump is forbidding the FBI from speaking to—as well as her husband (also off-limits), in both cases *years ago*, when no one could claim she had *any* sort of political motive.
51/ Republicans obsession with how Dr. Ford's allegation came to light is a smokescreen designed not only to shift attention from Dr. Ford's credible claims to people GOP voters hate—the Democrats—but also to leave the false (even *obscene*) implication Ford is a political pawn.
52/ Republicans' *massive conspiracy theory*—and *make no mistake*, it's a *massive conspiracy theory*—is that many many years ago, back in 2012, Dr. Ford somehow knew Trump would win in 2016 and nominate Kavanaugh and therefore she falsely disclosed a sex crime to her therapist.
53/ If you think that prior tweet sounds implausible—if you think there's *no way* Republicans are actually embracing such a *massive conspiracy theory* to cover up a sex crime—ask yourself, how *else* could Dr. Ford be a "political pawn" regarding an allegation she made in 2012?
54/ Perhaps you're one of those Republicans who's *only* saying the Democrats *hid* Dr. Ford's *accurate* allegations until the last possible moment. OK, now let's say—for argument's sake—I agree. *We're still agreeing that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a woman and lied about it*.
55/ If you feel Democrats deviously hid an *accurate* allegation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh—but *also* say Kavanaugh should be on the court—not *only* are you saying it's OK for a Justice to be an *unrepentant sexual assailant*, you're *also* saying he can be a perjurer!
56/ FACT: the allegation that Democrats deviously hid an *accurate* allegation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh from Republican senators *literally has nothing whatsoever to do with the concurrent claim that Brett Kavanaugh should be on the Supreme Court*. They're *unrelated*.
57/ Let's keep looking at CORROBORATION. Can a *polygraph test* be a form of CORROBORATION in a job interview? Absolutely. So is the polygraph that Dr. Ford took and passed with flying colors—note: *at the highest Department of Defense testing standards*—CORROBORATION? You *bet*.
58/ One reason Republicans pretend the standard of proof here is "beyond a reasonable doubt"—though it's not, never was, never could be, and that standard has *nothing to do* with a lifetime-appointment job interview, whose proof standard is *far* lower—is to *nix the polygraph*.
59/ Polygraph tests are used in job interviews *all the time*—including interviews for *precisely* the sort of high-value government positions we're talking here. So Dr. Ford passing a polygraph—*and Kavanaugh refusing to take one*—is *twice* the amount of CORROBORATING evidence.
60/ Indeed, this case has a whole *universe* of CORROBORATING evidence that simply has to do with *unusually petulant refusals* by known suspects to take, variously, a polygraph test (Kavanaugh/Judge), testify before Congress (Judge), or support further investigation (Kavanaugh).
61/ We find more CORROBORATION in Kavanaugh's perjury on the topic of whether he watched Dr. Ford's testimony to Congress before giving his own. A liar would insist on knowing in advance what his accuser said, and would then *lie* about needing to know. That's what Kavanaugh did.
62/ Sticking for a moment with CORROBORATION of Dr. Ford's account in the form of Kavanaugh perjuries, we find Kavanaugh *terrified* of Congress considering *any* evidence from his yearbook that would CORROBORATE Ford's testimony on his attitudes re: women—so he perjured himself.
63/ Quick—and very minor—correction: I meant to write "Cristina King Miranda," not "Cristina Banks" (with regard to Tweet #45 through Tweet #48). I mention it now because we're talking about what Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh were up to with (as known by) high school classmates in 1982.
64/ The CORROBORATION evidence from Kavanaugh's yearbook: first and most importantly, Kavanaugh lied to Congress about whether "The Devil's Triangle" is a "drinking game" (it means two men having sex with one woman, as Kavanaugh and Judge allegedly hoped would happen with Ford).
65/ Kavanaugh then lied about "boofing"—slang for anal sex—saying it meant "flatulence." He then said calling himself an "alumnius" of Renate Dolphin (which his friends also claimed) meant she was a good friend of his. She disputes that, and Sean Hagan says it was a sexual boast.
66/ Kavanaugh's lies to Congress about entries in his yearbook—not just the ones I've mentioned, but also his lies about the times he blacked out around/after sporting events—weren't just *perjuries* but also, more importantly for this thread, CORROBORATING evidence for Dr. Ford.
67/ Kavanaugh not only lied about how much he drank in high school/college—he *also* lied about drinking *illegally* in high school/college. He did—a *lot*. That's CORROBORATION in that it means to law enforcement that Kavanaugh is *scared* of information related to his drinking.
68/ Because no criminal investigator would presume Kavanaugh is scared, at his age, of admitting to underage drinking in high school/college—*many* kids do that—these perjuries tell law enforcement that Kavanaugh is scared of revealing *what he did* when he was drinking underage.
69/ I want to step back a moment to make a larger point: what Republicans are doing with "corroborating evidence" in the Kavanaugh case to cover up a crime—lying about what it means—is *exactly* what they're doing in the Russia case with "collusion." This is a pattern of deceit.
70/ Just so, when the GOP puts out the memo Rachel Mitchell wrote explaining why she wouldn't charge Kavanaugh with a sex crime, that's *deceit*. Why? Because a prosecutor can't charge a crime until they think they can prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt"—*not the standard here*.
71/ But Republicans saying there's "no corroboration" of Dr. Ford's testimony—even Flake, Collins and Murkowski do this—is *way* sicker than lying about what "collusion" means, as by making that claim they're making the standard for Ford *higher* than "beyond a reasonable doubt."
72/ Trump, FNC, and GOP pols like Flake, Collins, and Murkowski falsely define "corroboration" as an *eyewitness* to the crime itself. Understand that that definition *invalidates nearly every sex crime allegation in America*—as it's almost always just the defendant and a victim.
73/ Indeed *every time* someone on the right falsely equates "corroboration" with *eyewitness testimony*—and right now that false definition is *all* we're getting from Republicans—it makes it (I say this advisedly) *impossible to prove a sex crime* under *any* standard of proof.
74/ Suspects have a right to silence, and defendants have a right not to testify—so in *every single sex crime allegation* in which only the defendant and the victim were present on-scene, Republicans are saying a sex crime can't be charged or proven for "lack of corroboration."
75/ If you doubt Republicans are taking this position, ask yourself, *what evidence is Trump saying the FBI should get from Leland Keyser and P.J. Smyth*? The answer is simple: Kavanaugh is confirmed if neither person says (a) I saw it happen, or (b) the two men confessed to me.
76/ The *second* the GOP admits "corroboration" doesn't require an eyewitness or confession—for instance, if it concedes that Keyser simply saying, "I remember being at a gathering with Ford in 1982" is "corroboration"—then *every piece of evidence I've offered is corroboration*.
77/ Every media outlet should forthwith demand that *any* guest or analyst claiming "no corroboration" answer this question: what—besides an eyewitness or confession—constitutes corroboration? *Any answer they give* will be in the same category of evidence this thread describes.
78/ And because the U.S. criminal justice system would—literally—*collapse tomorrow* if only eyewitnesses and confessions constituted "corroboration," Republicans *must* concede the *actual* definition of "corroboration": *any* evidence tending to make a proposition more likely.
79/ That evidence could be Smyth or Keyser saying they recall being at a gathering with Ford in 1982—that'd be corroboration—*or* that evidence could be a *mountain* of corroborating evidence at a level just below that, like Kavanaugh admitting he met Ford, and likely at a party.
80/ It could *even* be—yes, it's true; ask an attorney—Kavanaugh's demonstrated reputation for deceitfulness when being questioned about potential crimes that *aren't* sex crimes—like when he lied under oath about (in the 2000s) knowingly receiving stolen Congressional documents.
81/ This *too* is CORROBORATION because—following Ford's/Kavanaugh's back-to-back testimonies—Dr. Ford could *only* be telling the truth *if* Kavanaugh was lying. It had to be one or the other. It became—right then—CORROBORATION to show Kavanaugh has a tendency to lie under oath.
82/ Indeed, the *moment* it became a matter of whether it was *Ford* who had told the truth under oath or *Kavanaugh*, it became *relevant* to that inquiry whether Kavanaugh had *ever* lied under oath. That made *relevant* every single Democratic claim—every one—saying just that.
83/ For the same reason, after the two recent testimonies, even second-order lies from Kavanaugh became relevant: for instance, Judge writing "Bart, have you boofed yet?" in his yearbook along with references to events with Kavanaugh killed Kavanaugh's "Bart was a fiction" claim.
84/ Just so, it was CORROBORATION of Judge's attitude toward women—a key part of Dr. Ford's account—that Judge's *senior quote* was about... Jesus, I can't believe I'm even saying this, or that Georgetown Prep allowed it... *physically abusing women*. Yes—that *too* matters here.
85/ Two things about corroborating evidence:

a) Corroborating evidence doesn't cease to be corroborating because it's more attenuated than *other* corroborating evidence;
b) corroborating evidence *needn't involve a particular suspect*—so Ford can get CORROBORATION via *Judge*.
86/ This is why Republicans' four-person witness list for the current "supplemental background investigation" is a *joke*: because Dr. Ford can be CORROBORATED (more than she already is by a *mountain* of CORROBORATION) via corroboration of *any* contested part of her allegation.
87/ Leland Keyser admits she *ever* went to gatherings with Ford? CORROBORATION. Judge worked at a Safeway in 1982? CORROBORATION. Judge had a jocular attitude about physically abusing women? CORROBORATION. Judge was a blackout drunk? Yep—you guessed it—that's more CORROBORATION.
88/ This, then, is the *sickest* lie the GOP has told as part of its "no corroboration" *farce*—that Dr. Ford can *only* be corroborated by facts directly having to do with Kavanaugh. In fact, in criminal investigations of sex crimes such facts are only a *part* of CORROBORATION.
89/ An adjunct to this lie is that *Kavanaugh* can only be *refuted* if you prove that he lied about Dr. Ford *herself*. That's absolutely false—even Kavanaugh's lies on *totally* unrelated topics (i.e. not even tangentially related) can bolster Dr. Ford's testimony immeasurably.
90/ That's why we must accurately define "corroboration" and must publicly shame—apparently (and quite sadly) it's going to take that—*any* politician, activist or journalist who attempts to erase a century of sex crime prosecutions by redefining "corroboration" out of existence.
91/ Another minor correction: the second word in Tweet #28 is a typo; as I'm sure many of you quickly sussed out, it should be "Dr. Ford," not "Kavanaugh." I know this was obvious from context, but I don't like to leave even a *typo* in my threads if I can avoid it. I hate them.
92/ All this is *also* why Trump's (and GOP senators') restrictions on the FBI investigation are a *joke*—as they're predicated *entirely* upon (a) the idea that there's presently "no corroboration" of Dr. Ford's account, and (b) a definition of "corroboration" that is *obscene*.
93/ So—want to know why Republicans keep reminding us that "the FBI draws no conclusions"? Because the FBI agents working this case will conclude from the mountain of CORROBORATION of Dr. Ford's testimony—half of it through a discrediting of Kavanaugh's—that this likely happened.
94/ Republicans know the agents will be restricted from saying so, however—which is why "the FBI draws no conclusions" is as much a *warning* to the FBI not to properly educate the public on anything about "corroboration" in sex crimes as it is a simple statement of FBI protocol.
95/ This thread is only the tip of the iceberg—we didn't get "into the weeds" here. "Into the weeds" would've involved pointing out that Kavanaugh's yearbook entry "FFFFFFFourth of July" almost certainly *doesn't* relate to a stutterer but a series of sex-acts beginning with "F."
96/ And because the GOP is invested in *lying* to Americans about their justice system right now, when a former investigator like me says, "Hey, investigators *do* use public records research to look up what 'F.F.F.F.' means so they can ask witnesses," they'll lie about that too.
97/ Moreover, as former FBI Director Comey said today, *small lies matter*—especially when they're under oath. So an investigator *will* chase down seemingly minute, irrelevant, unnecessary lies because often those are the most *telling* (precisely *because* they're unnecessary).
98/ In a *real* investigation—which we're not getting now—CORROBORATION would be further sought by, for instance, finding the friend of Kavanaugh's he says was a stutterer and asking him to confirm he's a stutterer—under penalty of a federal felony for lying. Guess what he'd say?
99/ I think POTUSes should get their nominees if they're qualified/have the votes—Gorsuch angered me only because McConnell lied about the "Biden Rule" to nix Garland. I oppose Kavanaugh because I think he's an unrepentant liar and sexual assailant and lacks judicial temperament.
100/ Never forget that McConnell *told* Trump *not* to nominate Kavanaugh—he *told* Trump Kavanaugh would have trouble. Trump nominated him *anyway* because Kavanaugh was the one nominee who opposed presidents getting investigated. And *that's* what this is about—in the end. /end
PS/ Apologies to everyone for the *many* pieces of CORROBORATION I left out of this thread—there were too many to fit in here. My hope is I covered a lot of ground, regardless. I'm hopeful that people will RETWEET this thread so readers can add more CORROBORATION in the comments.
NOTE/ I didn't forget the fourth accuser. To my knowledge, no followup has been done on that allegation and it hasn't been retracted.The GOP appeared to leak a fifth allegation—from Rhode Island—just so they and Kavanaugh could discredit it, but I think the fourth one is active.
BREAKING/ Chad Ludington—a Kavanaugh drinking buddy at Yale—has issued a statement not only calling Kavanaugh a liar about his drinking but CORROBORATING Dr. Ford on Kavanaugh getting violent and incoherent when drinking and Julie Swetnick on Kavanaugh using alcohol besides beer.
NOTE2/ Ludington's comment about Kavanaugh getting drunk off more than beer is critical to Swetnick's claims that Kavanaugh spiked drinks with (non-beer) alcohol. Moreover, Ludington (a) says Kavanaugh lied to Congress (perjury), and (b) specifically says he lied about blackouts.
NOTE3/ Dr. Ford actually made *two* prior disclosures to therapists before Kavanaugh was a SCOTUS nominee: one to a therapist in 2012, one to a *different* therapist in 2013. That's *huge*. I apologize if I was confusing about that. That's *way* more prior disclosure than I said.
NOTE4/ I left out *another* huge fact: any disclosure that Dr. Ford made to a member of Congress, a congressional aide, or a member of the media *before Kavanaugh was the nominee* is considered a prior disclosure. That adds at least 3 prior disclosures—so the total is at least 6.
NOTE5/ Remember that *every* documented prior disclosure by Dr. Ford is a *critical* piece of CORROBORATION—as is everything else in this thread *and* even subtle things like Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh's wildly differing body language and temperament under oath. Yes—that matters too.
UPDATES/ Dr. Ford's allegation is also CORROBORATED by three more prior disclosures I hadn't seen and a second one to her husband—bringing the *minimum* number of prior disclosures to *ten*.

Also, Kavanaugh lied about *not* being a legacy student at Yale. google.com/amp/s/www.news…
UPDATES/ People are noting another Kavanaugh lie Mark Judge could be asked about: whether Kavanaugh, Judge, and others actually formed, as Kavanaugh says, a "Ralph [vomiting] Club" for vomiting after spicy food—as Kavanaugh implausibly says—rather than excessive beer consumption.
UPDATES/ Ford says there was a fourth male in the house during the assault whose name she can't recall. That's CORROBORATED if this was the event at "Timmy" Gaudette's house, per Kavanaugh's 7/1/82 calendar entry. The FBI could check that house's floorplan for more CORROBORATION.
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Seth Abramson
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member and get exclusive features!

Premium member ($30.00/year)

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!