Posted on 09/20/2018 10:51:26 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Just minutes after Christine Blasey Ford, a California-based psychologist, went public with accusations of teenage sexual assault against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court nominee, internet investigators began combing her past for clues about her possible motives, and trying to cast doubt on the veracity of her claims.
Since then, Dr. Blasey, as she is known professionally, has been the subject of a torrent of misinformation online. Some viral rumors about Dr. Blasey have been quickly debunked. But false claims have continued to spread on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and other social networks.
Here are several of the most visible false and misleading claims about Dr. Blasey, along with explanations of what’s really happening.
Claim 1: Dr. Blasey’s students left negative reviews on her RateMyProfessors.com profile, calling her “unprofessional” and citing her “dark” personality. Verdict: False. This viral rumor is based on a case of mistaken identity. The RateMyProfessors.com page on which these negative reviews were found is about Christine A. Ford, a professor of human services at California State University Fullerton. Christine Blasey Ford, Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser, teaches at Palo Alto University.
This story made an early appearance on Grabien, a little-known news website. It was then picked up by several right-wing media outlets, including by the Fox News host Laura Ingraham, who tweeted a link to it, and the Drudge Report, which featured it on its home page. Grabien later issued a correction and published an editor’s note apologizing for the error. But the article remained online, and several other websites have since picked it up.
Claim 2: Judge Kavanaugh’s mother once ruled against Dr. Blasey’s parents in a foreclosure case.
Verdict: False.
Internet sleuths quickly zoomed in on a 22-year-old civil court case involving Judge Kavanaugh’s mother
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
nyt
Sometimes their science section is interesting.
As for the rest of their fish wrap….
That’s exactly my point. Why doesn’t anyone have a copy of the actual letter?
Wow. Is this the same NYTimes who is so concerned about accuracy and potential smears who printed an inaccurate story about Nikki Haley in an attempt to smear this woman? You recall the NYTimes falsely accused Haley of spending tens of thousands of dollars on curtains for her UN office, except that is was Obama who ordered the curtains.
You see, with the dishonest, partisan NYTimes it’s okay to smear and hate certain women, i.e., those with an R after their name.
Buried the lead by putting it down at the bottom as number 5.
It’s either true, or it’s false. False includes inaccuracies.
I am sure I will get some heat for this but...In my experience, Girls that were as plain looking as she was were usually extra trashy in order to compete with the genuinely attractive. Guilty as hell.
If the Democrats had only released a transcript of the forged waco national guard memo, they might have been able to steal the 2004 election.
The Slimes is up to it’s old tricks.
While 4 of the 5 debunkings are at least arguably correct, the 5th (that Ford is not a “major” democratic donor) is carefully worded (”major”) to allow them to claim it is mostly false.
Take out the word major, and that claim is true. She has donated to democrats, and she has participated in left wing, anti-Trump activities, such as marches.
I’ve noticed the same in a lot of cases.
Donated is not the important concept
Paid is much more important
How much is she being paid? That’s the pertinent question.
Snopes plays that way too.
Also think back to the “Obama is” truthfile letter that “included” some easy to knock down claims (actually about domestic abuser Keith Ellison) to discredit the whole thing...
Maybe Kevin Roose can look into why the New York Times never gave a damn about credible rape charges against Bill Clinton. I’d sure like to know about that...
“internet investigators”
Better than just making it up.
WOW! That yearbook is really MESSED UP! Hard to believe they printed that.
Trusting the New York Times to debunk issues, is like allowing Sirhan Sirhan to debunk Kennedy death plots.
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.