Posted on 09/29/2018 12:54:47 PM PDT by Drew68
1. I don't know Christine Blasey-Ford, but I do know what Democrat political operations look like when I see them.
2. I also know what Democrat "handlers" do when they are working their political instructions. In this case the visible handlers are: Debra Katz and Michael Bromwich.
3. The reason Ms. Ford's airline travel was an issue, was because Katz and Bromwich constructed that *false narrative* as a delay tactic.
4. Likely the socially awkward Ms. Ford was a useful tool by Katz Inc. on behalf of the Democrats and their media allies. This is how they roll.
5. Hence Ms. Ford has no idea who is the financier behind the entire operation; and all of her subsequent expenses. The script was written around her, with an intended purpose. Likely the first narrative was reliant on never actually appearing before congress.
6. The airport hotel lie-detector narrative, part of the constructed evidence through Katz inc. A familiar testing resource, only two questions, a carefully written script to follow etc. Purchased via legal counsel (Katz Inc.)
7. As the loose narrative became more evident it was going to end with a congressional appearance, Katz needed more specific support from a Capitol Hill legal insider. Enter Bromwich's contracted assistance.
8. Loose origination details lead to conflicts. During narrative engineering the most important part of creating falsehood is to avoid specificity.
9. Specific claims can be hazards because if they are refuted, the gig is up. So everything needs to be vague, ambiguous and easier to shape.
10. The narrative engineers cannot specify the *house* where the event took place, because that would lead to specific ownership trouble. If the owner of the residence refutes the false claim, the lie cannot advance. Hence, the "where" must be generally ambiguous.
11. The "when" can also be a problem. It would suck to give a specific "WHEN" only to find out the accused wasn't in town, or was elsewhere. Hence any specific "when" must be avoided to retain the false assertion.
12. As noted, the "who" in this narrative *had to* be a part of the story. But as with this story under scrutiny those four "who's" actually refuted the accusation and aligned with the accused. Thus the problem with specific "who's".
13. The use of a validating "counselor" or "therapist" is a common part of a false narrative. The reason is HIPPA protection. Regardless of what the accuser claims, the Dr. is bound to silence unless released.
14. Now we see more of the origination details falling apart
15. Keep pulling these threads, and there's likely to be many more aspects of the false narrative that will fall apart. [fear of flying, document origination and process issues]
16. One can easily imagine a person being exploited, who was promised their need to testify would likely be negligible, beginning to freak out as it appeared testimony was going to be required. Imagine the stress.
17. Which would explain the emails to the committee backing out.... trying to find an exit.... not realizing it was going to go THIS FAR. I would doubt strongly the "hacked work email" is even remotely accurate. Occam's Razor = Panic.
18. Under questioning, the Ms. Ford doesn't even know the committee volunteered to go to her, because the *handlers* (Katz Inc, then Bromwich) controlled everything. She was originally clueless to the airline travel excuse which needed to be constructed rapidly.
19. The handlers can't change history, the frequency of Ms. Ford's airline travel negated the original excuse; and needed to be shaped. Thus she needed to support the excuse in testimony, yet historic reality refutes it.
20. This is how modern Democrats roll. Fabrication and the false framework of accusation is their skillset. The lie only needs to hold up long enough to get them to the objective. [ex. Romney's taxes and Harry Reid]
21. The end justifies the means; any means. Nothing is out of bounds. This is how the modern political left operate now. Leaks, lies and intentional falsehoods. This is what Lindsey Graham was angry about during the Kavanaugh hearing.
They don't care.
/END
bookmark
Her attorneys will never allow the FBI to question her.
did she or did she not have 60 or more hookups between junior grade and college?....
she is not afraid of flying....LIE....
she can not remember where the house was, the owner, who invited her to the party, how she got home, nor why at age 15 she was drinking like a fish....
she's a fat liar...
but she knows it was K who was there....
and absolutely nobody confirms her story..
No way did she put this all together. She might have contributed ideas, but she is not some super agent in a movie. This is a major operation and she needed help from several professionals in character destruction and self-protection.
People need to do twitter. It’s easy to sign up and you don’t have to post. I’ve gotten a lot of information and enjoyment out of it. Reading David Horowitz’s blasts are amazing.
James Woods is still missing, though.
This is excellent, btw.
That's Rule #9 - Specific claims can be hazards because if they are refuted, the gig is up. So everything needs to be vague, ambiguous and easier to shape.
And some people still buy it even nothing is sure other than "Kavanaugh."
Yeah, I know. :-(
It's rotten that Jack Dorsey pulls this crap. What a petulant child.
That's Rule #9 - Specific claims can be hazards because if they are refuted, the gig is up. So everything needs to be vague, ambiguous and easier to shape.
And some people still buy it even though nothing is sure other than "Kavanaugh."
I loved his posts. He must feel so disenfranchised. Are you connected to Horowitz? If you aren’t, do so. He’s exceedingly bad tempered, lol!
“He’s Not Here”
Fun place!
“If this is a background investigation and Ford indicates a relationship with the subject, the FBI must interview Chistine Ford.”
—
I’m not sure how she could not be interviewed - especially having dropped bombshell claims detrimental to Kav’s character.
“Her baby talk manner is how she has manipulated people all her life.”
I think you’re right.
I'm a couple of years younger than Ford but still part of that same Gen-X generation who got to be teenagers during the Reagan years when the rules weren't quite so rigid.
Between high school and college I'm sure I've been to over 100 keg parties. That's what us Gen-X'ers did. We threw keg parties. We went to keg parties. We got drunk.
Now, 25-30 years later, I don't think I could tell you much about these parties, not where they were and certainly not everyone who was there. I'm sure over time my memories have blended together, exchanged some details for others. Maybe Randy was at this party but not that one. Maybe Jennie was at that party but not this one. It's all a blur.
Except one party. There was one party in particular that I remember very well because of a disturbing incident that took place. I remember everything about that party. I could pull up the city on Google Maps street view and walk to the exact address. I've never forgotten.
What? No punch?
Thanks. Always looking for someone worthwhile to follow.
I will say that the people I follow on Twitter is always fluid. I follow, unfollow and then re-follow people with regularity depending on the feeds.
For a time I was even following Chelsea Clinton only because the replies to her tweets were so damn funny! She'd post some uninspiring pablum and then the "your mom should be in jail!" replies started arriving, followed by the tweets of Webb Hubbell pics. I'd be laughing my ass off!
There's a lot of based and whip-smart conservatives on Twitter who are quick to destroy liberals. That's why Jack is woking so hard to ban the popular and influential ones like James Woods.
Something I’ve never seen brought up in all of this. If it was a life changing event, whey didn’t she try to confirm the details later with her best friend?
I go through folks as well. But please try out David Horowitz. That is one angry ex-commie, lol!
Mollie Hemingway also gives out info that isn’t in the mainstream.
We can only hope that the FBI is at least as savvy as the person who wrote this. But so far there is this almost universal effort to protect Ford and her team from any kind of scrutiny about THIER actions.
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.