Melania states the obvious about Christine Blasey Ford

Just like millions of American women, Melania Trump pinned Christine Blasey Ford, the first accuser of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, for a liar in her fantastic tale of high school sexual assault.

Here's the New York Post:

First lady Melania Trump warned her husband that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was not being truthful when she accused Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her in high school, according to a new book.

"You know that woman is lying, right?" Melania told the president, in an episode recounted in Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court, the New York Post reported. The book is slated for a Tuesday release.

Authors Mollie Hemingway, senior editor of the Federalist, and Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network, claim in their upcoming book that the first lady was one of many women who were skeptical of Ford's testimony that Kavanaugh raped her while drunk at a high school party.

The item is interesting because it implies that maybe President Trump was wondering himself about the matter. Kavanaugh, after all, was hardly his political crony, he wasn't even known to Trump before his minions presented his name for the nomination. Kavanaugh had been affiliated with the Bush administration and spent most of his spare time coaching girls' baseball games, not mixing significantly with swamp power circles or Trump's social orbit.

Perhaps Melania gave Trump the strength to stand by Kavanaugh on the premise that the truth would prevail. And sure enough, that was what happened.

Going back to high school doesn’t cut it.

. . . and what really doesn’t cut it is testimony to a “recovered” memory.
Note the scare quotes are not around “memory,” only “recovered.” The devastating thing about a “recovered” memory is that it is in fact a memory - the bearer of such will testify “truthfully,” and be very persuasive. The problem is that a “recovered" memory is not probative of actual past events.
It is theoretically possible that a psychoanalyst could create a “recovered” memory which was actually accurate - but the truth of the memory would not make the memory evidence of what actually happened.
The fundamental problem is that a woman (it’s always a woman, AFAIK) testifying to a “recovered” memory is actually testifying to what the analyst implanted in her memory. It is a process which is protected by HIPPA secrecy, but if it were actually done in a courtroom the defense lawyer would rightly be screaming bloody murder.
A “recovered” memory should never be accepted in court, and should never be the basis of any action by any legislative body or executive. All it really proves is that the “witness” had the luxury of spending big bucks on “therapy” which made her even less happy, and even more of an ingrate, than she started out as.

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.