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.
The only way through this is the aggressive prosecution of any that appear before Congress , or the FBI , and perjure themselves .
That is also about the only way old Jeff Sessions could redeem himself as well ; dam the torpedoes !( Left-Liberal hew & cry ) Vigorous prosecution and federal penalties applied to the liars and perjurers . Heads role....
No, she didn’t. She asked him questions during the first few rounds, and then she remained seated where she had been the rest of the day.
...more likely to have happened...
...demonstrate there is Pc...
Have a nice Sunday1
A body language expert didn’t believe her either.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uGxr1VQ2dPI&ebc=ANyPxKpJhGebcd589e4Rcudu0dOt1LZlFXpgKELfS2Gkm2BVAPcr7G57n8R0Vcw5l6ZSDgsU8OgwuRSny-0YUof3VxrfpyzG3Q
Body language expert analyzes Ford
The only way ANY SANE Person could believe her story is by the Visual Stimulation accompanying the testimony.
I challenge Everyone to LISTEN ONLY to her Testimony, no Picture to dazzle your mind with. Any Clear thinking individual that does so will quickly realize it is nothing more than a Scripted Performance and she comes off as an UNEDUCATED PATHETIC TEENAGER that is Clueless to everyday life.
Christine Blasey Ford is crazy. I don’t believe anything happened.
while it may be politically correct to describe her as ‘believeable’, in reality she came across as a loon. How do we believe a person who can’t even remember what she shared with a reporter? How do we believe a person who summarizes a medical record instead of presenting the original? How do we believe a person when every single named witness (and a dozen of those not named) emphatically contradicts her?
Call her believable to avoid a defamation suit, but nobody believes she is believable.
And as an aside, can somebody please tell me why, when she takes off her glasses, she always manages to trap hair inside her frames, so, in a few minutes, she has to take her glasses off again, to trap more hair inside her frames? Is that an east coast thing? Because it drove me nuts
I don’t find her story believable or credible in any way.
Her claims may be POSSIBLE but with no evidence or corroboration they are not PROBABLE OR CREDIBLE, especially with the counter evidence given by Kav.
I say she was dropping acid in high school during these parties. Prove me wrong.
imo her testimony was compelling but not credible it would compell a reasonable person to look for confirmation, motive and discrepencies..
those who find her believable probably still believe in the easter bunny santa claus and that life is fair..
it was totally scripted and her performance was poor imo.
The headline says that she is a “good” liar, then. LOL
Absolutely correct and during those three rounds of questioning Judge K, Rachel Mitchell got him on the record under oath directly refuting every single allegation of Ford so no one could claim the denials in his opening statement were not specific to her allegations.
Something else Rachel Mitchell did in questioning Judge K was really subtle, but highly effective. Before going into detail on Judge K's calendar, she first asked him if it had been changed at all since 1982 to which he answered no. That set up the huge contrast that Judge K's 36 year-old exculpatory submitted materials were unchanged while Ford's two month-old accusatory submitted materials had to be corrected by her that morning because she found errors in them. And while we're at it, it was Rachel Mitchell who gave Ford the opportunity to make those changes and walk right in to that trap.
And as an aside, can somebody please tell me why, when she takes off her glasses, she always manages to trap hair inside her frames, so, in a few minutes, she has to take her glasses off again, to trap more hair inside her frames? Is that an east coast thing? Because it drove me nuts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Because the glasses were a prop and she wasn’t used to wearing them.
I think they just described the average street con man....”Psst! Hey buddy...........”
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.
