Posted on 09/26/2018 2:35:17 PM PDT by PhxRising
I would say no to that question. Indeed the statement seems to be carefully structured to prevent that. The statement shows physical events and names the individuals involved in those events. While it might be possible to prove that the individuals named were not present, it would be impossible to prove or disprove the events did not occur. Her statement carefully ties her lack of memory to the traumatic event, therefore if the individuals were shown to not be involved she is protected from liability by her trauma induced faulty memory.
http://patterico.com/2018/09/23/still-more-lack-of-corroboration-for-christine-blasey-ford/
excerpt:
Meanwhile, what to make of this? The Washington Post interviewed Ford and quoted her as claiming that she was worried when Trump was elected because Kavanaugh had been mentioned as a possible replacement for Scalia. Here’s the beginning of their piece:
When Donald Trump won his upset presidential victory in 2016, Christine Blasey Ford’s thoughts quickly turned to a name most Americans had never heard of but one that had unsettled her for years: Brett M. Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh — a judge on the prestigious U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — was among those mentioned as a possible replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016. When Trump nominated Neil M. Gorsuch, Ford was relieved but still uneasy.
Just one problem: as Alex Pappas notes, Kavanaugh was not on Trump’s list when he was elected. The original list of names released in September 2016 included only these 11 people: Keith Blackwell, Charles Canady, Steven Colloton, Allison Eid, Neil Gorsuch, Raymond Gruender, Thomas Hardiman, Raymond Kethledge, Joan Larsen, Mike Lee, and Thomas Lee. Gorsuch was picked from the list and was confirmed in April 2017. In November 2017, more a year after the election, five more names were added: Amy Coney Barrett, Britt Grant, Brett Kavanaugh, Kevin Newsom, and Patrick Wyrick.
None of this means that it’s impossible that Kavanaugh was mentioned as a dark horse replacement option for Scalia somewhere. But if his name came up it was more likely to be as a discussion of why he wasn’t on the list. Take this Wall Street Journal article as an example:
That scrutiny may have doomed the chances of once-rising members of that conservative class, such as Sixth Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton and Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the District of Columbia Circuit, both omitted from the initial Trump lists.
This is not a silver bullet in the heart of Ford’s story, but it is another thing that makes you go “hmmmm.”
Hey, Fred.
Yeah, that’s been discussed and it’s another of the many holes in her every changing story.
That's because "PhD" sounds too much like "FUD" (fear, uncertainty, doubt) or "FUDD" (Elmer - I'm hunting wabbits); and NRD ("not a REAL doctor") sounds too much like "Nerd" which is just piling on.
Are passenger lists from a month ago, publicly available?
She was swimming and diving at the country club and then put her clothes on over the one-piece swimsuit? Were her clothes wet when she and her friends went to the house where Kavanaugh and Judge were already four sheets to the wind drunk?
How did she know the bathroom was upstairs? Who told her? When did they tell her? Was it at that party? Or had she been in that house before? If she had been in that house before, why doesn’t she seem to know what it was/is?
The simple answer is yes.
NO. Senate could get them though, of course.
It started out as requiring a second bedroom door. Now it is a second front door! And how does a second door from a bedroom or from the outside result in the need for a (marital?) counseling session?
And shortly thereafter, Ford makes the revelation to her husband and therapist that a federal judge had assaulted her. The person featured in the column, Brett Kavanaugh. And in the column he is referred to as the person most likely to be nominated to the Supreme Court if a Republican won the White House in 2012.
The first time she mentions the assault in thirty years is just weeks after this column was published.
She said she ran outside and felt relief,that’s because it was her house,she admits she told nobody because she did not want her parents to know she was at a party with boys.
She said nothing about going home,she was already there.
Her parents were away for a month
But I think the most important questions are going to be about her version of the assault; before, during and after.
She says she went to the Country Club most days during the summer, how did she get there? And what was her arrangement for the ride back? If this happened frequently during the summer, she wouldn't have to remember this one day, but what she did as a habit. How did her leaving the party affect that typical ride arrangement?
How did she know the boys were "pin-balling" down the stairs if she was in the bathroom? Hearing noises from the hallway could have just as easily been the other two boys coming up.
Why did she leave Leland behind?
What did she do with the clothes she was wearing? Did she throw them away? Did she just wash them as if nothing ever happened? Did she ever wear them again? In most cases, clothing that had been worn during an assault are strong triggers, and it's not likely that she cannot remember what happened to the clothes that had been touched by the assailant.
Did she know whose house she was at? Did she ever try to find out? In her mind it was the scene of a crime, the scene of the crime against her. She had to be curious about the location, and to be sure to avoid it in the future.
I think that if they go into a lot of her background, it will get ugly. They can stick to her statement and find plenty of holes.
No, she says she does not know where it happened. It was not her house.
I used a plastic credit card sized student ID card as my front door key to our house. Faster than a key. Otherwise, I’d crawl through a window. Back in safer days.
Have I got this straight? Feinstein hasn’t released the unredacted letter, and the Blasey pdf statement doesn’t name Kavanaugh directly...
If that’s the case, then the whole tempest in a tea pot is a blatant manufactured ‘event’ and Feinstein needs to resign.
Nope. Not the same woman.
Her name appears to be Lyudmylo Kozlovsko
http://nova24tv.si/svet/razvpitega-milijarderja-georga-sorosa-nogirali-tudi-na-poljskem/
Poljska se je, podobno kot Madžarska, uprla razvpitemu milijarderju Georgu Sorosu, velikemu ljubitelju nezakonitih migracij, in brez pojasnil deportirala glavno Sorosovo organizatorko Lyudmylo Kozlovsko s schengenskega obmo (EU).
Translation:
Poland, like Hungary, rebelled against the notorious billionaire Georg Soros, the great lover of illegal migration, and without explanation deported the main Soros organizer Lyudmylo Kozlovsko from the Schengen area (EU).
Reads as if she had a form letter ready and all she needed to do was fill in the name of the chosen victim.
Thanks … looked really close accounting for ages with these old eyes
What sort of parent leaves their 15 year old in the house alone? Guess the same sort of parent who pays big bucks to send her to Ho Arms private school.
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.