The Hearing Is Tomorrow, But Dems Still Haven't Released Ford's Polygraph or Therapist Notes
Key pieces of evidence that could shed light on the truth of Christine Blasey Ford’s claim that she was assaulted at a high school party by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have not yet been shared with the Senate Judiciary Committee, a lawyer representing Kavanaugh said Wednesday.
On Thursday, Ford and Kavanaugh are both scheduled to appear at a special committee hearing. The hearing was scheduled to give Ford the opportunity to speak about her claims of sexual misconduct during a 1980s party — claims which Kavanaugh has continually rejected.
Attorney Beth Wilkinson, representing Kavanaugh, said that although Ford shared results of a polygraph with The Washington Post when she went public with her story, the results of that test have not been shared with the committee, CBS reported.
Later Wednesday, three pages about the polygraph test were released by Ford’s defense team, according to WBNG, which noted there was no independent expert verification of the results.
Wilkinson said notes from the 2012 therapy session which Ford has claimed was the first time she ever discussed the alleged incident have not been forthcoming.
“They announced that there were notes and there had been a lie detector test. But as I understand it, they did not turn any of those over to the Senate committee even though they were requested,” Wilkinson said. “So the information that would have shown what she said at the very first time when she revealed these allegations have not been turned over to the Senate.”
Wilkinson said she has been given to understand that the notes paint a different picture of the party than what has emerged through recent media accounts.
“That’s very important because apparently in those notes, there’s a differing story about how many people were present at the party, there’s no mention of Judge Kavanaugh, and so all that information would be very important to determine whether there’s any corroboration of this allegation,” she said.
Wilkinson said the issue at stake is not whether Kavanaugh drank beer a year or so before he could legally buy it, but whether a specific incident took place
“Like many kids that age in high school and back then, the drinking age was 18 … he admits that he drank and did something things that he looks back on he says are embarrassing and make you cringe, but that’s not what this is about,” Wilkinson said.
Kavanaugh “said that he drank, he said that he sometimes drank more beers than he should. No one is disputing that, but that isn’t evidence about what happened with regard to the charges that are being made here,” she said.
Wilkinson said that during Thursday’s potentially explosive hearing, Kavanaugh will answer “whatever questions the committee decides to ask him.”
Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell has been hired by the committee to oversee the questioning of Ford as well as Kavanaugh.
The panel has scheduled a confirmation vote for Friday morning.
On Wednesday, another woman, Julie Swetnick, came forward with allegations of misconduct against Kavanaugh, CNN reported. Swetnick, a client of attorney Michael Avenatti, said she witnessed Kavanaugh “engage in abusive behavior.” Kavanaugh denied the new claim.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has voiced objections to moving forward with the confirmation process.
“I strongly believe Judge Kavanaugh should withdraw from consideration. If he will not, at the very least, the hearing and vote should be postponed while the FBI investigates all of these allegations. If our Republican colleagues proceed without an investigation, it would be a travesty for the honor of the Supreme Court and our country,” said the New York Democrat, Politico reported.
Also Thursday, William Pittard, the attorney for a woman who claims Kavanaugh exposed himself to her while both attended Yale, said his client, Deborah Ramirez, has not spoken to committee staff about her claims.
He said Republican committee staff have “refused to even speak with” her counsels, and instead “has insisted that Ms. Ramirez first ‘provide her evidence.’ Respectfully, that demand misunderstands the process.”
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
