Thread by @darinp2

(THREAD) This thread contains things I have observed related to accusations against Brett Kavanaugh. I feel like there has been way too much misinformation in the public discussion. These are things I've gathered, and my opinions.

1/ I'm going to use this shorthand in this thread.

BK - Brett Kavanaugh
CBF - Christine Blasey Ford
JS - Julie Swetnick
MC - Margot Cleveland
MJ - Mark Judge
OH - Orrin Hatch
RM - Rachel Michell

2/ First, I will say that I don't know whether BK did any of the things his 3 public accusers have said he did. However, there is no doubt in my mind that one of the main journalists who set out to help BK and discredit CBF is a deceiver herself.

3/ Can we all agree that the credibility of accusers matters? Not just those accusing people of crimes, but those trying to discredit accusers or the accused.

4/ The Latin phrase used with juries, "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus," was brought up at the hearings. This means, "false in one thing, false in everything."

5/ I think of something similar outside jury situations. Everybody makes mistakes, but if a person isn't trustworthy about small things, and won't fix mistakes, I trust them a lot less for large things.

6/ Like many people, with the accusations against BK, I was looking for the truth. I still don't feel like I know the truth, but I have paid attention, watched all the testimony, and read articles. I read articles by MC, giving her a fair chance to convince me.

7/ I found that in this article by MC, there is a statement about BK's "Testimony" that says, "Additionally, none of the parties marked on Kavanaugh’s calendar included gatherings with Judge or Smyth."
thefederalist.com/2018/09/26/bet…

8/ At 1 point I knew this statement wasn't true, and sent an email to MC. She eventually said that she wrote this from media reports, but told me that it didn't matter.

9/ MC said that CBF could not have been at Timmy's on 7/1/82 because there were no girl's names on the calendar for that day and too many boy's names.

10/ I pointed out that:

- BK didn't put girl's names for parties on other days.
- CBF said she left early.
- Not everybody arrives at parties at the same time.

11/ I couldn't get Margot to budge an inch. She had reached her conclusion that BK didn't attack CBF, and that was good enough. She then told me she didn't even need to analyze BK's testimony, because he didn't attack CBF.

12/ Even after I pointed out that her assumption didn't really hold water, MC tweeted about CBF's lawyers concluding that 7/1/82 didn't work, without giving their reason. I'm sure MC knew the reason they gave (the names).

13/ When a judge hears an attorney make a bad assumption that hurts their client, they should point out the mistake, not use it to hurt the client.

14/ MC later admitted on Twitter that she had known for some time that the statement in her article, which is still out there as current, is false. Even in admitting that she knew the statement is false though, MC claimed that she had explained it to me "several" times.

15/ This statement from MC makes me look a little bad, but it is false. In email, MC had told me 1 time her reason it was there, which I followed up on.

16/ Here is the body of an email I sent to MC regarding her false statement about what she had told me. It did no good, as her false statement is still here on Twitter.

17/ My feelings aren't hurt, but if MC would deceive about some nobody like me on Twitter to discredit them, what wouldn't she deceive about to discredit CBF and help BK?

18/ Those who have followed MC's claims on this matter have likely noticed how much she has focused on the dates from CBF. One report referred to the alleged incident as happening in the mid-1980s, while CBF has said that she later narrowed it down to 1982.

19/ In one of her recent articles, MC puts out a theory that MJ and others may have taken turns having sex with a drunk CBF "around 1985". Where did MC get "around 1985"?
thefederalist.com/2018/11/05/7-t…

20/ MC got it from testimony that MJ told an ex-girlfriend "in or around 1988" about losing his virginity a "few years prior." I have searched to see if my understanding about how normal people use "few" is correct.

21/ For normal people I don't think even 6 years is outside of how they might use "few years prior" from a conversation decades ago. I think MC has spun this about as far as a person would get away with spinning "few years" to be around 3.

22/ Also note that the testimony was about MJ "and several other boys from Georgetown Prep". Yet Margo spins this as about as far as she can from being an incident in high school.

23/ "Around 1985" fits MC's narrative, but why go with that unless the goal is really just to discredit CBF in any way possible? Using "around 1983 or 1984" (around 4 to 5 years prior) might have been too close for comfort to 1982 for MC.

This thread continues here:

https://twitter.com/darinp2/status/1064153903216787457

@threadreaderapp Please unroll

@tonyschwartz Would love to get your take on this thread. Thx.