Thread by @suzy_rice

What's with the crazy eyes of these accusers? Note they all were drinking when they allege whatever occurred or didn't occur or perhaps, maybe, they just, uh, might remember it when coached by attorneys.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6…

1. "In the New Yorker piece, Ramirez acknowledged 'significant gaps in her memories' and admitted she had been drinking at the party."

2. TheNewYorker reported that Ramirez wouldn't confirm it was Kavanuagh but "after six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh exposing himself"

3. Farrow's 'proofs': 1. Drunk, memory-questionable, 35yr-old accusation is credible; 2. Denial from eyewitnesses who were present doesn't count; 3. Hearsay from ppl who weren't there is corroborative evidence; 4. A reporter's deductions="proof;" 5. Accused can't defend

4. "We started checking further, and we found classmates had been talking about this for weeks and months..."
THAT IS NOT PROOF OF ANYTHING INVOLVING KAVANAUGH.
Gossip is not "proof" of anything other than "people talking" and "weeks and months" after a drunken dorm event

5. "Kavanaugh says the event 'did not happen' and that the allegation is 'a smear, plain and simple.'
His calendar's tell a different story (Kavanaugh maintains).
Interesting how these #KavanaughAccusers all have pasts sodden with alcohol.