Christine Blasey Ford believes an untruth
All four people allegedly at the party deny it, but Ford has convinced herself it happened based on her professional understanding of how the brain saves traumatic events.
Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony is completed. Brett Kavanaugh comes later.
Here are some quick takes (in no particular order):
1. Republicans hiring THIS prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, to question Ford was a mistake. Hiring an outside attorney to do the questioning was fine, and hiring a women to do that was politically expedient. But Mitchell was meandering, as if she had several hours to question the witness when she had only about an hour, broken up into 5-minute segments. Mitchell elicited important information, some of which poked substantial holes in Ford’s story. For example, Ford over the last three months has given different accounts as to the year or time frame, how many people were present, and so on.
But this was a political event and Mitchell didn’t try, even respectfully, to score political points. Meanwhile, Democrats turned their 5-minute segments into made-for-TV and made-for-the-internet soundbites. This is what happens when Republicans run scared.
2. Ford believes what she is saying, and that has a lot to do with her profession of being a clinical psychologist. She volunteered a number of times that her memory is certain as to the trauma because — in her clinical assessment — such traumas are preserved by the way the brain works. That was a convenient explanation for why she remembers the minutes of the alleged assault, but very little in the time before and after the alleged assault.
I think Ford has convinced herself she experienced what she experienced, but the need to inject psychological terminology makes me conclude that it is a memory that, while believed, is not necessarily the way the rest of us remember things.
3. Ford has many anxieties that contributed to her claimed PTSD and fears, but those are off limits because she won’t share the therapist notes she showed to WaPo. She admitted there were other “contributing” factors, but fell back on her clinical psychological analysis to dismiss the other factors.
4. Every person Ford identified as being at the party has signed sworn statements that it didn’t happen, including Ford’s female friend who supposedly was there that night. Those are facts that are not dependent on what Ford subjectively believes. She happens to believe something that is not true, which is why she might avoid a polygraph result reflecting deception.
5. Ford’s lawyers and Democrats repeatedly lied to Republicans on the committee. Ford’s lawyers said she wasn’t available to testify earlier because she is afraid of flying. But the testimony was that she flew to D.C. earlier in the summer and regularly flies on airplanes, including long flights overseas. Republicans offered to travel to interview her in California, which offer was rejected, but she didn’t even know it had been offered. Just more cases of Republicans on the committee being played for fools.
6. Ford going public was much more planned than we were led to believe. She hired lawyers and took a polygraph during late July and early August. Why do that if not expecting to go public? That really wasn’t pursued.
7. Ford basically accused her best friend Leland Keyser of submitting a false statement about the party not happening. She said Leland has health problems and just wanted her lawyer to take care of it. Mitchell never followed up on this bombshell. Incompetent.
That Ford turned on her lifelong friend this way says perhaps more about Ford’s credibility than anything else that happened today.
8. Brett Kavanaugh is going to have to argue his case during his testimony, because the prosecutor Republicans hired does not appear to view that as part of her job.
(added)
9. 30,000 foot view: I don’t think Ford did any more damage on substance to Kavanaugh than existed prior to the testimony. So if Republicans goal was to first do no harm, it might have been accomplished. I doubt many minds were changed. I can’t imagine this changed Trump’s mind. The minds that also matter are Collins, Murkowski, Flake and Corker, and probably 2-3 Republican Senators who have not been heard from. Just two minds need to be changed to sink Kavanaugh.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Of course the Roll-Over party is running scared. They can only afford to lose 2 votes from Murkowski, Collins, Corker and Flake. Anything they do that can be played as disrespecting the victim works against them. The Leftists know this and used it to their advantage every step of the way.
Note to deplorables: if you fail to turn out and vote in November you will see this and more for the next 2 years.
We need to call them and push to support!
Yeah…. tell Flake you will not watch him on CNN if he votes NO. That’ll get him in line.
Two years? How about two decades! If this works, it will be used again and again and again. They are depending upon stirring up their loyal base to hysterical levels, and then slinging inaccuracies as if they were facts. Once aroused, their base responds with predictable fury each time, as if on cue. It’s called ‘Mob Rule.’ Get it?
They can only afford to lose one vote. They only have 51 to start with, and they need at least 50 plus Pence. If they had a comfortable majority none of this would be happening. They’d have held the vote last week as scheduled, and let Flake & Co go to Hell.
I now get a sick feeling knowing that earlier in my life I had cast even one vote for a Democrat candidate.
The only Democrat I have voted for in over 30 years, was Bill Thompson for mayor of NYC in 2009.
It has been very depressing to listen to this “interrogation” of Prof. Ford by Attorney Mitchell. I just hope that come the Nov. mid-terms the GOP still controls the U.S. Senate. (I’ve almost given up on holding the U.S. House – RealClearPolitics now shows it likely that it will go to the Dem’s 235 – 200.)
We do have 6 weeks left to persuade our fellow GOP voters to get to the polls. The thought of the House going thru impeachment proceedings, endless hostile hearings run by Dem’s….
Another passing note: The lady isn’t too bright. Didn’t know what “exculpatory” meant. Had to ask Ms. Mitchell what it meant. Ford is (allegedly) a psychology professor who routinely deals with sexual assault cases, other people who (likely) come into contact with the legal system, lawyers, etc. It came up when Ms. Mitchell asked her about an FBI background investigation that might reveal either corroborating or exculpatory information for her claims…
That’s because in her world, no one who has been accused ever receives exculpation.
DO NOT believe the RealClearPolitics numbers.
I know for a fact that most of their House race predictions are BASED ON NOTHING! Nothing.
Go look at the individual House races (each has its own page), and 95% have no published polling at all.
Still, nothing new from her.
I thought it was telling that she took the Lie Detector Test on the same day as her Grandmother’s funeral.
Ford was careful not to offer any facts (place, date, time, etc.) that might be proved or disproved. She did slip up last week in saying that she had a phobia of flying, in order to delay the committee meeting. Today, while under oath, she had to backtrack because her flying history can be verified by the TSA.
Not providing any provable details is one of the ten red flags of a false statement. In fact, Ford’s testimony and Feinstein’s handling of the allegation raise nearly all of the ten red flags.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/25/10-red-flags-sexual-assault-claims-employment-lawyer/
The ‘questions’ posed by Mitchell were just more proof that the Republicans on the committee have no balls to end this clown show.
She asked her nothing of substance, failed to ask any of a number of pointed questions that NEED to be answered, wasted time on useless questions, and acted like she was her friend.
You’re not their to be her friend. You’re there to expose her lies.
Had Mitchell been aggressive, the media would be raging at her and Republicans. She was hired to ask mostly softball questions, hoping to score some points with voters who might be watching. She had to do all that without appearing partisan. I don’t know that she could have pleased anyone today.
I think the best thing that can be said is that she didn’t seem to make it any worse for our side.
Also jesus what is up with those GIGANTIC glasses that she never even looks through?
Actually she often looked over them.
Her handlers were trying to hide the crazy eyes. She was wearing them like Chuck Schumer reading glasses.
It’s part of the act. She’s trying to look timid and pathetic.
And the smudges or scratches on them make it appear that she is the absent minded professor toiling away trying to solve the world’s problems in a secluded laboratory.
I would have rather have Trey Gowdy write questions for the Senate committee members to ask.
This was a trial for public opinion where not even a preponderance or even shred of evidence is needed… in fact…. none is needed.
This was political theater and “the play is the thing”. One hires a carpenter to build a house, one does not hire a plumber instead. We are captive to our own professional training at these times. I posit a heavy duty defense lawyer would have been better to DEFEND Kavanaugh.
Ford has subjectively and unconsciously wrapped an event with vague memories, and glued together with her underlying problems which she admits.
The Repubs would rather humbly march to the gas chambers than have a Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Unless this has been groundwork to pull something major out of the hat, This has been the wrong battle plan for the wrong war.
Using this person Mitchell is just the everyday proof that the “leadership” is nothing but INCOMPETENT in EVERY THING !!!!!
With leaders like this we don’t stand a chance !
“Christine Ford believes an untruth.”
C’mon, Professor, you are able to say LIE! Why soften it by saying untruth?
[PDF] cshlp.org
Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory
‘False Memories’ Are More Common Than You Think
Madeleine Kearns,September 26, 2018, NR, “Cognitive scientists have learned that people can be 100 percent certain of their memories . . . and 100 percent wrong.”
Because “lie” implies a deliberate falsehood whereas untruth implies something that is simply not true, even though she may believe it to be.
Kavanaugh has just been thrown to the wolves.
Let’s keep everything into perspective here.
First, short of obtaining a confession from Ford that she was intentionally lying or from Kavanaugh that he did, in fact, commit the act claimed, there is absolutely no way to prove whether this this even happened or, if it did, that Kavanaugh was involved. In other words, there is absolutely NO case against Brett Kavanaugh. And, because we do not know when it happened, where it happened or any other pertinent details about the incident, there is no way that Kavanaugh can defend himself. Which was the Democrat plan all along.
Mitchell is not an advocate for Kavanaugh. She was brought in to protect cover for the Republican members of the Committee, so that they would not have to appear to be harassing a victim. In that vein, Mitchell can not be seen to be conducting an inquisition of Ford. She has to allow Ford to impeach herself. Which Ford managed to do by changing her previous testimony, while casting doubt upon her veracity during the questioning of her fear of flying and on why she did not simply agree to host Committee investigators in California. When confronted with the fact that her best friend had given a statement that failed to corroborate Ford’s statements, Ford essentially accused her friend of lying. Thereby making the case that it is equally likely that Ford is lying. IN fact, as none of the witnesses corroborate Ford and all corroborate Kavanaugh, at least indirectly, Ford essentially becomes Chicken Little.
Kavanaugh will probably be equally believable, at least. And, as there is no way that he can categorically prove that Ford is either lying or mistaken, there will be little real results from this hearing, except a media circus, which is going to be largely pro-Ford and anti-Kavanaugh no matter what happens. People who want to believe Ford, in the absence of any corroborating evidence will still believe her. So, this is all a big waste of time on the part of the Republicans.
All of which doesn’t matter. They did what they had to do – give protective cover to Collins, Murkowski and Flake to vote in the negative.
ditto this is all theatre for a public that demands blood be drawn and that it be messy and painful.
The decision- whatever it is, has been made. It just hasn’t been revealed to us.
With Trump being the smartest man in any of these equations, I’m curious as to what is going on behind the scenes.
But they don’t have cover. If they kill this confirmation and the GOP base stays home in the midterms, it will eviscerate the entire GOP establishment.
Collins and Murkowski will be directly to blame, obviously. Maybe Flake and Corker too, but they can’t be held as accountable.
But if the GOP loses control of the Senate, McConnell and every other GOP chairman will lose their current job. And unlike the Democrats, our party still punishes failure by removing bad leadership.
Given the already high displeasure with leadership, I don’t see how McConnell retains the leadership position. And like most former leaders, once you lose that title there’s not much point in continuing in Congress.
There’s no way to cover up a failure of that magnitude, and the voter base will not be in the mood for excuses.
Right …. but will it play in Peoria?
Mac45… I hope so.
What it all boils down to is the Republicans covering their rears while not doing anything to support Kavanaugh. Gee, thanks guys.
Perfectly said.
Update:
Kavanaugh and the Republicans went through the Dems like Sherman through Georgia.
Revealing the fact that the Republican committee members may actually have had a strategy, Kavanaugh came in like a wolverine and savaged the Democrat members of the committee without ever directly impugning Ford. The Republican members of the committee doubled and tripled down, by directly attacking the the Democrat members of the committee for having no desire to arrive at the truth of the matter by refusing to take part in the committee’s investigation after concealing the charges for over a month. Open warfare has now broken out within the Senate, traditionally the most staid and sane part of the US government. While this is refreshing to see, it does not bode well for the peaceful existence of the nation, as a whole. Judge Kavanaugh was probably very prescient when he said that the Democrats had sown the wind and the rest of the nation was going to reap the whirlwind.
I don’t disagree that they savaged them, but DEFINITELY disagree that this was a strategy.
They were cowering in the trenches until Kavanaugh stood up and screamed TAKE THE HILL and charged, they had no choice but to follow.
Perhaps. But, the Republicans on the committee are, by and large, old hands. It is a little bit naive to think that they went into this hearing without a strategy which would allow them to persevere in getting Kavanaugh confirmed while protecting them from charges of bullying Ford.
In hindsight, a god case can be made that the Republicans used Mitchell as cover to gently tease out any new information and reduce Ford’s credibility while covering them. In the second phase, Kavanaugh, in a very uncharacteristic mean attacks the Dems on the committee like a wolverine. The Republic members of the committee continue this strategy, asking Kavanaugh almost no questions while attacking the Dems. The strategy was to attack the process, not the accuser. It does not appear to have been decided on, on the fly.
The rip-job you were expecting was never going to happen. That was the bait and they wisely passed on it.
That was campaign fodder for November that the donkeys were looking to put in attack ads, debates, and other spots. The GOP actually did smart there, as frustrating as it is to sit back and let the D’s put on a little dog and pony show.
No matter what happened in the hearing, the media would portray her as telling the truth about the assault. Even if she broke down crying that she lied about it, it would have been twisted to be Kavanaugh’s fault that she lied about lying about it.
I understand why the Republicans did what they did in having a woman ask the questions, but it was weak sauce. I think she treated the whole thing as gathering information for a later trial rather than working to cut the story to ribbons.
I found her huge mood/demeanor swings problematic. Ford when from tearful and quivering voice to cheerful like a switch being thrown. I don’t know what to believe about her as a person in general. She is educated, yet pushed the dumb blonde routine. Gaps in memory can happen, but not to the extent that hers did. It seemed far too purposeful to not remember big details which could be investigated, all the while telling details of a story which seemed more crafted together of other tales.
My personal opinion is that she is psychotic. The mood shifts were too quick. Plays smart and stupid depending on what pushes her story. The claims of being not political was laughable, given her activities through many years.
I still see her as an opportunist who used her history and timeline to taint Kavanaugh for political purposes.
She has issues from this, PTSD, had to have some odd second front door (which I still don’t understand how that fits into anything) yet allows people to stay over that she doesn’t really know.
The polygraph is bogus. The not remembering when it was given, the day of or day after her grandmother’s funeral? Seriously? I guess both were PTSD events as well, so details won’t be remembered.
She must be a great professor, she can’t grade you poorly because she won’t remember things, so you just need to talk to her to tell her she told you otherwise the day before.
I wonder how the Republicans will handle questioning Kavanaugh.
UnTruth. UnPerson. She’s a progressive.
She has been, and clearly is, a liar.
By the way, if she is telling the truth about her being assaulted by Kavanaugh (or even if she is not, but believes that she is), there is NO rational reason for her to have lied about having a fear of flying OTHER THAN to delay the hearing, and therefore she is at the very least intentionally trying to stop Kavanaugh’s being appointed to the Supreme Court, which then means she is also lying when she claims that she is not political, or politically-motivated about this case.
Here is a doctor (not physician) diagnosing herself and directing treatment. Two paths… affirmation of symptoms or discreditation of them. It would appear all she has been doing is reinforced her memory rather than challenging it. She turns to friends to affirm her beliefs and when they don’t or can’t reaffirm her beliefs they are ignored or that (a best friend) is “sick”. She applies a whole bunch of mumbo-jumbo chemistry to back it up. Sad but now seen as very dangerous to others.
” This is what happens when Republicans run scared.”
When don’t they run scared?
“Christine Blasey Ford believes an untruth.”
I disagree. Ford believes in the righteousness of her cause. Full stop.
This…this woman is not well.
If we head into the November election after the GOP failed to confirm Kavanaugh, after they failed again to block an obscene spending bill, after they failed to fund the wall, after they again funded Planned Parenthood, after they failed to repeal ObamaCare, and I could go on, what would be the point of even voting?
Trump MUST veto the spending bill and hold it hostage from the senators pending confirmation. Kavanaugh MUST be confirmed. Then we can talk about the spending bill. Trump MUST make it very clear that the GOP is at least as big a problem as the Democrats. Make them suffer.
I do NOT believe she actually thinks that Kavanaugh was involved and I doubt the event even happened. Something even milder than she describes might have happened that she has embellished on. But telling the truth…no way….she’s lying for the cause
With those glasses she looks like Christine from the Stephen King novel.
2nd thot, I take that back. The Chrysler did not have drooping skin and a squawking voice.
She lied about flying means she lied to Congress and should be treated accordingly. Also, to the Party of Stupid, aka republicans, how much friggin’ effort is it to go to TSA and find out if, how many times and how often someone named Christine Blasey Ford boarded an airplane?
Ford believes what she is saying, and that has a lot to do with her profession of being a clinical psychologist. She volunteered a number of times that her memory is certain as to the trauma because — in her clinical assessment — such traumas are preserved by the way the brain works.
Except that would be crashingly wrong, and is known to be wrong. Severe psychological trauma plays hob with memory. At the same time it fixes specific details in the victim’s mind, it also distorts those details, or substitutes other memories in for the real ones. Victims are absolutely, unquestioningly certain of those memories because they are so vivid, but it’s not hard to demonstrate that those memories are extremely unreliable.
Ford’s behaviour is consistent with complex PTSD, and I believe that 1) something did happen to her and b) it was significanty worse than she’s described, but also iii) it had nothing to do with any of the people she’s accused. I’m about 50-50 on whether she believes what she’s saying.
THIS. Right here, would have been the hill to make the case on, and this is EXACTLY where an experienced DEFENSE attorney in Sex Crimes would have been a better choice than a prosecutor.
Someone who could disassemble her “memory” and question her intelligently about how the brain distorts memory during trauma. They SHOULD have put Dr. Ford on the defensive being able to discuss her experience in treating any individuals in her own clinical practice. The proper way to do this would have been;
Dr. Ford, you’ve expressed your clinical assessment of yourself, let’s follow up on that: If a patient, suffering from PTSD came to you, and said “I don’t know when, and I can’t even narrow it down to a particular year, month or day, I don’t know where exactly it occurred and I can’t remember how I got there or how I left, but I do know that this particular terrible thing happened to me” and described a short sequence of events, how would you treat that patient?
Would YOU question the memory of that person as to the veracity of their statements? Would YOU delve deeper into that person’s motivations regarding incorrect association between events and people? You’re a professional, please enlighten us.
Any attempt to put her on trial and make her look bad would be reflected back on the GOP. They made the smart move, actually. We are all frustrated but imagine how frustrated they are and Kavanaugh is. Yet, you notice that he carefully never took to attacking her or her (lack of) specifics.
Those of you that wanted her humiliated are not smart enough to steer the boat. By the way, I’m the farthest thing from a GOP loyalist. I’m not even registered with them. I’ve been indy since 2008, but I think that dream is dying too thanks to tribalism.
The questioning left many real problems in her story unexplored.
First is the knowledge of this upstairs bathroom. She knew well enough where this upstairs bathroom was, and later knew she could run and hide in this bathroom. Yet she has no memory of what house this was?
Another is running from the house, leaving her friend in the hands of violent men without warning?
I don’t think she believes it. She’s a coached and practiced liar. She could produce the sniveling sounds, but not the tears. Odd for a woman.
Has anyone examined what Dr Ford has been teaching or practicing? Or the TYPE of therapy that she was receiving? Is she a believer in recovered memories. Has no one heard of false memory syndrome? That would explain absolutely everything about Ford’s testimony and polygraph test. IF–and I am not saying that this is the case–this is the result of a recovered memory, or even if Ford believes in the theory of repressed memories, as detailed in the NYT best-seller “The Courage to Heal,” she could absolutely believe that she had been assaulted even if it were absolutely false.
The research done by Elizabeth Loftus and others has proven that memory can be manipulated, and is frequently manipulated by believers and practitioners of recovered memory therapy. The False Memory Syndrome Foundation has been providing information about this since 1992.
Does no one remember the McMartin preschool case? These people’s lives were destroyed by false accusations which turned out to have been implanted in children’s minds by the therapists.
Why is no one investigating this?