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.