Posted on 09/26/2018 11:44:15 PM PDT by Kaslin
In the off-chance Christine Blasey Ford actually shows up and testifies – I give it under 50% – the wussy GOP senators on the Judiciary Committee are going to treat her with kid gloves, which is awful. No one making an accusation with such potentially catastrophic consequences for the accused (here, the accused may properly be called “the victim”) should escape harsh, penetrating cross-examination. This is particularly true when the Jenga tower that is her lunchmeat story is teetering on the edge of collapse.
But they will instruct their questioners to use kid gloves nonetheless, because they are terrified of being portrayed as big meanies for challenging her shaky story. Pathetic. As my new book Militant Normals: How Regular Americans Are Rebelling Against the Elite to Reclaim Our Democracy explains (and you must order it now because it comes out next Tuesday), this illustrates the disconnect between status-obsessed elites (including conservativish ones in the Senate) and Normal people who want to cut through the San Francisco sidewalk stuff.
Our GOP senators are more concerned with their reputations in the Beltway Bubble, while Normal people just want to get at the truth. And to get at it, their questioning would be very different than the kind of “We want to nurture and support you in this difficult time” garbage we’re likely to hear from people who should be shredding her flimsy fabric of lies.
Here are questions I’d ask if I were a senator doing the questioning, along with some anticipated colloquy with my distinguished colleagues.
1. Dr. Ford, you are a committed liberal, correct?
[“Senator Feinstein’s objection that my question undermines the witness’s credibility is noted and disregarded.”]
2. And it’s true that you wouldn’t want Future Justice Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court because of his conservative judicial philosophy regardless of the alleged incident?
3. Your lawyers are Democrat activists, right?
4. Are they working for free, or do you intend to pay them with the several hundred thousand dollars the various GoFundMe campaigns in your name have raised?
5. You traveled to Hawaii in your work and back east in August. So, when did that “fear of flying” we heard about start and stop?
[“Mr. Chairman, Senator Flake’s winking at the cameras of the liberal media outlets is distracting me. I know he needs a job, but let him suck up to MSNBC on his own time.”]
6. So, Dr. Ford, let’s get to the basics. Exactly what day and time did this incident happen?
7. Exactly where did this incident happen?
8. How many people were in the house at the time?
[“Mr. Chairman, I’ll pause my questioning to let Senator Hirono count the number on her fingers. While she’s trying to work it out, I’m hitting the head.”]
9. In 2012, your therapist wrote down that there were four people in the room. Why would she do that if you didn’t tell her that?
10. Do you find it odd that each person who you now say was present has stated that they have no idea what you are talking about?
11. If they might not remember because the party was nothing special, how often did you and your teen pals go to houses with a bunch of boys and get drunk?
12. You claim Future Justice Kavanaugh was drunk. How drunk were you?
13. As a psychologist, will you concede that alcohol inebriation will make a teenager’s memory unreliable?
[“Senator Sasse, your Fredocon whining about how we’re better than this and how this is not who we are is noted. I’ll ask my questions however I damn well please.”]
14. You claim you thought Future Justice Kavanaugh was trying to rape you. If so, why didn’t he chase you and actually rape you?
15. You say you left the house without telling anyone. Doesn’t that seem like something odd that your female friend would remember?
16. If you thought Future Justice Kavanaugh was going to rape you, why would you leave your friend alone there with this alleged monster?
17. And you didn’t call the cops, right?
18. You didn’t tell your parents?
19. You didn’t even tell your friends?
20. But you happened to tell your therapist in 2012, right around the time Future Justice Kavanaugh’s name was being brought up as a Supreme Court candidate?
[“Mr. Chairman, can you have the withered commie crone dressed as a handmaid dragged out so I can continue?]
21. Future Justice Kavanaugh was a big deal in 2012, and you say you mentioned his name, but it’s not in your therapist’s notes. It’s not even in there that your attacker is now a well-known judge. Your therapist sure got a lot wrong, didn’t she?
22. Say, at any time, did Future Justice Kavanaugh suggest that you put some ice on that?
23. Did Future Justice Kavanaugh slap you around like a Democrat congressman from Minnesota?
24. Did Future Justice Kavanaugh drive hammered and leave you to drown in an Oldsmobile?
[“Mr. Chairman, let’s pause. Senator Sasse spilled the pearls he was clutching.”]
25. You say this event damaged you permanently, but you did not seek treatment before 2012 even though you are a psychologist, correct?
26. You wanted to remain anonymous, right?
[“Mr. Chairman, can you have the screeching B-movie actress dressed as a handmaid dragged out so I can continue?”]
27. You sent a letter to your congresswoman in July, right?
28. You hired a famous, leftist lawyer in D.C. in August, right?
29. You say you took a lie detector test in August, right?
30. But you contacted the Washington Post, but did you really think they would do anything about it before you gave them your name?
31. And you’re here voluntarily, not even under subpoena, right?
32. You never intended to remain anonymous, did you?
[“Mr. Chairman, can you have the beta male dressed as a handmaid dragged out so I can continue?”]
33. Are you aware that people are calling you “brave”?
34. Are you aware that people are calling you a “hero”?
35. And are you aware that Anita Hill has been celebrated as a brave liberal hero since the Justice Thomas hearings?
36. As a psychologist, you are aware that sometimes people say things that are not true to get attention, correct?
37. As a psychologist, you are aware that sometimes people enjoy the spotlight?
38. As a psychologist, isn’t it possible that someone might invent a claim of assault in order to get attention or achieve a political goal?
[“Mr. Chairman, I need to pause to let Senator Spartacus take a call from T-Bone.”]
39. As a psychologist, do you disagree with the consensus that sexual abusers repeat their crimes?
40. How do you account for the fact that not one single person, besides you, has claimed that Future Justice Kavanaugh has ever tackled someone and tried to rip off her clothes?
41. Sixty-five women signed a letter saying Future Justice Kavanaugh was always a perfect gentleman. Why would they all lie?
42. No one allegedly in the house for the alleged party corroborates your story. Why would they all lie?
43. For that matter, no one at the dorm corroborates that other leftist woman’s story either. Why would they all lie?
44. And, of course, no one corroborates Stripper Matlock’s story, right?
45. So, why are you lying?
This whole ridiculous charade illustrates the vital importance of cross-examination as the foundation of our justice system. Ford does not deserve special treatment. When the Democrats talk about “respect” and “victim blaming,” what they are seeking to do is put out-of-bound the kind of questions whose answers (or, more likely, non-answers and evasions) will demonstrate to the world what a crock her whole story is.
Normal people get that. Let’s see if our elite does.
For more on how our elite is a giant burning dumpster fire of mediocrity, presented in a much funnier manner than this mostly serious column, order my new book Militant Normals: How Regular Americans Are Rebelling Against the Elite to Reclaim Our Democracy now so you’ll get delivered on the release date, Tuesday, October 2nd!
I can think of several more, relating to Paula Jones and Juanita Broadrick (sp?), but I doubt she’d be inclined to answer.
All of that presumes she will actually show up today, a development made less likely by the fact witnesses following her would testify to the fact her identification of Kavanaugh is based on mistaken identity.
That’s not blaming the victim; its simply acknowledging the fact people’s memories are far from infallible, especially after the passage of forty years.
And due to this consideration alone, Kavanaugh deserves the benefit of reasonable doubt. It must be afforded him even if all the other facts are true because Ms. Ford’s testimony doesn’t exclude the possibility someone else may have assaulted her.
And no honest person can say thaf it didn’t happen. And.a liberal construction of the facts requires - no. In fact - obligates us to clear Kavanaugh because they, the law, justice and mercy demand it.
Thank uou for your time and telling about your ordeal and we would an affected not to wait but to step forward promptly when they think they have been the victim of a crime.
All the “Why would they lie?” questions should either not be asked or be asked in a different way. It gives her a chance to guess that some are just being good friends to the accused or that they are doing a favor for him and expect a return favor in the future and that some just wanted to be left alone and gave an answer that would not require them to answer any more questions about him or about their own “wild oats”.
If she were absolutely certain it was Kavanaugh, why didn’t she file a police report before contacting a newspaper and some politicians?
Do you swear to tell a bit of the truth, mostly lies and a few really big lies, so help you Satan?
Here’s a basic question for Ford: “Since you accuse Kavanaugh of being a sex predator, how could you sit idly by for TWELVE years while he has occupied a high federal judicial office, knowing what you know and not speak out publicly - which would’ve forced him to resign from said office, or kept him from being confirmed in the first place ?”
The COP (Controlled Opposition Party) never ask the tough questions. It is not their job.
great post.
I would also ask her why she felt it necessary to scrub her social media.
So, uh...she DROVE out there to take a polygraph at the AIRPORT..?
Who believes THAT..?
This insect is a complete LIAR.
-—I would also ask her why she felt it necessary to scrub her social media.-—
No, never ask that.The answer is too easy for her to score victim points.
Because the answer is always “I was being harassed/death threats online by Judge Kavanaugh’s supporters, and I did it for my own safety.”
I would not be surprised if she wakes up dead this morning, murdered at the hands of her leftist ‘friends’, who will blame a vast right wing conspiracy for the murder they themselves did.
Saving abortion, allowing the murder of babies is soooooo important the murder of a 50-something whack job is a small price to pay...
These exercises are fun but we’ll have to see how today goes (I usually catch up in the early morning so i’m a night behind the curve when I get to FR)..
Bingo! We have a winner. Or how she managed to have her former school delete yearbooks from the years she attended. Or why she took a polygraph in Maryland in August if she was to remain anonymous and why Chifi chose to bring down an entire s#it show on the country when this all could have been addressed in the formal hearings.
I like the way you worded that!
Except for one, small detail...
All of those 'threats' would still exist on the SENDERS social media accountS!
Great questions ....bump.
Why bother? She won’t sign anything ... UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, so there’s no adult action to even consider. You would think all these Senators who have law degrees would advise the public on this fine point.
No idea what this means, though:
And, of course, no one corroborates Stripper Matlock’s story, right?
Is that the episode of Andy Griffith's TV show, something from To Kill a Mockingbird, or something relevant to the confirmation circus?
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.