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 ...
RE: FR has already debunked those points. The racist New York Times needs to catch up.
Is there one specific article posted in FR that debunked these points? If so, Could you kindly post the link here?
Thanks.
Aside from those posted above, there are the following:
Claim 3: Dr. Blasey made similar sexual assault accusations against Justice Neil Gorsuch during his nomination process.
Verdict: False.
Claim 4: Dr. Blasey is a major Democratic donor with a long history of left-wing activism.
Verdict: Mostly false.
Claim 5: Dr. Blasey’s brother worked at a law firm with ties to the Russia investigation.
Verdict: Misleading.
Interesting that the NYT doesn’t want to invest its own resources to find the truth. Instead, they quote CBS news (didn’t Dan Rather work for them??), Snopes (hardly an unbiased source) and other third party sources with virtually no original research on their own. Personally, I’d like to know if the “stock photo” of the woman holding the sign “Not My President” is Ford or not. Perhaps some research on the part of the NYT could answer the question they posed in the article.
1. The redacted version of the memo from Feinstein to the FBI was given to Senators on the Judiciary Committee and sent to the White House as a part of the Kavanaugh background package. Therefore, this is considered classified.
2. Feinstein refuses to make the unredacted version available to anybody.
-PJ
Actually, the NYT only “debunked” 2 of the 5 stories. Both of them had already been corrected. The story about the student reviews of the teacher had already been corrected. The story about Kavanaugh’s mother and the mortgage case had already been clarified.
The New York Times did not debunk the Gorsuch letter. The original article said they had heard about it but could not verify it. The NYT said, “There is no known letter sent by Dr. Blasey about Justice Gorsuch.” That is exactly what the original article said.
The NYT did not “debunk” the story that Dr. Blasey is a major Democratic donor with a long history of left-wing activism. Their Verdict: Mostly false is deceptive.
The NYT refused to explain why she scrubbed her social media accounts. The NYT said, “It’s possible that the phrases appeared in posts that have since been deleted from Dr. Blasey’s accounts.”
In other words the claim is true, but much of the evidence has been deleted by Christine Blasey.
The NYT did not “debunk” the story that “Dr. Blasey’s brother worked at a law firm with ties to the Russia investigation.” The NYT said that it was “Misleading.”
In fact, the claim is true but more information is needed to determine if it is relevant.
She is being paid plenty writing papers for the abortion pill pharmaceutical company Corecept. Her complete name is Christine ‘Chrissy’ Margaret Blasey Ford, and she publishes under Blasey, C and Blasey, CM at least.
Corecept and Blasey have financial interests in defeating Kavanaugh for SCJ.
Sorry- I misspelled the company name. It is Corcept Therapeutics, Inc., a $166 billion market cap company, stock symbol CORT.
Blasey’s ID#19888560 at PubMed
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Blasey%20CM%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=19888560
No, I cannot but have seen several threads here. Sorry, but my mind is like a lint trap.
Never get tired of the Boo Hoo girl and her double air Lewinskys!
However, she scrubbed all her reviews. She is the only professor out of 700 at the two colleges she teaches at that does not have a review.
She also scrubbed all of her social media accounts before coming out.
Dr. Ford’s school yearbooks before they were taken offline.
From a link on the twitter account of Imperator Rex.
http://cultofthe1st.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-christine-blasey-fords-high-school_19.html?m=1
We should all oppose the actually false.
The first two were debunked days ago.
That still doesn’t mean the accusations are remotely credible.
“Is there one specific article posted in FR that debunked these points? If so, Could you kindly post the link here?”
The NYT did not “debunk” anything.
The stories they referenced were:
1. Student reviews. The article had been corrected by the original source before the NYT article. Another teacher had the same name.
2.Mortgage case. Kavanaugh’s mother was the judge on a foreclosure case involving Blasey’s parents. It was originally said that she ruled against them. The story was corrected.
3 Gorsuch letter.The New York Times did not debunk the Gorsuch letter. The original article said they had heard about it but could not verify it. The NYT said, “There is no known letter sent by Dr. Blasey about Justice Gorsuch.” That is exactly what the original article said.
4. Blasey is left wing Democrat. The NYT did not “debunk” the story that Dr. Blasey is a major Democratic donor with a long history of left-wing activism. Their Verdict of Mostly false is deceptive.
The NYT refused to explain why she scrubbed her social media accounts. The NYT said, “It’s possible that the phrases appeared in posts that have since been deleted from Dr. Blasey’s accounts.”
In other words the claim is true, but much of the evidence has been deleted by Christine Blasey.
5. Brother worked with Fusion GPS. The NYT did not “debunk” the story that “Dr. Blasey’s brother worked at a law firm with ties to the Russia investigation.” The NYT said that it was “Misleading.”
In fact, the claim is true but more information is needed to determine if it is relevant.
The Clintons made whole sections of their campaigns about planting bogus stories and then going after those who published them - or investigate them and don’t publish them.
Why would you get heat for that?
This company has a market capitalization of 1.66 Billion not 166 Billion. The information on the Fidelity squib mentions nothing about abortifacts and all sounds beneficial.
I talked myself into buying 600 shares not having that information and am under water and trying to bail myself out by selling covered calls on the stock.
Our strategy is to not trash Ford at this time so as not to lose votes in midterms from impressionable women.
However, they will not pat us on the head and call us good little boys for that.
And we miss the chance to show Ford is a psychotic on mind altering drugs as well as daily marijuana——my speculation.
I want some details on her symptoms and drugs she takes. Delusional schizophrenic? many more choices for the students to say she was “scary” and “nuts” and “crazy” intsead of well prepared for classes, gave us a chance to make up quizzes for family emergencies and so on.
I worked fulltime at universities from 1969 to 2017 and knew personally a lot of mentally disturbed women (and a handful of men, too, I admit). I learned how to avoid or deal with them except the two Angry Black Woman Syndrome ones at the end. Glad I escaped into retirement.
Advice: do not underestimate how dangerously insane these lunatics are.
The NYT “fact checking” is like Himmler proving the Aryan race was superior.
The Old Gray whore ain’t what she used to be.
5.56mm
Is there one specific article posted in FR that debunked these points? If so, Could you kindly post the link here?
Those rumors were "debunked" here, but before (and after) that they were circulated here.
I can't fault the Times for pulling the trigger if we hand them a gun pointed at ourselves.
Not mentioned by the Times: the moronic and truly asinine "She told her best friend she had 64 lovers between 11th grade thru college" claim and the two photos of protestors that turned out not to be her.
Given that the rumors were still circulating, I cut the Times a little slack here.
We give them lumps when they spread false stuff, and if there's false stuff here, we have to take the same lumps.
While the Gorsuch rumor wasn't disproved, it looks like there was no evidence for it. An unfounded rumor may not be a false one, but it's not yet true, either, and shouldn't have been spread.
The "major Democratic donor" story indicates the problem with "fact checking": how you frame the story determines whether it's true or false (or mostly true or mostly false).
She was a Democratic donor. But she gave small (or smallish) sums. So what's the story? That she gave to the Democrats? Or that she was a big donor? One story is true. The other most likely not.
She may have contributed larger sums to PACs that passed the money on to Democrats, but so far, the idea that she was a major Democratic donor doesn't appear to have been true.
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.