Posted on 09/16/2018 12:06:55 PM PDT by Lazamataz
The woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault came forward with her explosive allegations on Sunday, saying the supposed attack "derailed me substantially for four or five years" and claiming that the episode rendered her "unable to have healthy relationships with men."
The woman, Christine Ford, is a professor at Palo Alto University, according to The Washington Post, which published her account on Sunday. Her decision to go public caps a whirlwhind week that began when Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., sent shockwaves through Washington by releasing a statement saying she turned over information about Kavanaugh from an anonymous accuser to the FBI.
Ford, a 51-year-old registered Democrat who has published in academic journals and trains students in clinical psychology, described the alleged incident on Sunday, saying it occurred at a Maryland house gathering. Ford claimed she headed upstairs to a bathroom when she was suddenly pushed onto a bed, as rock-and-roll music blared.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Saving it for later. I agree with you, seen evidence of the power of false memory myself. Also have seen and experienced some repressed memory returning but the fact that such a thing occurs doesnt negate that false memories occur.
This woman has low credibility but some drunken romp may have happened. Seriously, Ive been groped scarier than her incident at Disneyland. Gee whiz.
Hey! I was flagged for a penalty that cost my HS team the regional championship and I am reminded of it every so often at reunions or other gatherings!
But that was almost 50 years ago and I am over it, so I must be OK. Right?
LOL
IF this BS occurred, even this LIB LUNATIC doesn’t say she was “raped”. I call major BS.
IF this BS occurred, even this LIB LUNATIC doesn’t say she was “raped”. I call major BS.
A couple of years? Really? Gimme a break. Not surprised that YOU believe her.
Shut Up! Really?
Do you think the Repubs will dig in and support him with the cameras in their faces even though everyone with half a brain knows this story is a bunch of BS.
Makowski and Collins have been looking for an out on this nomination and they will probably use this made up fairy tale as their excuse.
It sucks ... but that’s the game now. Innocent until proven guilty is just something in movies.
If something can be found on this broad fast to prove she is a lair, Kavanaugh has a chance ... but we all know jelly runs through the spines of a lot of Repub Senators, and if they want to look good in the “media” more than do the right thing ... you know the outcome.
Anita Hill, now available in white.
https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/christine-ford-politics-republican-democrat-blasey/
Christine Ford Signed Letter Against Trump Border Policy
We have paper records of the event,
Because she is a leftist who is being paid to be the Drama queen for the Alinsky-ing of Kavanaugh.
Anita Hill II.
Liar and Leftist.
Saul Alinskys Rules from Rules for Radicals
Saul Alinsky describes 24 rules in Rules for Radicals. Of those 24 rules, 13 are rules of power tactics:
1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy
thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the
enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is mans most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and
actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing
itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of
operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will
break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive
alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
The remaining 11 rules Alinsky describes are concerned with the ethics of means and ends:
1. Ones concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with ones personal interest in the issue Accompanying this rule is the parallel one that ones concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with ones distance from the scene of conflict.
2. The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
3. In war the end justifies almost any means.
4. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
7. Generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
8. The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.
10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.
11. Goals must be phrased in general terms like Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Of the Common Welfare, Pursuit of Happiness, or Bread and Peace.
she says in the article she didn’t mention kavanagh to the doctor?
The only one who can put the screws to them is McTurtle. He could tell them vote yes or be kicked off the major committees.
True, you cannot compare the 70’s & 80’s with the crazy me too that deems everything from a shoulder rub, a hug, a grope with full blown rape (for the record there is NO excuse for rape). Even my bleeding heart liberal mother thinks me too is way over blown.
It is quite a coincidence that she pops out now. If she really was that upset she would have nailed him at his Fed hearings.
Retooling the Roy Moore smear campaign. All the people who believed that crap from those two women who accused Moore, are fools.
She is a clinical psychologist making a case for post traumatic metoo disorder. That was 35 years ago.Give me a break!
:( and it is totally working.
California professor! Doesn’t that explain t all?
Head full of excrement and no outlet.
She was on drugs or drunk at the time. She can't remember a d@mn thing about how she got there and where she was, but she claims to remember details of an alleged assault?
She's a nutty psycho b*tch today, and she probably always was.
Derailed me. What an odd comment, similar to what might be used in reference to derailing a Supreme Court nomination.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.