Kavanaugh accuser’s initial request for confidentiality does not bolster the truthfulness of her accusations
It much more likely reflects that she throught she could take down Trump’s nominee the way #TheResistance has been trying to take down Trump, based on anonymous sourcing.
It’s too early to say how the Brett Kavanaugh nomination will end. Certainly, things are moving in his direction.
If accuser Christine Blasey Ford does not appear at Monday’s hearing, several of the wavering Republicans have signaled they want to go forward with a vote.
The evidence also is moving in Kavanaugh’s favor. Two people accuser Christine Blasey Ford said were at the party at which the alleged assault took place deny being at any such party. One of those two people specifically denies being present or seeing Ford assaulted by Kavanaugh despite Ford saying he was present. A fourth person allegedly present has not been identified or come forward.
The conduct of Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee is giving weak Republicans some backbone.
Not only did Dianne Feinstein sit on the accuser’s letter since July, she has not given Chuck Grassley an unredacted copy of the letter. It also comes out that the accuser met with her congresswoman, to whom she originally sent the letter, and also reached out to the Washington Post via a Tip Line.
This all is looking more and more like a set up, a deliberate roll-out which started sometime in August.
Democrats repeatedly assert that the accuser’s request for confidentiality both to Congress and the Washington Post is evidence she is telling the truth. She never wanted to make this into a circus, they say, and never wanted her name public, so this is not politically motivated.
Then why contact both your Congresswoman and WaPo, her critics say? I think that’s a fair, but not complete response.
The mistake people are making is assuming that the request for confidentiality was inconsistent with this being a political attack. In fact, it’s completely consistent in the current media and political environment.
Two years of innuendo and conspiracy theories about Trump and Russia have been fed by media reporting based on anonymous sources. Almost everything breaking news cycle is based on reports from unnamed sources. Can you name a major media story about Trump-Russia that was not based on unnamed sources.
So why not a media take down aimed at Trump’s nominee based on unnamed sources? You couldn’t blame someone for thinking that was possible.
If you are someone who wanted to take down Brett Kavanaugh, there is every reason to think that it could be done without your name being used.
That didn’t work. Through July and August the accusation was kept secret by Sen.Dianne Feinstein, the congresswoman and WaPo. It was in August that Ford with her attorneys took those steps to prepare for the day when her name became public.
Then someone leaked to The Intercept that the letter existed. Who did that? Is it out of the realm of possibility that someone associated with Ford got it done? I don’t think so, considering that the approach to WaPo went nowhere, not even a leak that the letter existed.
Perhaps Ford thought her name still would stay out of it. But non-WaPo reporters buzzing around the story forced her hand. So she put her story out there on her own terms through WaPo, being sure to shape the narrative by feeding WaPo the results of the lie detector test arranged by Ford’s lawyer, and portions of therapist notes selected by Ford or her attorneys.
Ford’s initial request for confidentiality does not bolster the truthfulness of her accusations.
It much more likely reflects that she through she could take down Trump’s nominee the way #TheResistance has been trying to take down Trump, based on anonymous sourcing.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Moveon.org endorsed the Kavanaugh victim, without seeing any evidence. They also endorsed Keith Ellison, despite documented evidence of reported abuse by two victims, Amy Alexander in 2005 and Karen Monahan in 2017.
Keith Ellison’s ex-girlfriend has vocally come out, recently, pointing out the glaring disparity between how Dumb-o-crat pols and the media have treated her and her allegations against Ellison — which are quite substantive and grounded in actual evidentiary supports — with those leveled against Kavanaugh. And, she’s absolutely right to point out the hypocrisy.
As per usual, Dumb-o-crat notions of morality and outrage are entirely malleable, capricious and selective, dictated by political considerations and self-serving machinations.
For me the tell is the Polygraph. Who takes one in advance of having their veracity questioned?
Did she suspect she wasn’t telling the truth and wanted to check it out?
Or was she planning ahead and saving time by getting it done in advance? BTW before I’ll believe what she says about the session, I want to see the videos and the questions.
I’d phrase that somewhat differently: Did she think that she was a good enough liar to pass a polygraph?
A polygraph does not detect psychotics.
If this is a repressed memory issue then she would actually believe what she is saying and easily pass a test. The fact that she didn’t actually mention Kavanaugh’s name in 2012 tells me that she was blind drunk at the “Party” and has slowly filled in the blanks over time with names of people she remembered from her school time but not necessarily at a party. From a law viewpoint, this is a non-story that would rate right up there with “My dog ate my homework”.
I spent 20 years in the Navy. Specifically naval intelligence. So I have a question. Why does the general public have any faith in polygraph tests?
All the polygraph does is measure physiological responses to questions. Heart rate, respiratory rate, blood pressure, and skin conductivity (sweaty skin is more conductive than dry skin). Then the examiner makes an arbitrary decision about whether those responses indicate deception or not. They do, in SOME people. But nobody knows in which people.
I never thought I’d agree with Hillary Clinton about anything, and I despise her conduct when she destroyed a twelve y.o. girl’s life to get a child rapist off the hook back in the seventies. But I agree with her reaction when the child rapist who she knew was guilty as sin took the polygraph:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2658801/I-never-trusted-polygraph-Hillary-Clinton-LAUGHS-recalls-helped-suspected-child-rapist-walk-free-prosecution-lost-crucial-evidence.html
“‘I had him take a polygraph, which he passed – which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,’ she says with a laugh.”
She knew her client was guilty as sin. But he passed the test*
In this case it isn’t that her attorneys, most likely Katz, cared if she’s telling the truth. Polygraphs can’t prove that. It’s just window dressing to impress a gullible public. So I don’t need to see videos, I don’t need to see the questions. I don’t care. It’s meaningless.
*Pro tip: if you’re ever arrested and the police want you to take a polygraph, don’t bother. It’s a lose-lose situation because the police already think you’re guilty. And if you pass the test the police examiner isn’t going to change his/her mind. The examiner will just think you beat the test like Clinton’s client did. That ought to tell you something; not even the polygraph examiners believe their own test results.
LITERALLY nothing about this entire saga is credible.
EVERYTHING that this political hack has done demonstrates that this is just a partisan political hit job.
She took a polygraph and scrubbed her social media weeks before word of the letter even leaked. She EXPECTED to get exposed. She was counting on it. She tried to play the ‘reluctant accuser’ card, but it failed miserably.
NOTHING about either this woman or her laughable story deserve any consideration. She is either a liar or a mental whack job. And refusing to testify until the FBI ‘investigates’ points strongly to her just being a liar.
What the hell does she expect them to investigate? A tiny teenage gathering sometime in the summer 36 years ago somewhere in suburban Maryland? She can’t even provide a MONTH or a NEIGHBORHOOD, for god’s sake, much less an actual date and location.
From the outset Lefty Ford and her lefty friends had control of the situation, but only until the trap is sprung. From that point on there’s no predicting where things might go. It’s pretty clear now that they didn’t think this out too well. “What if” is a tough but necessary game to play.
This post is a good rundown of how this played out, but there is one part where I think there could be an alternate explanation. I believe that Ford *always* intended to remain anonymous, but that when the attack started to fall apart when Republicans didn’t panic, dem staffers who had copies of the letter decided to force her hand and release her name.
I also think there is some undisclosed reason why Ford knows that she will be destroyed if she ever allows herself to be questioned publicly. So she will do anything to keep from being questioned.
Why does no one on the Left teach their kids about pulling pins on hand grenades?
Well, it is pretty obvious she counted to five instead of three and now is saying “Holy Mother of Pelosi, what have I gotten myself into, the Judicial Inquisition!”
So much for the comfy chair that she was expecting instead of the killer rabbit.
When you stare into the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch stares back.
I believe that Ford *always* intended to remain anonymous,
So she took a Polygraph in advance of this coming out? Who does that?
It was planned from the get go.
it smells to me like multiple people have been running multiple plans, and none of them have coordinated with each other. And with no records produced, I don’t think I quite believe the “polygraph” story. At best, it consisted of her lawyer reading a script to which all parties had previously agreed to, with a flunky sitting behind the machine and “certifying” the so-called results.
One of the more interesting aspects of this case is the question what was the problem in her marriage that led to her supposed memory of attempted rape from years before. The Committee should subpoena the full text of the therapist’s notes. Since she has made public
part of those notes she has forfeited any claim to right of privacy against their full release
If it walks like a duck…
Democrats stall worse than my first car in 1982 or was it 1983?
Yes. From 1982 until 1983.
And yet a gaggle of FBI, and DOJ who have been documented as doing criminal acts are free and walking the streets. When will the legal guild clean up it’s mess?
That is sessions’ job. But as we see, sessions is who needs to be cleaned out.
Lock him up.
Friend of CBF basically says that other boys engaged in such behavior but not BK.
Sorry. https://youtu.be/EAbbr3z00u0
She literally begged to be in this position.
Why would you think that? Just because she states she was one of two girls at a party in a private home with no adults in the home, adult beverages and four testosterone fueled teenage boys?
Oh, you meant now?
So a couple of high school kids got drunk on someones liquor cabinet and started playing around and it turns in to rape. Give me a break.
Booze Beer Sex and Wine, We are the Class of 79! Sorry Leave it to Beaver was dead by then.
I don’t know what world these people making claims live in.
Again, this is the liberal projecting their qualities on everyone else and streaming OMG!
Lets cut the drama and bust the Fusion GPS and the DNC machine of self importance. We have a country that needs running.
The alleged victim has a doctorate! Don’t try to tell me she couldn’t see any of this coming.
Also, this resembles the anonymous, but always “credible” source for an article, usually negative, about a conservative and/or conservative position. Just make up something to fit the narrative, publish/broadcast the story, others news outlets will pick it up, no one will challenge it, and presto: instant veracity. It’s been working for a long time now.
A doctorate in Psychology, which for me is evidence enough. Those people self-select; they are attracted to the field because they themselves are messed up and badly in need of help. She’s a nut job who invented the story to have a “reasonable explanation” of her looney behaviour when caught in a corner during couple’s therapy.
Alternatively all that professional education and preparation meant she didn’t understand that she needed psych assistance until 2012?
This isn’t even close to being over. Think about it…each time things look good for Kav to be confirmed, the Dems come back with a new plan to derail things. They still have their medium term goal…to peel off 2 Repub Senators. They thought they had it in the bag, then Collins came back with the idea that “to be fair”, both should appear and testify. Now things have been radio silent for two days while the Dems plot their next move to keep the goal alive….to peel off two Repub votes.
I fully expect Ford to NOT testify, but instead there will be a new, corroborating anonymous witness with more details….details that are more horrendous to get those 2 votes. My guess is this should drop Sunday since they know the Repibs can’t change anything about Monday if something drops late.
Apparently one popped up. Claimed it was common scuttlebutt in the HS days after the incident. Some naysayers pointed out that Ford claimed it happened in the summer and she never told anyone until the therapist and her husband in 2012. The woman, who admitted that she opposed Kavanaugh’s appointment even before this, promptly eliminated her facebook entry (or the whole account, not sure which) with a twitter comment that she was getting too many requests for interview (what did she expect?) and her post had the desired effect (whatever that was).
If Soros operatives WERE putting out a fake accusation then Mark Judge would be the perfect patsy to set up as the supposed witness whose testimony would be needed to clear Kavanaugh. As a young adult Judge wrote a book of recollections about high school drinking, partying, girls and hijinx, a category of “non-fiction” that is ALWAYS at least 50% fiction. If he were to submit to questioning he would be quickly revealed to be an epic serial liar whose taint would be used to paint Kavanaugh (“his only witness,” etcetera).
Was the friendship between Kavanaugh and Judge public knowledge in 2012? Or maybe Ford actually knew these guys a little. She certainly knew people who did.
Judge’s books were published before well before 2012 and a Kavanaugh is mentioned in one of them. Even if Ford did not know them personally she could have used his book to help concoct her story.
Oh, I expect they’ll drop the next planned grenade Sunday. But I think Grassley has the balls to deal with it. I’m impressed with that guy.
I just read an article about Eshoo meeting with Ford for 90 minutes shortly after Ford gave her the letter to forward to Feinstein. Made me laugh. Eshoo said there’s ‘not a political bone in her body.’ This, about a woman who’s been photographed marching in a pussyhat, who has been very politically active in left-wing causes according to numerous sources.
Even if the accusations were true, I *still* would not be convinced that that would be a valid reason to reject his nomination to the SCOTUS.
I totally don’t believe it, but even if I did, it still seems absurd.
This is a filibuster by other means.
Shouldn’t they go after Kavanaugh for underage drinking?
They have tried everything else.
Her high school purged its yearbooks from the internet, but of course, excerpts are showing up.
Since their authenticity is not verified, I will not go into detail, except to say that the resemble scenes from Animal House.
If they looked like my yearbooks, they would not have been taken down.
In her letter to Sen. Feinstein Ford said:
“They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help………From across the room a very drunken REDACTED said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from “go for it” to “stop.” ”
How can the music be so loud as to prevent her screaming, but low enough to hear Mark Judge’s words to Kavanaugh from ACROSS the room? Usually with loud music you have to scream across the room to be heard, even then you often have cross the room so the person can hear you clearly.
She can’t have it both ways, too loud for people to hear her screams, but still able to hear someone talking from across the room? Really? Come on!
In addition to exposing Dems for the trash they have become, we also see that the Rep party needs to rid itself of weak spineless Republicans.
You are not cynical enough.
Nobody is talking about how Democrats learned about Anita Hill. Hill did NOT come forward.
One of the Democrat front groups, the Alliance for Justice, claimed to have heard rumors that Hill had been harassed years earlier. They informed Senate Democrats about the rumors. Dems sent their investigators to interview her. During the first interview, Hill was told about these rumors of Thomas’s harassing behavior. However, she was not told the rumors were about her.
Hill did not volunteer that she’d been harassed. She told them the rumors need to be investigated, but she offered them no information about her own supposed experience. The Democrat investigators were persistent. If I remember right, it took two or three more contacts before she began to recollect incidents and share them. Ultimately she typed up a four page statement after lots of contact with Dem investigators and FBI interviews.
It’s all in the Fleming Report. A report published after the Senate investigated to try to find out who which Democrat betrayed Hill’s trust by leaking her confidential statement to Nina Totenberg and a reporter at Newsday. Hill had been adamant that she wanted to remain anonymous. The leak to the press was meant to flush her out in the open and make it very hard for her to refuse to testify publicly. It worked.
http://anitahillcase.com/wp-content/themes/anita/pdf/Fleming-Report.pdf
Point being, Hill did not voluntarily “come forward”. The driving force, initially, was the Alliance for Justice.
Dr. Ford scrubbed her social media accounts. There’s some evidence she was very political prior to these accusations. She may have been coordinating with a left wing group similar to the Alliance for Justice. Earlier this year Soros funded a group called Demand Justice, run by Brian Fallon, a hard core left wing activist who has been associated with Priorities USA, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, Schumer, and one of the Democrat’s cable TV propaganda arms, CNN.
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/demand-justice/
Excellent analysis. Thank you.
The gatewaypundit is reporting that CBF used to work for a company whose sole product was RU-486 and has written several papers about it.
>>>>> CHRISTINE BLASEY-FORD MOTIVE: REVENGE – KAVANAUGH’S MOTHER JUDGE AGAINST PARENTS IN FORECLOSURE CASE 1996
>>>>>
>>>>> Martha G. Kavanaugh, the mother of Brett Kavanaugh was a Maryland district judge in 1996. In an amazing coincidence, Martha Kavanaugh was the judge in a foreclosure case in which Christine Blasey-Ford’s parents were the defendants. Now it all becomes clear. Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh, not because of what he did in high school. Instead, Christine Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh out of spite and revenge for a case rulled on by Brett Kavanaugh’s mother. Martha Kavanaugh, Brett’s mother was Montgomery County Circuit Court judge from 1993 until she retired in 2001. During a 1996 foreclosure case, Martha Kavanaugh ruled against the parents of Christine Blasey-Ford in a foreclosure case.
>>>>> The foreclosure case against Paula K. Blasey and Ralph G. Blasey was opened on August 8, 1996. The case number is 156006V.
She was one of, if not the, last Judge on that case. And the case actually ended with a negotiated settlement which left the Blaseys with the house and a repayment plan, signed off on by State Judge Kavanaugh IIRC.
This story is a distraction intended to give the impression that conservatives “buy” easily disproven stories.
I think she’d like to show up on Monday. give a prepared speech, and then go home.
And she may do just that. For who would dare cut off her microphone?
And if this is followed by an attempt at cross-examination, well, she’ll either remain silent, or respond with a canned reply. As far as I know, no one has the right to compel answers.
If that’s what happens I’d expect this to rally her more rabid partisans, but probably not sway the wobbly votes.
BTW, Caitlin Flanagan has written “I Belive Her (When I was in high school, I faced my own Brett Kavanaught)” article for Atlantic Magazine. That’s what I expect from Atlantic, but, based on her prior work, I expected better from Flanagan.
Although Flanagan does offer “If it’s not true, Kavanaugh should be confirmed without a cloud of suspicion” in the final paragraph, it’s depressing to think she just misses the entire burden-of-proof issue.
She can do that. Give an opening statement, break down at the end of it due to stress, be taken out of the committee by friendly support personnel who then sadly inform the committee that she’s unable to return because the criticism/death threats/intimidation of the Evil Republicans. That’s really what I expect.
Are they pulling a Trayvon and using a picture of her at age 12?
In a WaPo program on NPR last night, they were discussing about how the accuser here had nothing to gain by coming forward and that gives her credibility. And Kavanaugh is lying because he has everything to lose by telling the truth and admitting he did it.
.
This doesn’t hold up. Leftists are willing to do crazy irrational things regardless of the consequences. Consider the Lefty nutcase who tried to pick off Republicans during an early morning baseball practice. To everyone else he seemed normal right up until it made sense to him to travel to D.C. to shoot him some Republicans.
Or Anita Hill. Even though she didn’t bring down Clarence Thomas, she wound up with a better paying sinecure at a better university, a book deal (IIRC) and well remunerated appearances before Leftist groups. It cost her nothing, even her reputation (in academe) was improved.
Books, not just one.
Christine Blaisey-Ford — “Long live abortion!!”
‘There are two relevant quotes. The first characterizes the senior girls as sexual predators upon younger boys:
“Other seniors preferred to expand their horizons and date younger men, usually sophomores, who could bring the vitality and freshness of innocence to a relationship.” The Holton girls clearly portray themselves as the sexual predators here’.
Wednesday, September 19, 2018
WHY CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD’S HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOKS WERE SCRUBBED: Faculty Approved Racism, Binge Drinking and Promiscuity
https://cultofthe1st.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-christine-blasey-fords-high-school_19.html