Posted on 09/30/2018 12:39:06 PM PDT by Kaslin
WASHINGTON -- Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her in 1982 when they were high school students, came across as genuine and believable as she testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday.
Maybe Ford was telling the truth, but she offered no substantial corroboration for her charge against Kavanaugh.
Ford cannot say when the alleged incident occurred or where. She named three people whom she put at the house party where the misconduct allegedly occurred. All three have denied knowing anything about the incident under penalty of felony. (Ford also testified under penalty of felony.)
Ford has accused Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's friend, of participating in the incident, so she suggested it's no surprise if Judge denied her charge. But the other two, P.J. Smyth and Leland Ingham Keyser, issued statements denying any knowledge as well.
Through her attorney, Keyser, a long-time friend of Ford's from high school, also stated that she does not know Kavanaugh.
Ford has a therapist's notes from a marriage counseling session in 2012 in which she discussed the alleged event without naming Kavanaugh and she passed a polygraph test. But that's not enough to meet the burden of proof.
The media narrative about this story is that women who accuse men decades after alleged abuse should be believed because victims frequently don't report offenses. That takes the burden off the accuser and dumps it on the accused.
By her own account, Ford did not tell a soul about the incident until she got married in 2002. There is no contemporary corroboration.
Asked about Keyser's statement, Ford could only shrug, "Leland has significant health challenges and I'm happy that she's focusing on herself."
"She let me know that she needed her lawyer to take care of this for her, and she texted me right afterward with an apology," Ford added.
Ford also said that she would have preferred to be interviewed by committee staff in California -- somehow unaware that Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, had publicly offered to arrange just that.
At one point, Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona prosecutor brought in to question both Ford and Kavanaugh -- although she disappeared during Kavanaugh's testimony -- asked Ford how she got to Washington.
"In an airplane," Ford replied -- an answer that contradicted her lawyers' contention that she could not testify earlier because of her fear of flying. Ford's answer suggested that her lawyers were working in concert with Democrats to delay a vote on Kavanaugh's nomination in the hopes that they take back the Senate in the upcoming midterm elections.
There's nothing wrong with Democrats trying to delay a confirmation vote, but there is something foul in the character assassination techniques they've used to jam the works.
In their attempts to delay a vote, some Democrats have jumped from demanding an FBI investigation not only on the Ford charge, but also on flimsy stories such as a New Yorker piece about a former Yale classmate who accused Kavanaugh of exposing himself at a booze-filled dormitory party. The New York Times also reported on the accusation while noting it could not corroborate the charge.
A third woman accused Kavanaugh of being at parties at which girls were gang raped -- something it is impossible to believe the FBI would have missed during its six background checks of Kavanaugh.
The very notion that it is acceptable to use someone's high school behavior -- worse, alleged high school behavior -- offends all sense of fairness, as critics judge a man not by the life he has built and the friends he holds closely, but by the cable news tornado that began as an anonymous accusation.
Last year, Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump's first Supreme Court selection, did not face charges of sexual misconduct. Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., asked Kavanaugh why Gorsuch didn't face similar allegations if this was merely partisan mischief.
In 2017, the Democrats were stunned. In 2018, after a year of sparring with Trump, they're looking for payback, and they're not exactly particular about how they get it.
Debra Saunders and Townhall are pretty conservative and not Trump haters.
Her article was negative on Ford and the democRATS and positive on Kavanaugh.
Unless I'm missing something that you read that would require a barf alert, none is needed.
IMHO. :-)
Believe ? my okole... Yet another lying Liberal lemming ,who feels they have the right to lie and perjure themselves because they are Liberals and their is no accountability for lying Liberals ( ie: Obama, Clinton and a host of others) I say this Kankles Ballsy Fraud should be federally prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if it can be showed she did in fact intentionally lie . Make an example of her that is so severe it will cause other liars waiting in the wings to fear for their lives .
Build a guillotine in Lafayette Park
Kamala Harris is stupid for even asking that question.
Gorsuch was confirmed in April 2017.
The Weinstein allegations were not made public until October and the whole #metoo movement developed shortly thereafter.
The Dems didn’t know what a powerful weapon the mere allegation of sexual misconduct could be until six months after Gorsuch was confirmed and that’s the only reason they didnt use it on him.
FFFord probably was really groped.
By one of the 65 guys she had sex with while still in high school.
She is not believable. Valley girl voice and oversized glasses did NOT help. She looked and sounded like a cartoon character.
Not believable in any regard. Acting nervous, Acting dumb is not believable.
How dare you doubt the Martyr of Palo Alto!
How can anyone state the Ford story is believable? Every possible witness of hers says to their knowledge it never happened.
Her account was riddled with half-truths, lies and distortions.
There is no way to believe her story.
If she escaped from the bathroom to leave...and her girlfriend Leyland saw or found that she “escaped” the party afterwards and did not ask her about why she ran...but instead did not have a memory. That would have made for a credible and corrobarative incident.
DK
Has anyone else notice the involvement of Metoo and Moveon...org? Don’t they remember their origins?
But Flake promised if he could just have that opportunity to HEAR her he would decide. Until he didn’t decide. Because he had made arrangements to be “ambushed” by rabid feminists who could not have been there without Flake getting them through security. This entire fiasco is bullshit form one end to the other, too to bottom, and side to side.
Most of those 80s “Girls Gone Wild” can’t remember jacksh*t so Ford shouldn’t feel bad.
No, she’s not, and I’m not going to believe her just because she’s a woman with a little, meek, pretend child’s voice.
Who wouldn’t like find her like totally believable?
IMPORTANT: Although she is not referring to it, Ford is probably using information from Mark Judge’s memoir to add credence to her story.. Of the very few details she has, one is that she saw Judge at Safeway, where he worked that summer. This fact is in his book and that he and buddies drank.
Haven’t you ever fooled someone by telling a story that he believes until you give away the punch line? That’s all there is to “sounding credible.”
Didn’t even understand she was suppose to stand and raise her right hand to be sworn in. How did she get her degrees and be that completely clueless. Maybe she is actually smart as a fox.
Believable. What a stupid thing to say.
The reason some of history’s most infamous psychopath killers have been successful is that they were ... believable. Ted Bundy was a charming, persuasive and believable fellow. This is one reason he was able to kill women for so many years before being caught.
Believable is not the same as truthful. Many accomplished liars are personally charming. Remember Bill Clinton?
https://www.scoopwhoop.com/inothernews/most-charming-serial-killers-ever/
Along with the "probable cause" threshold (or reason to believe the event was more likely to happen than not).
Ford alleges a criminal offense. The criminal court will not allow a party to waste its time unless it can demonstrate it has PC; why should the confirmation process be any different?
For the R's to continue to refer to Ford as a credible witness when by any measure she is not, is not only a disappointment, but IMO a self-defeating tactical error that helps borderline Dem voters rationalize their position.
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.
