Monday, December 10, 2018

Margret Isza Sajgo Passed Away Last Week She Was 93

People will say "she lived a full life" its seldom true but at least it is polite.

The View From The 4th Pew of the DCPC Chapel
Margaret Sajgo is an exception, she did indeed live a full life. Cedar Post stumbled across her obituary last week not entirely by accident:

Margaret Isza Sajgo, 93 of Charlotte, N. C., passed away on December 2, 2018, at Presbyterian Hospital (Novant Health Services) in hospice surrounded by her family. Margaret was married to Ferenc Frank Sajgo, who passed away in Charlotte on July 1, 2007. She is survived by her daughters Gloria M. Sajgo (and her partner Annette Snapp); and Christina Sajgo McCormick (and her husband Bill McCormick); grandchildren Melissa Katherine Plummer and Matthew Jared Plummer (and his partner Lusamba Katende). Bernadette Moultrie was her friend and caregiver. The family thanks Doctors Making House Calls - especially Gabriel Rocha PA--for their service and dedication and Dr. William Porter and his staff at Novant Health for their support and help.

Margaret was born on December 20, 1924 in Vamospercs, Hungary to the late Arpad Isza and Julianna Deak Isza. She was the second oldest; her three sisters were the late: Julianna Isza Czegeny, Ilona Isza Olah, and Magdolna Isza Szincsak. Margaret grew up Hungary spending her childhood in Hajduboszormeny and many of her teenage years in Budapest, where she and Frank met. Later she also lived in Basel, Switzerland.

In 1950 she moved to Argentina to marry Frank, her childhood sweetheart and as she liked to say the only boyfriend she ever had. They were married in Buenos Aires in July 1950. Frank was a research chemist. In 1966 he moved to Charlotte to work for what is now the Clariant Corp (Formerly Sandoz) in Mount Holly. Margaret and her daughters followed in 1967.

Margaret was a life long Reformed Christian who encouraged her family by quoting "Fear not; believe only" (Luke 8:50) and advised the Bible should be read cover to cover "at least once". She listened to the weekly services from the Davidson College Presbyterian Church (DCPC) and enthusiastically participated by wishing "peace be with you" to anyone visiting with her at that time.

Margaret admired beautiful clothing and worked as a custom seamstress until her daughters were born. Later when living in Charlotte she studied oil painting and became a prolific painter of landscapes and scenes inspired by her childhood in Hajduboszormeny. After she lost her sight in 2008, she gracefully transitioned to becoming an avid listener of WDAV, the classical public radio station at Davidson College.

A Memorial Service was held at the Davidson College Presbyterian Church 100 North Main St Davidson NC 28036 at 5 p.m. on December 8, 2018.

In lieu of flowers the family requests donations be made to DCPC P.O. Box 337, Davidson NC 28036 704-892-5641 or to WDAV 89.9 Davidson College Box 8900 Davidson NC 28035.

A full life indeed. But here's where it gets interesting, you see... you can and she couldn't. You can walk and she couldn't. She wasn't able to attend church but you could. So every Sunday at 11 AM Margret Sajgo would listen to WDAV's broadcast of the Davidson College Presbyterian Church Sunday Service.

When they passed the collection plate, she was there at home sealing an envelope. When members joyfully began greeting one and other in church, she would great those near her as well. She was as much a member of DCPC as those in attendance every Sunday.

And from this her daughter was inspired by her mother's faith and strength. During the brief eulogy she said her mother's faith made her mother stronger. She had lost her ability to walk but somehow she became stronger and when she lost her sight something that would put most of us to the depths of depression she became stronger still. Those who knew Margaret, understood it was her faith and it was God who gave her strength, because the less she had, the more room there was for God in her life.

If you ever asked yourself who in the world listens to church on the radio, well there's your answer. Margret Isza Sajgo listens and so do countless others. And some might wonder does this radio ministry serve a purpose or do any good? Clearly the answer is yes.

So it was indeed fitting that Davidson College Presbyterian Church Pastor Scott Kenefake presided at the memorial service for Margret Isza Sajgo in a church she never had the joy of visiting.

And as I sat there in the small chapel sheltered from the cold of an approaching winter storm there was the joy of a life well lived to be celebrated. The turn out was small nearly 20 people if you included the church staff and the deceased. But that was ok, because even with all the empty pews it was a full house. Full of joy and life and full of God's Love.

Cedar Bonus: Surprisingly a lot of people listen to WDAV in fact in 2016 it was ranked the number one classical music station nationally.

Friday, November 23, 2018

My Open Letter A Couple of Raintree ParentsTo The Parents At 3709 and 3724 Smokerise Hill Drive


The Raintree subdivision covers about 1,100 acres in South Charlotte between Highway 51 (Pineville Matthews Road) and Providence Road West aka Ballentyne Commons Parkway.
With two golf courses and a dozen tennis courts, 2 pools and a large club house Raintree is a young parent magnet. Small children, school buses and kids on bikes are everywhere. 
Sadly, Raintree Lane is also a popular cut trough for Charlotte's most impatient drivers.
One of the first streets created in the mid 1970's was Smokerise Hill Drive. My parents have lived on this street for nearly 45 years and I have driven past these two homes 100 times just in the last year.
Nearly every time I venture down Smokerise Hill Drive at two homes which are across from each other the kids are in the street.
And frankly I'm stunned at how unaware millennial parents are and clueless they have become.
So here's my open letter to Stupid Parents #1 and Stupid Parents #2. 

To The Parents At 3709 and 3724 Smokerise Hill Drive:
I suspect your kids are well mannered and very well behaved. I further suspect you are very good parents, well at least in your eyes.

My brothers and Sisters and I grew up on Smokerise Hill Drive, we played football on the golf course road our bikes in the street to the club house and nearby friends, We were generally free range kids. We were also young teens 13-15 and lot 6 and 8 year old mirco kids.

I have no idea why your kids and the ones across the street are in the street or playing within a few feet of the street all the time.

The other night I drove down the street well after hard dark and saw 3 tiny silhouettes dart across the street into the shadows. I saw only a glimpse of them, until I passed your house.

Few weeks ago with the sun setting, I came over the hill blinded by the sun unable to see very well, I spotted one, then another then a 3rd running across the street.

It is only a matter of time.

Years ago the family that lived on the corner of Eagles Nest and Smokerise bought their young son a very small dirt bike. The 50 cc Honda minibike was not all that fast, he may have had it about 3 weeks when he hit a car that had stopped on Raintree Lane. He died the following night. The family who lost their young child regrouped and recovered, and life went on, but the woman who he hit had to live with that horror the rest of her life even though it was not her fault.

My parents who live at the end of the street as other neighbors are well aware that your kids play in the street and while unlawful (yes it is illegal to impede traffic and there are several city ordinances against it) no neighbor is going to call the police, but that’s not the point.

What is the point, is that you sadly are incredibly stupid. When one of your kids is hit by a car you’ll be able to say it was the driver’s fault, but your son or daughter won’t be any less dead.

The choice is yours. Choose wisely.

Monday, November 19, 2018

Jim Acosta Gets The Hook Again - Watch How MSM Spins This

Jim Acosta gets the hook again, just more formally this time, in an apparent effort to met the court's concern about due process. 

The letter sent to Jim Acosta that spells out the due process regarding his "hard pass" and the reasons for the revocation of his White House access. 

We are writing to give you formal written notice that we have made a preliminary decision to suspend your hard pass due to your conduct at the President’s November 7, 2018 press conference. 

The president is aware of this preliminary decision and concurs. The factual basis for this preliminary decision to suspend your pass is as follows:As you know, President Trump has provided and extraordinary amount of access to journalists to ask questions, while operating an extremely open and transparent White House. 

The White House does not have a written code of conduct for journalists participating in presidential press conferences. We had not previously thought that set of formal rules for journalists’ behavior at press conferences was necessary. 

That is because it had previously been a widely shared understanding that: 

(1) a journalist called upon to ask a question will ask a single question, and, having received a response, will yield the floor unless, at the discretion of the President or other White House official answering questions, a follow-up question or questions is permitted, after which follow-up(s), the journalist will then yield the floor; and 

(2) when a journalist has had his or her question(s) answered, the journalist is expected to yield the floor and, 

(3) when applicable, physically surrender any microphone the journalist is using to White House staff for use by the next questioner. 

Three basic, commonsense practices are necessary for orderly press conferences that are fair to all journalists in attendance. They have served the public, the press, and the President well.

Your behavior at a November 7 press conference violated the basic standards governing such events, and is, in our preliminary judgment, sufficient factual basis to revoke your hard pass. 

While this is our preliminary decision, we would be pleased to consider any material you would like to submit in response to it.

Should you wish to contest this preliminary decision or the factual basis set forth in this letter, please submit a written response to us in writing via email by 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, November 18, 2018. Should you not submit a response by that time, this preliminary decision will [be] final. 

You may submit that response by emailing it to one or both of us. 

We are happy to consider that response and any other materials you would like to submit before a final decision is made in this matter. 

Should you choose to contest this preliminary decision and submit a written response to this formal notice, we will consider your written response and will issue you a final determination in writing 3:00 p.m. on Monday, November 19, 2018. 

Of course, you will continue to maintain your hard pass while the Temporary Restraining Order issued on November 16, 2018, remains in effect.

But watch how main stream media will spin this by claiming that Trump is:

(1) Violating the court order
(2) Making up rules as he goes
(3) Declaring the Media to be the enemy of the people
(4) Violating the Constitution

and MSM will just skip over that last part regarding the TRO. Watch and see. 

Wednesday, November 14, 2018

Idiots Among Us – Cocoa's Owner Paula Brown Cites Racism In Road Rage Incident

You head to work, leave your wife behind and figure she’ll manage to get the kids to school safely, run a few errands and head back to the house or maybe to her office job nearby. 

Never in your wildest dreams, would you expect to have her become the subject of some race baited road rage incident, have to call the cops and then become the subject of some hateful social media messages, calling her every name in the book and labeling her a racist bigot especially since you live in Ballentyne. 

Apparently the driver of a black Nissan SUV with the vanity license plate COCOAS is not very patient and a whole lot of angry. 

The victim who is named Anna describes what happened in her own words: 

"I've lived in this neighborhood for 6 years and never experienced something so shocking. This morning around 9, I was making the right out of Thornhill from Meadow Run Lane, onto Ballantyne Commons Parkway. Lots of traffic, so I guess she thought I was taking too long. She honked at me several times, drove up beside me, called me a BITCH and then proceeded to try to make a right turn IN FRONT OF ME. She said she lives in this neighborhood. This is pathetic and dangerous. If you know her, tell her I've filed a police report."

Road Raging Paula 

Road Raging Paula Says ….


Well a couple hours later the road raging woman who happens to be African American decides to continue her rage on line: 

"My name is Paula Brown and I’ve lived in the neighborhood for years also! First and foremost I was making a left on Ballantyne Commons not a right. Second of all I’m not the one who blew the horn, it was the car behind me. 


Amazingly Paula Includes her photo

When I went to take the left you started shouting belligerent names at me with my kids in the car, and telling me to get out of your neighborhood. 

What makes this your neighborhood? Is the fact that we are people of color that we don’t belong here?" 

Whoa! Did she just play the race card? 

"The remarks you made that “that’s why Trump wants to send me back” was so derogatory, and racist that I was aghast by the remark. 

My kids ashamed, and embarrassed! I’d like to inform you that Cocoas is a chain of restaurants, with multiple locations, two here in Charlotte. I own these restaurants and have worked very hard to get where I am. 

I’m not going to let your racism affect and effect my family, children and goals in life. You’re a pig and can kiss my black ass!" 

Oh now this is fun she manages to cover Donald Trump and immigration and brag about her success all in one paragraph. 

Adding later 

“I can’t wait to talk to the Police!” 

Let us add a little more crazy to this cat fight, now a woman who identifies herself as Jennifer adds: 

"The profanity in front of kids aside, are we now having to add "turning left while black" to the list of offenses that resulted in yet another panicked white person calling the police and from a person in our own neighborhood no less? Paula, please accept my apology on behalf of white people that don't act like this." 

Later Paula adds: 

"I’m the kindest person in the world, feeding the homeless and all! This lady is a lying fascist pig! And obviously needs some attention from someone!" 

So now that we have a name for the Road Raging SUV driver things get really personal, Anna tells Paula she's having non of her nonsense:

"Paula, you know very well that you called me a BITCH and I never called you ANY names! I also didn't make this about your race, you did. Get a clue. You acted terribly this morning. You should be ashamed, feeding the homeless or not." 

But Paula is not finished: 

"You’re 12 year old should’ve been at school at 9:00 am. The kid you see in my truck will be 39 years old in January! And to hear the things you said effected him much more than the possibility of your 12 year old hearing the word “ bitch’ which is not true...Stop making excuses! You did not know I lived in the neighborhood, and it should’ve clued you when I posed for your picture and gave you my tag number. You pulled off before I did remember? And it’s Cocoa’s since you didn’t hear it right!" 


So here's our proud owner of Cocoa's at her store on Sugar Creek
Opps she’s not done yet: 

"Good bye lady! I don’t have time for this nonsense! Have a great day! I never honked my horn. It was the car behind me. That’s the fact! You should’ve never rolled your window down to say anything at all to me. I’m afraid to do that because it’s so many crazy people out here. That’s why we live in Thornhill because we feel safe! Or we use to anyway!" 

Now at this point you might figure we are done, but nope add the voice of Charla to the mix:

"The back exit onto Ballantyne commons is not wide enough for 2 cars to be exiting at the same time. If one was turning right, all other cars should remain behind it until she has left the neighborhood. 2 cars- one turning right and one turning left leaves NO room for a car to come into the neighborhood on Meadow Run. Don't even begin to understand how this has become a race or political issue...." 

And so once again our victim speaks up: 

"Paula, you and I know what was said. You can keep up with the racist accusations, and live with that. I DON'T EVEN know where you got the Trump stuff from, but I would never curse you out in front of my kid, and not yours either (at least I thought he was). You have now called me a fascist, a racist, a pig, and a bitch. Sound like a stretch?" 

Suddenly without warning Paula changes her tone: 

"You’ll are right! I’m sorry Anna! This is just silly!"

So here's a thought guys be careful how you ask "how was your day?" when you walk though that front door tonight.

Cedar's Take: As the number of Yankee transplants grows so do the number of accidents. Rude and aggressive drivers like Paula will eventually get taken out by their own stupidity. The trouble is us Southerners know where we are going and we are not in a big hurry versus the transplants have no idea where they are going and they are in a crazy hurry to make up for the three wrong turns they just made. This is not a good mixture. 

I have only one husband rule, never hook your horn, flip anyone off, roll down your window or get out of your car no matter what happens. OK so it is four rules and lets add leave enough room at all times between you and the car in front of you so that you can go around if they get out of their car for some wrong you have committed and come at you. Don't hesitate to run someone over to get away and if you feel threatened and you can't drive away you have a weapon, use it!

Monday, November 5, 2018

WBTV News Spins The "SouthPark Susan" Story

This morning WBTV News announced on air that the infamous "SouthPark Susan had turned herself in to the Sunset Beach, North Carolina Police Department and would be “extradited” back to Charlotte to face charges.




The taped 40 second teaser ran throughout the early morning hours on WBTV and was even posted to Twitter, which is here.

Of course this was total bull-shit. No one is "extradited" on misdemeanor charges much less from within the same state. Susan Westwood was released about an hour later.

After Cedar Posts called WBTV out for the complete fabrication of "extradited" via twitter this is the response WBTV's Kristen Marinda tweeted:

"Honestly, we are all about CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. And you know unfortunately mistakes happen. We try for that not to happen. We try very hard. But “JV”? Come on, dude. Being unkind just seems unnecessary."

In fairness calling them the "JV Team" was dramatically toned down version of what CP was really thinking.

Sadly when television news “spins” and “sensationalizes” events it does a disservice to the entire community. SouthPark Susan was a non-event except for the “someone was offended journalism” crowd. To continue the over reporting of an event that cast Charlotte is an ugly light is only self serving providing little if any journalistic value.

But to deliberately embellish a story with words normally associated with felons and violent criminals is sensationalizing the news for the sole purpose of page views, clicks and retweets and that is just wrong.

Make no mistake this was a deliberate fabrication.

CP's tweet saw little traction, expect for this:

Unfortunately, some folks just can’t help themselves! Every time they see a chance to take a cheap shot at somebody, they do. The team at WBTV is FAR FROM JV!! You’d be hard pressed to find ANY NEWS TEAM that hasn’t misspoke in something! Keep doing what you’re doing Kristen!

While no one should feel sorry for Susan Westwood the excuse news anchors “misspoke” is far from the truth. This was deliberate effort to continue to sensationalize the story. No one with 1/2 a brain would accidentally read and tape such a statement. Hardly a cheap shot.

Christine Sparrow also took issue with CP's tweet calling them out as well.

"It's easy to hide behind a keyboard and hurl insults at the media"

The sad reality is that the only people being insulted are WBTV viewers who anchors like Christine and Kristen must think are moronic idiots, the word "extradite" was used simply to sensationalize the story and build up the tease. This is the essence of "Fake News" and this is not Journalism!

In fact as long as the news media is driven by ratings, page view and retweets this is the garbage we are going to see, this is not news and these people are not journalist they are nothing more than talking heads on another entertainment channel.

Friday, October 5, 2018

October 5, 1993 CMPD Officers Burnette and Nobles EOW

John and Andy were the first two officers killed at one time in the history of Charlotte and Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department. 



The officers patrolled Boulevard Homes - a housing project that was notorious for crime. 

On October 5, 1993 John and Andy were chasing a suspect who ran into a wooded area near the Boulevard Homes housing project. The suspect shot and killed the two officers. 

In the 25 years since, Charlotte has erected a memorial Uptown to honor all officers who died in the line of duty. Burnette's and Nobles' names are there. That's not the only place. City officials tore down Boulevard Homes and built the Renaissance Development. Two roads in that development are now named after the officers. Related 

But now 25 years later much of CMPD rank and file never knew John and Andy. Rookie Officers hear the cautionary tale and try to understand why and how, but most will never understand that it was more than just two active duty officers killed in the line of duty by a worthless Mofo. It was the beginning of the end of a good department.

CMPD Hope will hold the 24th Annual Burnette-Nobles Memorial golf tournament on Monday, May 20, 2019. More Info is here.

Sunday, September 30, 2018

Christine Ford Testimony Before Congress Nothin' But Blues and "Elvis"

With Ford's appearance before congress we reached the point of over-saturation with the "Me Too" Movement. 



Yes, Christine Basley Ford just killed the concept once and for-all. 

Ford is no more a victim of sexual assault than I am. 

Though as a 16 year old working at Kmart I was stalked and eventually seduced with alcohol by a 35 year old woman named "Elvis" who drove me to her apartment on Club Drive off Central Avenue. There she made me do things I'd never done before, I'm not sure that I've done some of them since.

Admittedly "Elvis" was hot, wildly kinky and at one point I'm sure I thought I was going to die. 

So hey "Me Too" what about me too? What I'm a middle aged white guy so I don't count? I can't qualify? 

If by some magic "Elvis" suddenly was up for supreme court justice I seriously can't see calling her out now 35 years post copulative encounter. 

Was I a victim? Well by today's standard HELL YES! The age difference alone would get he locked up, she was clearly more than twice my age and alcohol lots of alcohol, and I was under the legal drinking age of 18 at the time, and she clearly "groomed" me visiting the store I worked at dozens of times over a couple of months flirting and teasing and eventfully she took advantage of me. 

But for some odd reason I didn't suffer years of remorse, or repressed victim feelings. 

The main point of the "Me Too" movement is to tell women there is no need to be ashamed, that it's ok and to start speaking out because time's up! But with the Me Too acceptance and support and acknowledgment, comes a catch-22, a damned if you do and dammed if you don't. 

You see if its no longer something to be ashamed of and you can speak out, well hey "Times Up!" you can no longer wait twenty years to say "I think back in 1991 I was abused".

Its time that we put a statue of limitations on "Me Too". 

Assault is assault and no means no. But women are victims everyday, of sexual assault, real rape and real violence. Labeling Christine Ford a victim diminished the pain and real suffering thousands of real victims have endured.

Her carefully crafted and embellished statements structured to be vague yet colorful enough so much so that they read like a Stephen King novel. 

Bill Cosby plied women with drugs and had sex with them, countless young girls became the victim of Larry Nassar they are all real victims of sexual abuse. 

A bedroom encounter with a drunken frat boy and his wingman is a total non-event. Christine Ford is a nut bird of the worst kind, as her testimony shows she is admittedly marginal with her recall of simple dates and times within the last month being difficult for her without five lawyers and handlers she can't even form a sentence. 

She has been used and abused more by the democrats in the last fours weeks than a lifetime of bedroom encounters with a tag team of high school football players.

Kavanaugh is accused of pushing Ford onto a bed laying on top of her and putting his hand over her mouth, she thought she was going to die or be raped or both. Seconds later she was hiding in a bathroom. Events she can recall with clarity, events Kavanaugh claims never happened.

But for a moment lets say Kavanaugh admitted that he did indeed lead her to a bedroom and made a very unwanted move on the 15 year old Ford. There's no crime committed, he didn't threaten her she pushed him off and that was that. 

Of course if this is true he's a pig, and in his own words, a virgin well into his 20's. No surprised there, since  apparently he was a classless clod.

But Six FBI background checks and zero nothing de-nada in the way of a checkered past.

Yep times up to complain about someone's behavior 35 years ago. 

Oh and Elvis, sorry I didn't take you up on your offer to fix breakfast.


Christine Ford Transcript of Testimony Before Congress Part One of Four

Let's take the fluff out of what Christine Blasey Ford said under oath to Congress and America. 

It hard to imagine a bigger circus, Ford in a voice that should belong to a 12 year old and not a college professor, her appearance, that of a mousey, unkept spinster. Looking far older than her reported 51. 

Without the grandstanding bullshit of the democrats just the transcript of Ford and the woman chosen by republicans for the hearing Ms. Rachel Mitchell to ask questions on behalf of the republicans. 

I've tried to upload the original transcript but it is unreadable given the metrics of the Blogger platform. 

Part two and three are the continuation of the transcript and part four is pure OpEd on why this is the death of the "Me Too Movement". 



MITCHELL: Good morning, Dr. Ford.
FORD: Hi.
MITCHELL: We haven’t met. My name is Rachel Mitchell.

FORD: Nice to meet you.

MITCHELL: I just wanted to tell you the — the first thing that struck me from your statement this morning was that you are terrified, and I just wanted to let you know I’m very sorry. That’s not right. I know this is stressful, and so I would like to set forth some guidelines that maybe will alleviate that a little bit. If I ask you a question that you don’t understand, please ask me to clarify it or ask it in a different way. When I ask questions, sometimes I’ll refer back to other information you’ve provided. If I do that and I get it wrong, please correct me.

FORD: OK.

MITCHELL: I’m not going to ask you to guess. I know it was a long time ago. If you do estimate, please let me know that you’re estimating, OK?

FORD: Fair.

MITCHELL: OK. We’ve put before you — and I’m sure you have copies of them anyway — five pieces of information, and I wanted to go over them. The first is a screenshot of a WhatsApp texting between you and somebody at the Washington Post. Do you have that in front of you?

FORD: Yes.


MITCHELL: The first two texts were sent by you on July 6th. Is that correct?


FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: And then the last one sent by you was on July 10th?

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: OK. Are those three comments accurate?

FORD: I will read them.

FORD: Yes.

FORD: So, there’s one correction.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: I’ve misused the word “bystander” as an adjective.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: “Bystander” means someone that is looking at an assault, and — and the person named P.J. was not technically a bystander. I was writing very quickly with a sense of urgency. So I would not call him a bystander. He was downstairs and, you know, what I remember of him was he was a…a tall and very nice person. I didn’t know him well. But that he was downstairs, not anywhere near the event.

MITCHELL: OK. Thank you.

FORD: I’d like to take that word out if it’s possible.

MITCHELL: OK. Thank you for clarifying that. The second is the letter that you wrote to Senator Feinstein, dated the — July 30th of this year.

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: Did you write the letter yourself?

FORD: I did.

MITCHELL: And I… since it’s dated July 30th, did you write it on that date?

FORD: I believe so. I — it sounds right. I was in Rehoboth, Delaware, at the time. I could look into my calendar and try to figure that out. It seemed…

MITCHELL: Was it written on or about that date?

FORD: Yes, yes. I traveled, I think, the 26th of July to Rehoboth, Delaware. So that makes sense because I wrote it from there.

MITCHELL: Is the letter accurate?

FORD: I’ll take a minute to read it.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: I — I can read fast.

FORD: OK, so I have three areas that I’d like to address.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: In the second paragraph, where it says this… “the assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home…”

MITCHELL: Yes?

FORD: “at a gathering that included me and four others,” I can’t guarantee that there weren’t a few other people there, but they are not in my purview of my memory.

MITCHELL: Would it be fair to say there were at least four others?

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: OK. What’s the second correction?

FORD: Oh, OK. The next sentence begins with “Kavanaugh physically pushed me into the bedroom,” I would say I can’t promise that Mark Judge didn’t assist with that. I don’t know. I was pushed from behind, so I don’t want to put that solely on him.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: OK.
Grassley interrupts; wants to keep a 5-minute time limit. Mitchell tells Grassley she understands and didn’t see the ‘red light’ go off.  Feinstein now goes on her diatribe. 
MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When we were stopped, you were going to tell us a third correction that you wanted to make on that statement — or, I’m sorry, the letter to Senator Feinstein.
FORD: It’s — it wasn’t a correction, but I wanted to comment on it, since we were looking at this letter, that I did see Mark Judge once at the Potomac Village Safeway after the time of the attack. And it would be helpful with anyone’s resources if — to figure out when he worked there if people are wanting more details from me about when the attack occurred. If we could find out when he worked there, then I could provide a more detailed timeline as to when the attack occurred.

MITCHELL: OK. And that — that is — so, that is not a correction in your statement?

FORD: It’s just — no.

MITCHELL: OK. You also wrote out a handwritten statement for the polygrapher when you took your polygraph test, is that correct?

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: OK. And I — I see corrections on that where you crossed out, so I will go on to The Washington Post article that was…

FORD: OK.

MITCHELL: … originally published on September 16th of this year.

FORD: And should I just not look at this for accuracy, or we’re just going to leave that be?

MITCHELL: We may…

FORD: OK.

MITCHELL: … come back to it…

FORD: OK.

MITCHELL: … if you need to refer to it.

FORD: OK.

MITCHELL: On The Washington Post article, did you submit to an interview by a reporter with The Washington Post for that article to be written?

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: OK. And then finally, was the statement that you provided this morning — I assume that, to the best of your recollection, that that was accurate?

FORD: That this whole article is accurate?

MITCHELL: No, no. The statement that you made this morning.

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: OK. I want to talk to you about the day that this happened leading up to the gathering.

FORD: OK.

MITCHELL: In your statement this morning, have you told us everything that you remember about the day leading up to that?

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: Let me ask just a few questions to make sure that you’ve thought of everything, OK? You indicated that you were at the country club swimming that day.

FORD: That’s my best estimate of how this could have happened.

MITCHELL: OK. And when you say “best estimate,” is that based on the fact that you said you went there pretty much every day?

FORD: (says something not uttered into the microphone)

MITCHELL: Is that a yes?

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: OK. Do you recall prior to getting there… so I’m — I’m only talking about up to the gathering — had you had anything to drink?

FORD: Not at all.

MITCHELL: Were you on any sort of medication?

FORD: None.

MITCHELL: Do you recall knowing before you went who was going to be at that gathering?

FORD: I recall that — expecting that Mark Judge and Leland would be at that gathering.

MITCHELL: OK. Do you recall an expectation that Brett Kavanaugh would be there?

FORD: I don’t recall whether or not I expected that.

MITCHELL: OK. Now let’s talk about the gathering up from the time you arrived until right when you went up the stairs, just that period of time, OK? What was the atmosphere like at the gathering?

FORD: Mr. Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge were extremely inebriated, they had clearly been drinking prior. And the other people at the party were not. The living room was…

MITCHELL: Can I ask you just to follow up on that? When you said it was clear that they had been drinking prior, do you mean prior to the time you had gotten there or prior to the time they had arrived?

FORD: Prior to the time that they arrived. I don’t recall who arrived first, though, whether it was me or them.

MITCHELL: OK, please continue.

FORD: OK. So I recall that the — I could — I can sketch a floor plan. I recall that it was a sparsely furnished, fairly modest living room. And it was not really a party like the news has made it sound. It was not. It was just a gathering that I assumed was going to lead to a party later on that those boys would attend because they tended to have parties later at night than I was allowed to stay out. So it was kind of a pre-gathering.

MITCHELL: Was it loud?

FORD: No, not in the living room.

MITCHELL: Besides the music that you’ve described that was playing in the bedroom, was there any other music or television or anything like that that was adding?

FORD: No.

MITCHELL: OK. So there wasn’t a stereo playing downstairs?

FORD: No.


MITCHELL: OK.
Senator Leahy now wants his five minutes.
MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (To Ford now) You told Senator Feinstein in your letter that you and four others were present. You’ve corrected that today to say it was at least four others. When you were interviewed by The Washington Post, you said that there were four boys present at the party. And then in your polygraph statement, you said there were four boys and two girls. When you say “two girls,” was that you and another or was that two other girls?

FORD: That was me and one other girl.

MITCHELL: And that other girl’s name?

FORD: Leland.

MITCHELL: Leland Keyser now?

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: OK. So then would it be fair to say at least P.J., Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, Leland Ingham, at the time, and yourself were present, and possibly others?

FORD: And one — one other boy. So there were four — there were four boys. I just don’t know the name of the other boy, so.

MITCHELL: Have you been contacted by anybody saying, “Hey, I was at that party, too”?

FORD: No, I haven’t talked with anyone from that party.


MITCHELL: OK. Now, you’ve — you’ve been detailed about what happened once you got up the stairs. And so, I don’t need to go through that again.

FORD: (says something not uttered into the microphone)

MITCHELL: I’m sorry, go ahead.

FORD: You know, oh wait, I’m sorry. I just realized that I said something that was inaccurate. I said I hadn’t spoken with anyone from the party since that. I have spoken with Leland.

MITCHELL: OK. Thank you for correcting that. I appreciate that.

FORD: Yes, thank you.

MITCHELL: You’ve gone into detail about what happened once you went up the stairs. So I don’t feel like it’s necessary to go over those things again.

FORD: OK.

MITCHELL: OK?

FORD: Thank you.

MITCHELL: Have you told us everything that you do remember about it?

FORD: I believe so. But if there are other questions I will — I can attempt to answer them.

MITCHELL: OK. You said that the music was solely coming from that room, is that correct?

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: OK. And it was turned up once the three of you were inside that room, is that correct?

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: OK. At some point, do you recall it being turned down?

FORD: I don’t remember if it was turned down once I was leaving the house. I don’t remember.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: Likely, since I could hear them walking down the stairs very clearly from the bathroom.

MITCHELL: OK. And the bathroom was…

FORD: I’m sorry…

MITCHELL: … the door was closed when you heard this, is that correct?

FORD: I could hear them very clearly hitting the walls…

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: … going down the stairwell.

MITCHELL: In fact, in your letter, you said that they went down the stairs and they were talking with other people?

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: in the house?

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: Were you able to hear that conversation?

FORD: I was not able to hear that conversation. But I was aware that they were downstairs and that I would have to walk past them to get out of the house.

MITCHELL: OK. Now, let me make sure we’re on the same page. Were you not able to hear the conversation, or not able to understand the conversation?

FORD: I couldn’t hear the conversation. I was upstairs.

MITCHELL: OK. How do you know there was a conversation?

FORD: I’m just assuming, since it was a social gathering, people were talking. I don’t know.

MITCHELL: OK. In your letter, you…

FORD: I could hear them talking as they went down the stairwell, they were laughing, and…

MITCHELL: OK. In your letter you wrote, “Both loudly stumbled down the stairwell, at which point other persons at the house were talking with them.” Does that ring a bell?

FORD: Yes. I had to walk past everyone to leave the house, so…

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: I’m not…

MITCHELL: In your letter…

FORD: Maybe I’m not understanding. I’m sorry.

MITCHELL: OK. Your next sentence – let me try to clarify this. After you said “other persons at the house were talking with them,” the letter goes on with the very next sentence, “I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.”

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: OK. You said that you do not remember how you got home, is that correct?

FORD: I do not remember.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: … other than I did not drive home.

MITCHELL: OK. I’m going to show you – if somebody could provide to you – a map of the various peoples’ houses at the time. And if you could verify that this is where you were living at the time.

FORD: Where I was living at the time?

MITCHELL: Yes.


FORD: OK. OK.
Crosstalk between Harris and Grassley about everyone seeing a copy of the map.
MITCHELL: OK. Mr. Chairman, Senator Harris, we do have a… a blown-up copy of this for the members to view, if that’s helpful.

FORD: OK, I’m going to put check marks next to homes that I can confirm are the correct locations, and then an X or a question mark when I don’t know where these people live.

MITCHELL: I’m only asking you to confirm if that map accurately shows where you were living at the time.

FORD: Where I lived at the time. So I can’t see the street name, but I’m happy to refer to the address or the neighborhood.

MITCHELL: OK, could you tell us that?

FORD: Yes. It’s River Falls.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: It’s near the — like — what is the place called? The Naval Research Center on Clara Barton Parkway.

MITCHELL: OK, was that a house or an apartment?

FORD: It was my parents’ home.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: Yes.


MITCHELL: All right. OK.
Now it’s Durbin’s 5 minutes to interrupt the questioning. Ford utters her “100% comment” when asked by Durbin if Kavanaugh was her alleged attacker. Then there is a recess.
MITCHELL: Thank you, Senator. I have a blow-up here to my right of the map that was shown to you. The address that’s indicated on here as belonging to your family is what all the property tax records showed as being your address.

FORD: OK.

MITCHELL: Just to put it in perspective, I’d like to show you a further-out — a zoomed-out picture, so that we can put it in perspective. So, we can show the greater Washington area. Of course, you can see the Beltway on that… the Beltway area.

FORD: OK.


MITCHELL: Then number three, if we could look at that, we drew a one-mile radius around the country club and then we calculated from the farthest point.
Harris interrupts – again- complaining about not seeing the map too.
MITCHELL: OK. Looking at number — the third thing here, we calculated the distance from the closest point to your house from a mile radius of the country club and then the farthest point. You can see it’s 6.2 and, of course, 8.2 miles.

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: And you’ve described this as being near the country club, wherever this house was, is that right?

FORD: I would describe it as it’s somewhere between my house and the country club in that vicinity that’s shown in your picture. And the country club is about 20 — a 20-minute drive from my parents’ home.

MITCHELL: A 20-minute drive. And, of course, I’ve marked as the crow flies.

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: Would it be fair to say that somebody drove you somewhere, either to the party or home from the party?

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: OK. Has anyone come forward to say to you, “Hey, remember, I was the one that drove you home?”

FORD: No.

MITCHELL: OK. In your July 6th text to The Washington Post that you looked at earlier, you said that this happened in the mid ’80s. In your letter to Senator Feinstein you said it occurred in the early ’80s.

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: In your polygraph statement you said it was high school summer in ’80s, and you actually had written in and this is one of the corrections I referred to early and then you crossed that out. Later in your interview with The Washington Post, you were more specific. You believed it occurred in the summer of 1982 and you said at the end of your sophomore year.

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: You said the same thing I believe in your prepared statement. How were you able to narrow down the timeframe?

FORD: I can’t give the exact date. And I would like to be more helpful about the date, and if I knew when Mark Judge worked at the Potomac Safeway, then I would be able to be more helpful in that way. So I’m just using memories of when I got my driver’s license. I was 15 at the time. And I — I did not drive home from that party or to that party, and once I did have my driver’s license, I liked to drive myself.

MITCHELL: I’d assume the legal driving age was 16.

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: OK. Now, you’ve talked about attending therapy. In your text to The Washington Post dated July 6 –  so that’s the very first statement we have from you… you put in there, quote, “have therapy records talking about it.”

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: I want to make sure I understand that. Did you already have your therapy records at that time?

FORD: I had looked at them online to see if they existed, yes.

MITCHELL: OK. So this was something that was available to you via a computer, like a patient portal?

FORD: Actually, no, it was in the office of a provider.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: She helped me go through the record to locate whether I had had record of this conversation that I had remembered.

MITCHELL: Did you show a full or partial set of those marriage therapy records to The Washington Post?

FORD: I don’t remember. I remember summarizing for her what they said. So I’m not – I’m not quite sure if I actually gave her the record.

MITCHELL: OK. So it’s possible that the reporter did not see these notes.

FORD: I don’t know if she’s – I can’t recall whether she saw them directly or if I just told her what they said.

MITCHELL: Have you shown them to anyone else besides your counsel?

FORD: Just the counsel.

MITCHELL: OK. Would it be fair to say that Brett Kavanaugh’s name is not listed in those notes?

FORD: His name is not listed in those notes.

MITCHELL: Would it also be fair to say that the therapist notes that we’ve been talking about say that there were four boys in the room?

FORD: It describes the sexual assault and it says erroneously by four boys. So the therapist got the content of it wrong.

MITCHELL: And you corrected that to The Washington Post reporter, correct?


FORD: Correct.
Continued.....