Skip to main content

What Kellyanne Conway’s Husband Says Is ‘Particularly Significant’ in Christine Ford Case


Kellyanne Conway‘s lawyer husband George is opining on Twitter about what he sees as a “particularly significant in weighing of evidence” when it comes the Christine Blasey Ford‘s allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Ford, who says Kavanaugh attempted to sexually assault her at a party in the 80s, had already seen Mark Judge say he had no memory of the incident described. Judge was identified as a person who witnessed the alleged attempted assault. “I have no memory of this alleged incident. Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford’s letter,” Judge said.

Now another person who was named as being at the party in question has come forward to deny it, a detail Conway zeroed in on. Patrick J. Smyth went to Georgetown Prep with Kavanaugh and were in the same graduating class in 1983, CNN reported. Smyth was actually one of the names who signed a letter in support of Kavanaugh over the summer, saying that Kavanaugh is “singularly qualified to be an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.” A dozen others who went to Georgetown Prep also signed their names on that letter.

“I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post,” Smyth said in a statement. “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”

Smyth said that he has “never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women.”

Conway said Smyth’s rejection of Ford’s claim “would be particularly significant in any weighing of evidence, given that he is not alleged to have done anything wrong.”

What followed from was a chippy back-and-forth between Conway and skeptical Twitter users.

Conway said that it was significant because Ford said Smyth was at the party.

“Exactly. If A claims that person B was present at alleged event X as supporting evidence that X occurred, and B says I have no knowledge of X (not I don’t recall X), then what B says tends to undercut what A says. This is not hard,” he said.

A Twitter user replied that evidence is “at best ambiguous.”

“You misstate what Smyth said. He didn’t say he didn’t recall. He didn’t assert any failure of recollection,” Conway replied. “He said, ‘I have no knowledge of the party in question,’ which, if truthful, means that, to his best recollection, he wasn’t at the party and didn’t know about it.”

Conway reiterated that what he had said is Smyth’s statement “tends to undercut” Ford’s claim.

[Image via Alex Wong/Getty Images]

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Filed Under:

Follow Law&Crime:

Matt Naham is the Senior A.M. Editor of Law&Crime.