The investigation into allegations raised by women who accused United States Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of wrongdoing may, according to some accounts, wrap up late today. Recently, the FBI interviewed yet another of Christine Blasey Ford’s named ‘witnesses,’ Patrick J. Smyth, also known as ‘PJ.’
According to his attorney, Eric Bruce, Mr. Smyth answered ‘every question’ about the ‘party’ or ‘gathering’ that Dr. Ford alleged in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee was when Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. It seems that his testimony hasn’t changed, either, and that while this former classmate of Kavanaugh’s was responding, he provided ‘bombshell’ knowledge about the claims.
The details that Mrs. Ford offered about the alleged sexual assault (contrary to the belief of some media pundits and Georgetown professors, she never alleged a rape, nor did the other two ‘credible’ witnesses) were scant.
She couldn’t name the place, couldn’t name the date other than to say it was the Summer of 1982, and couldn’t tell how she get away from Kavanaugh and Judge, much less how she ended up at home after she hid in a bathroom and then sprinted down the stairs.
Her account of how many people were at the party repeatedly changed.
However, the people she named either didn’t recall the party, or else said that no such thing took place.
Patrick J. Smyth, one of the two witnesses she named, submitted a statement after he was named, in which he said he had no recollection of this ‘small gathering.’
It seems that he gave similar testimony to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, saying that he had “no knowledge” of the small gathering that Ford made repeated reference to, and that he had no knowledge of the kind of conduct she claimed Brett Kavanaugh displayed.
So far, unless one of the ‘witnesses’ that she listed has changed their testimony, the accuser still has nothing to corroborate her story.
Early on, a woman made a social media post claiming that the story was true, because she heard about it at school for some time afterwards. However, when pressed for details, she deleted the post and backtracked on her claims.
Leland Keyser, allegedly one of Ford’s long-term friends who she also named as a witness to the party, similarly disagreed with the account.
She said that not only does she not recall such a party, but that she had never met the future federal judge, and that, to the best of her knowledge, she never attended a party where he was present.
Both Kavanaugh and Judge refuted allegations that they had sexually assaulted the woman, or that one had watched while the other did so.
At this point, barring some surprise witness who hadn’t come forward over the course of weeks of media drama, or a better recollection from Dr. Ford about the who, what, when, and where concerning her alleged attack which occurred 36 years ago, it isn’t likely that the FBI will find any evidence of wrongdoing.
The other two allegations seem to be without merit as well, as far as the serious investigation is concerned.
However, she had no witnesses, and even in her own account she seemed very unsure about the person she identified.
As for the third accuser, Julie Swetnick, who was brought forward by Michael Avenatti, a lawyer most famous for representing ‘porn star’ Stormy Daniels, her allegations seemed to fall apart during a televised interview.
She had accused Kavanaugh of ‘spiking the punch,’ or rather said that she was aware of the punch being spiked at parties he was present at, and also claimed that the future federal judge, who went through six FBI background checks already, was waiting in line to rape women who had been drugged or gotten inebriated at the party.
She also said that she was raped at one of these parties when he was present, though that doesn’t make him a criminal.
During a television interview, she walked back many of her claims, which is interesting because she made them in a signed affidavit. However, the lack of specificity in said affidavit could help her escape any consequences for ‘misstatements.’
It has been repeatedly claimed that the FBI will be ending their investigation in the very near future. At this point, it sounds like, much like the investigation into Anita Hill’s claims against Clarence Thomas, they will have found nothing whatsoever.