Image 01 Image 03

Ed Whelan theory of Christine Ford’s mistaken identification of Kavanaugh ultimately prevailed

Ed Whelan theory of Christine Ford’s mistaken identification of Kavanaugh ultimately prevailed

Susan Collins believed that Ford was sexually assaulted, just not by Kavanaugh, a theory floated by Whelan, though Collins did not name a suspect.

Now that Brett Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court, it’s worth taking a look back at what changed the course of the fight.

Democrats had thrown everything they had at Kavanaugh, including a misleadingly edited video circulated by Sen. Kamala Harris and false accusations of perjury circulated by many Democrats. None of it stuck, in part because of rapid fact response by the administration, Kavanaugh’s team, and non-liberal media.

Then came the leak of a letter Christine Blasey Ford had written to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, on September 13, after the hearings had concluded.

We all suspected that this leak was a set up. We were proven right, as the evidence that came out during and after Ford’s and Kavanaugh’s testimony in late September showed that Ford was working with Democrat activist lawyers recommended by Feinstein, and took steps (including a questionable polygraph) in early August to lay the groundwork for a public rollout. While Ford insisted that she wanted her anonymity preserved, she took preparations suggesting she expected her identity to be made public eventually.

When the Ford letter was leaked, the Kavanaugh nomination was put into turmoil. Kavanaugh vigorously denied the accusations, as did each of the three other people Ford identified as being at the party in question. Both Ford and Kavanaugh would testify, but not until September 27.

Republicans had a tactical problem. The Democrats and #MeToo movement boxed Republicans in by trying to take off the table any attempt to question Ford’s credibility and honesty directly.

In that interim period between the letter surfacing and the Ford/Kavanaugh testimony, Republicans searched for a middle ground, one that would allow them to attack the allegations of sexual assault without attacking Ford personally.

On September 20, 2018, that middle ground came forward when Ed Whelan, a well-known conservative legal writer, someone close to Kavanaugh and his team, and President of The Ethics and Public Policy Center, floated a theory in a Twitter thread asserting that Ford may have been a victim of sexual assault, but that she identified the wrong person. In other words, Ford was not consciously lying, she suffered from a case of mistaken identity.

Whelan published that theory in a Twitter thread for which there had been a big build up. Whelan had teased that there would be information exonerating Kavanaugh, that Ford may have been attacked but not by Kavanaugh. Whelan’s teases were widely shared.

Whelan’s Twitter thread purported to identify the house at which the attack likely took place, based on the descriptions in Ford’s letter, and a fellow student who was not Kavanaugh who lived at that house.

When we looked at the thread, we decided not to run it here or even to link to it. We were not persuaded. It seemed like a case of “correlation does not equate to causation.” More important, Whelan reached too far in identifying a specific person.

There was fierce criticism of Whelan not only from the left, but also from the right. In many ways, the theory seemed to damage Kavanaugh’s nomination, though Whelan denied that Kavanaugh’s team was involved at all.

Whelan quickly apologized for naming a specific person:

I made an appalling and inexcusable mistake of judgment in posting the tweet thread in a way that identified Kavanaugh’s Georgetown Prep classmate. I take full responsibility for that mistake, and I deeply apologize for it. I realize that does not undo the mistake.

I grievously and carelessly wronged the person I identified, and I owe him and his family my deepest apologies. And I of course do not deserve to have him accept my apologies.

Note that Whelan did not apologize for his theory that Ford was attacked by someone other than Kavanaugh, but for naming that person who was a possible suspect.

End of the mistaken identity defense?

Hardly. Whelan planted a seed that eventually grew into the decisive factor in Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

When Ford testified, Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona prosecutor hired by Judiciary Committee Republicans to question Ford treated Ford gently. No aggressive questioning, but enough questioning to turn up so many inconsistencies and failures of memory as to lead to a reasonable conclusion that Ford suffered from serious emotional and memory problems unrelated to anything Brett Kavanaugh ever did.

Whelan’s theory that something happened to Ford but that Kavanaugh was not the perpetrator convinced the one person who needed to be convinced — Maine Senator Susan Collins.

In her floor speech announcing that she would vote to confirm Kavanaugh, Collins stated (emphasis added):

Mr. President, I listened carefully to Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Judiciary Committee.  I found her testimony to be sincere, painful, and compelling.  I believe that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her life.  Nevertheless, the four witnesses she named could not corroborate any of the events of that evening gathering where she says the assault occurred; none of the individuals Professor Ford says were at the party has any recollection at all of that night….

The facts presented do not mean that Professor Ford was not sexually assaulted that night – or at some other time – but they do lead me to conclude that the allegations fail to meet the “more likely than not” standard.  Therefore, I do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the Court.

Susan Collins, as did Ed Whelan, chose the path of believing that Ford was sexually assaulted, just not by Kavanaugh. Unlike Whelan, Collins did not name a possible other suspect.

Collins repeated this point in post-vote interviews:

“I do not believe that Brett Kavanaugh was her assailant,” the Maine Republican told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” in an interview slated to air on Sunday.

“I do believe that she was assaulted. I don’t know by whom. I’m not certain when.”

Dahlia Lithwick at liberal Slate, notes how the Whelan theory shifted the discussion:

As Josh Marshall pointed out last week, the political manipulation of Ford’s story—the slow slide from “we believe her” to “we believe her, but she’s wrong about the identity of her attacker” happened without an explicit turn. For a scant few days, Republicans were careful not to call her a liar or an operative. After her testimony, the president himself deemed her “credible.” And then, ironically enough, Susan Collins became the first Republican to say out loud what Ed Whelan had tried to claim two weeks earlier: Ford was indeed attacked, but she was also confused about the date and the identity of her assailant, no matter that when asked about this under oath, she testified to being 100 percent certain that it was Brett Kavanaugh.

Marshall, in the post linked by Lithwick above, saw Whelan’s theory as the most politically plausible:

So why is virtually every Republican going with the least plausible – verging on extraordinarily implausible – theory? Simple. It’s a poll-tested, reverse engineered theory that solves key political problems even though it’s almost certainly not true….

But calling her a liar was politically toxic. So they needed a theory that fit each political need. First, Kavanaugh had to be telling the truth and must in fact be innocent. Second, Blasey Ford must think she is telling the truth. (The straightforward answer is that she’s lying. But that’s bad politics.) Ideally, the theory must posit that she was in fact assaulted, just not by Kavanaugh. Otherwise, there’s no basis for the politically required notional empathy. A less plausible scenario is that she has a false memory and she was never attacked at all. But that’s also bad politics. It sounds like saying she’s crazy and not a victim at all.

Collins and her Republican colleagues settled on the one scenario which checks all the political boxes but at the cost of being ridiculously implausible. She was attacked. But even though she is certain that she was attacked by a person she knew already, Brett Kavanaugh, in fact she was mistaken about who attacked her and might well have been attacked at a totally different point in her life. The assault becomes a purely notional placeholder to hold together a bad faith argument. There is zero chance they all come to this argument independently. This is some unknown strategist’s over-clever ruse.

The real point here is that no one can really believe this. Only the most casual cynicism gets you to this argument. It is a poll-tested, built-in-a-lab argument that is driven purely by political needs and can’t possibly be the product of actual belief or reasoning based on the evidence at hand. It’s pure cynicism that too many people are taking seriously.

I doubt that Whelan’s theory was “poll-tested” or “reverse engineered” or any such thing. Rather, it was the only politically viable theory available in a #MeToo environment in which women MUST be believed, but the evidence contradicted the belief against a specific accused.

Whether spontaneous or “built-in-a-lab,” Whelan ultimately prevailed not in naming a specific alternative perp, but in establishing that there might have been an alternative perp.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


There was no sexual assault. She’s a liar who made the whole thing up.

    gonzotx in reply to BillyHW. | October 20, 2018 at 11:29 pm


      Tiki in reply to gonzotx. | October 21, 2018 at 4:54 pm

      This whole thing is really about lawyers and politicians. Unethical lawyers and politicians.

      Collins was the last to step forward to protect a victim from a team of unethical lawyers usurping the scotus appointment process.

      No one likes (Collins) political grandstanding – especially when the grandstand is built on the cooled ashes of the victim’s pyre. Collins is less than a hero in this saga.

      We little people are routinely talked down to by lawyers professing to be the shield-bearers of ethics and the white knights of pro-constitutional moral behavior. When in fact it is they who are the mustache-twirling villains of our little morality plays.

    Anonamom in reply to BillyHW. | October 21, 2018 at 8:56 am

    Absolutely. And what does it say about the state of our Congress that its members cannot be expected to say, “She’s a liar,” but must hide behind, “Oh, we totes believe this lunacy, but the poor thing has the wrong guy”? What a travesty!

      Tom Servo in reply to Anonamom. | October 21, 2018 at 10:44 am

      Agreed – Whelan’s theory was a classic case of “assumes facts not in evidence”.

      What the EVIDENCE says, which is what we are supposed to go by in a fair investigation, is that NOTHING Ford said could be corroborated, and a lot of her story was kept hidden. (the psychiatrists notes, for example.) Which means that we should conclude that the story is false, not that she just got a detail wrong.

      Now this doesn’t mean she’s necessarily lying, she very well could have believed it is true. There’s plenty of people who have a loose enough connection to reality that they can’t tell the difference between memories and bad dreams, or hypnotists sessions. This entire theory is just a way to give people a nice sending excuse to avoid saying what the evidence tells us, which is that either she’s lying or she’s just plain nuts.

        Milhouse in reply to Tom Servo. | October 21, 2018 at 7:31 pm

        Agreed – Whelan’s theory was a classic case of “assumes facts not in evidence”.

        No, it was an “alternative theory of the crime”. Given the new rules of evidence, i.e. that Ford’s testimony is to be taken as true, he presented a theory that accounts for all the evidence and yet acquits the accused. The key juror seized on this scenario in order to justify doing what she knew was the right thing.

    Ulysses in reply to BillyHW. | October 21, 2018 at 9:18 am

    A sordid concoction only a leftist could swallow.

    For those hollow men and women chanting the I believe survivors cult mantra, look up the Rosewood Florida Massacre and the Scottsboro Boys.

    If bearing false witness were not a problem, it would not have been included in the Ten Commandments.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to BillyHW. | October 21, 2018 at 12:08 pm

    She was drinking, probably drunk, playing chase and had a drunk boy fall on top of her. There was flat out no sexual assault. That is the most charitable interpretation, but more likely she schemed with a bunch of low life types to sell a grand lie.

    They forgot the most likely suspect: Mr. Magoo.

Bull. “Two-Door” Ford Constructed a hoax, in collusion with multiple other people.

Christopher B | October 20, 2018 at 9:31 pm

Mistaken identity also covers the other most likely scenario – Ford was assaulted but has convinced herself her assailant was Kavanaugh.

    When her story first came out, I thought it was a case of Kavanaugh (this was before the “witnesses” said there was no such party) and her making out, and him trying to get to the next “base” and backing off when she said no… and her memory gradually changing over the years until she “remembered” being assaulted.

    Then as more and more information came out (or didn’t, in her case), I came to the conclusion that it was just a poorly scripted blocking maneuver.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to malclave. | October 21, 2018 at 12:12 pm

      Look at he high school picture, she was not especially attractive, and young Kavanaugh was a fine specimen. I bet that he had more interesting girls pursuing him.

      Joe-dallas in reply to malclave. | October 21, 2018 at 4:38 pm

      Partial concurrence on your theory – The description of the event seems to be more closely related to either A) an attempt to get to second base or B) a really half – ass attempt at teenage guy groping attempt.

      In a couple of sentences of the letter she describes and attempted rape

      Another sentence states there were two guys horsing aroung
      Another sentence states whatever they did was very half ass by letter her escape so easily.

      Joe-dallas in reply to malclave. | October 21, 2018 at 4:40 pm

      Another point concurring with your theory was the level of mental trauma was greatly disproportionate to the level of trauma that would be expected from the event as described.

      This is what I thought pretty much right away – she was perhaps assaulted by someone, and years later convinced herself it was him for political reasons. I don’t know why this theory was so heavily downvoted – according to it she’s 80% evil instead of 100%.

      At any rate, I have no idea what happened, but until Hillary Clinton is expelled from the party for rape apology, its all comes out as pure politics. If they ever do expel the Clintons, then I’ll start considering the merits.

    The question is exactly when did Ford decide it was Kavthat did it?

Humphrey's Executor | October 20, 2018 at 9:43 pm

I don’t think she made it up. Its a case of confabulation.

    In my experience all recovered memories are either false or confabulations. They are not exclusionary. One of the most lucrative areas of psychological therapy is the sexual victim. Many modern females want to be victims because it confers status, …many cannot remember the incident. Curious inconvenience. So practitioners recover the memory.
    Amazing how many of these memories include prominent people, places, times, or other newsworthy items play a part in their memories.
    The longer the patient is kept in thrall of these recovered memories, the richer the practitioner.

      tom_swift in reply to puhiawa. | October 20, 2018 at 10:14 pm

      Amazing how many of these memories include prominent people, places, times, or other newsworthy items play a part in their memories.

      Aaron Burr’s second wife claimed to have slept with both George Washington and Napoleon (not at the same time, of course—she was a bit energetic, but not necessarily a weirdo).

      I’d like to see modern fantasists top that.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Humphrey's Executor. | October 21, 2018 at 12:14 pm

    When you look at her story with the rest of the information regarding other people, it is hard to give it any credence.

Whelan’s seed may have provided the politically plausible pretext to be decisive. That does not make it true. I continue to think and believe she is a malicious, practiced and coached liar who made the whole thing up. Her behavior, the sequence of her actions, and her “little girl” act
? QED. She’s now a heroine to the left where she lives — no cost to her, only benefits. Until judgement day.

Lithwick’s theory is silly. Marshall’s is ridiculous. “Republicans” believe none of this rot. The whole thing was a lifeline for Collins to find a path which she thinks leaves her electorally viable. Nearly everyone else, D or R, knew all along exactly where they stood on the Kavanaugh vote and on Ford’s fabrications. Not, of course, that they’ll admit it. They may all be scumbutts, but they’re not that stupid.

Of course she made it up. But they couldn’t say that, especially Collins couldn’t say it, so Whelan provided a convenient theory that Collins could pretend to believe so she could do the right thing.

    Barry in reply to Milhouse. | October 21, 2018 at 11:38 pm

    “…especially Collins couldn’t say it”

    No, she could say it. But she is dishonest so she went with a convenient made up scenario.

Lithwick and Marshall don’t understand jack about memory andvrecall, and appear to be retailing the ‘seared into my hippocampus’ theory of trauma.

Of course Ford is lying about Kavanaugh. Her story falls apart the closer you look at it.

I still think the ultimate key to breaking it out in the open that she did in fact lie is in the therapist notes. I do not believe that the therapist made two mistakes. The therapist was right when the therapist wrote the attack took place in Ford’s late teens and it was four attackers. The refusal of Ford and her lawyers to hand over the notes pretty much confirms to me that there are more things in the notes they never want to go public. Like an actual location and year of the attack. Or possibly even names of the four attackers.

I realize it was difficult for the GOP because so many women in this country are so prone to “we have to believe” and get angry anytime a woman has to answer about inconsistency in their story but the GOP should have been a little tougher on the therapist note angle.

    oldgoat36 in reply to Blueshot. | October 20, 2018 at 11:19 pm

    While the story she told was poorly done when you see so many inconsistent and conflicting things that were said.

    What I was most bothered about where the planned timing by Feinstein, sitting on it for quite a long time, Feinstein giving her a lawyer to go to, her friend the FBI agent who worked with an avowed Anti-Trumper, and had quit her job shortly after the election, was the “beach friend” Ford spent time with for a number of days before writing the letter. The ties to Schumer through the lawyers office, the overly questionable polygraph and the timing of that, the therapist notes from 2012, when Kavanaugh’s name was first mentioned by Romney, yet nothing in any records prior to that time. The boy friend. The delays. The conditions which were absurd. The whole flying lie.

    When all that became known, Ford was on low credibility, then her testimony and the phony little girl or croaky voices, the nearly immediate switch from being barely able to get the story out, then the joking about the coffee. People who are that upset, aside from tears being normal, it also causes the nose to run, regardless of any tears, yet not once did she even dab her nose. And if you are that upset, how the hell do you switch it off instantly to make a joke?

It makes sense that the Whelan piece might give political cover to those needing it in the absence of more definitive information.
However, Prof. Ford provided zero support for her story and, therefore, her charge was unproven and, moreover, unprovable.
Given the stakes, the number of alternative explanations is too many and the consequences of allowing unproven and unprovable charges to be dispositive is too grotesque to let stand.

P.S. I watched “The Crucible” with Winona Ryder tonight. It was very eerie and too close for comfort.
Perhaps additional scrutiny of all the actors will allow the details of how Prof. Ford’s charges materialized to emerge.

I never believed her.

When you loo at her testimony, the two times she was pressed, who was paying for the lie detector and who was paying for the lawyers, and when and where she took the lie detector, she started to fall apart. She knew she was caught in inconsistencies and had to think quickly to get out of them.

I still say the JC should go after her polygraph records.I suspect that when you look at the tape of her taking the polygraph, her personna may be totally different.

After Whelan’s article was published another writer put several of Ford’s “Facts” together and came up with a similar story. He pointed out that originally she declared her attack occurred in the “Mid ’80’s” which would have made her 18 years old and driving herself. It also offered an explanation as to why she had trouble in college but not the last two years of high school. She was senior when it happened and therefore was in college right after she had graduated from her girl’s school. He also wrote that it was four men who humiliated her and then laughed at her which she said was the single worst part of the attack. His theory was that she had been drinking heavily and decided to show these guys what a hot girl she was and then she chickened out after they were all in the same room. She was humiliated and then drove herself home. The therapist’s notes were correct all along and only her memory was foggy. It is only a theory but it does cover a lot of the unanswered questions about her original letter and its contents. It also makes any lie detector test true if we do not know the exact wording of the questions asked. She was probably attacked but did they specifically name Kavanaugh in the attack? She also said afterward that she did not want a follow-up investigation and did not want him to be impeached. Sounds like she does not want this pursued too deeply.

    Here’s the questions her lawyers stated were the only non-baseline questions asked:

    “Is any part of your statement false?”
    “Did you make up any part of your statement?”

    The first thing I thought was “I wonder what statement she was thinking of when she replied ‘No’ to each of the only two questions.” But then we learned that she was well acquainted with the polygraph and how to take it successfully, not to mention either her lawyers, or her retired Bureau friend (the one Blasey coached on how to pass a polygraph according to the ex-boyfriend) selected the examiner and those being the only questions of note is ludicrous.

I’ve really had ENOUGH of people playing this bullshit game of ‘oh I believe SOMEBODY assaulted her’. NOTHING about her or her story is believable, and to play this bullshit game of, “oh I believe her but it wasn’t Kavanaugh” is a complete disservice to REAL sexual assault victims.

NO. At every turn Ford has proven herself a liar. From the non-existent details of her story to that LAUGHABLE little-girl voice to the fake crying, it was a joke.

Every single other person she named said it didn’t happen. Every specific that she did give has been completely refuted. The person she claimed was IN THE ROOM declared it didn’t happen with Kavanaugh or ANYBODY else.

There is NO WAY to reconcile any part of her story with the facts that have come out.

She’s a liar. Plain and simple.

    DINORightMarie in reply to Olinser. | October 21, 2018 at 6:29 am

    Agreed – you say what I have been thinking as I read this.

    However, it is true that Sen. Collins used it for political cover as she voted the way of rule of law and justice. Now, thankfully, Kavanaugh is an Associate Supreme Court Justice.

    I am more convinced than ever Ford is was lying from the get-go, that she planned and practiced her schtick to give that shameful performance, that Feinstein and MANY others plotted to pull this a la Justice Thomas and Anita Hill – which, thankfully, FAILED its ultimate goal: destroy Kavanaugh and his family so he will NEVER be a SCOTUS Justice.

    What was telling to me was she “decided” to not pursue it after. I believe that is because she KNEW it would open her to discovery….and then ALL [THE] FEINSTEIN’S “MEN” would have fallen (INCLUDING the complicit “press,” this time).

    puhiawa in reply to Olinser. | October 22, 2018 at 1:55 am

    You are correct. She was a strong Feinstein voter that decided to send in an anonymous grenade, and got caught in the cross-fire when all the rest went dud. Then she was coached for weeks, sent to another crooked ex-FBI agent (are there any other?), etc.

How many liberal women do we know have the “believe survivors” tag on their Facebook page?

I am willing to concede that it’s possible to not remember details of where and when but have a vivid memory of who and the carpet color. But Puleese….She and Jackie (Rolling Stone) did more to harm rape survivors than any woman hater could ever hope to accomplish in a million lifetimes.

So our poster child for “Believe” started out admitting she lied about her fear flying and then laughed…haha…yeah.. as if it’s funny the woman whose entire premise is “Believe” lied a big ol’ fat lie of convenience. And then she tried to tell us she didn’t know that they offered to come to California. She then lied about her front door (it was an entrance for a rental) then she lied that she didn’t know how to contact FBI (her life’s best friend a prior agent) and then she lied about the polygraph, and then she said she took it in a hotel room because of her grandmother’s funeral but could not remember if it was done the day of the funeral or another day… should I go on and on? Almost everything out of her mouth was a provable lie.

And yet, these people lift her up and say, “Believe Survivors”. Barf.

I just wonder if she’s moving to New Zeeland like she said she would.

I remember reading that Grassley received info from two persons claiming that they may be the individuals who assaulted Ford in HS. I am assuming these statements were shared with other committee members but never heard any other follow-up on any this. Seems somewhat curious that two alleged confessors are ignored no?

You write that calling out Ford as a liar is “bad politics” without any evidence or logical argument. Nobody believes women because vagina, least of all the Democrats who were happy to put a rapist back in the White House.

“Whelan ultimately prevailed not in naming a specific alternative perp, but in establishing that there might have been an alternative perp.”

What utter crap. The only thing Whelan established is that he was a scoundrel who would smear an unoffending middle school teacher to help get his pal on the Court. That he claims a personal friendship with Kavanaugh meant that the stink of suspicion that Kavanaugh had approved this feces-throwing tactic started to seep up around Kavanaugh as well. And Collins didn’t need Whelan to see that the only way she could both “believe” Ford and vote for Kavanaugh was to say a mistake must have been made. Jacobson quotes Josh Marshall making exactly this point, for crying out loud, but I guess Whelan is HIS scurrilous pal too.

    inspectorudy in reply to Gandydancer. | October 21, 2018 at 6:17 pm

    I don’t agree with that summation of Whealan. I think he was using a specific person because they were friends and they looked a lot alike. He was saying in effect that there was a Kavanaugh classmate that was not only his friend but even looked like him. He didn’t say that his friend was the culprit but was planting the seed that this foggy brained woman might have seen Kavanaugh and thought that he was the one who had “Tried” to molest her. I think after the fact he realized that he did infer that his friend could have been the guilty party and he apologized.

The better story is
– Ford has issues
– that may or may not have from an assault
– but the dem politicians used her for their own purposes
– without a care about any facts
– they wanted a headline to maumau the GOP

“But even though she is certain that she was attacked by a person she knew already, Brett Kavanaugh, in fact she was mistaken about who attacked her and might well have been attacked at a totally different point in her life.”

That’s reading a heck of a lot more into what was said than the theory states. She may have been assaulted at a high school party by someone else. And, chances are, she probably knew that person. This is the most charitable reading of what happened. I’m not willing to say Ford was completely malicious in this. Especially not with those lawyers she had. But, since she can’t give us a date or location and no one else remembers anything, we don’t even have proof there was a party as she described.

Bitterlyclinging | October 21, 2018 at 8:20 am

One other theory, Christine Blasey Fraud simply lied to provide Nancy Peloi’s and the Democrat’s infamous “Wrap up smear”
Here was a girl who had reached fro the brass ring 64 times, using the anatomy between her legs as bait, by the time she finished high school.
What better way to atone for her youthful profligate life style than by taking down a Supreme Court Nominee proferred by a hated Republican President.

In my opinion, Ford’s letter to Feinstein was part of a well-orchestrated plan to derail Kavanaugh, which was constructed with the assistance of her lifelong friend, former FBI agent and attorney, Monica L. McLean. It was not a hastily built allegation. See:

I imagine that the Democrats have similar plans for ANY Trump nominee to the Supreme Court. Whether it entails psychiatric records, allegations of financial impropriety, sexual assault, ANYTHING. If you’ve read Silverglate’s book, “Three Felonies a Day,” or Sidney Powell’s “Licensed to Lie,” you know that the Dems will do or say anything to stop a Supreme Court that adheres to the Constitution. Some say that Chief Justice Roberts suddenly changed his vote on Obamacare because he was told that some unpleasant information would be disclosed about his family. I would not put it past the Obama administration and their lackeys in the FBI/CIA.

    MarkSmith in reply to AmandaFitz. | October 21, 2018 at 10:38 am

    I am right there with you. Monica came out of the Southern District FBI office where the Russian stuff was coming from and the hiding of Hilary’s emails. There is a direct link to Preet Bharara and Schumer.

    It has been reported that in spring 2017, Trump’s personal attorney Marc Kasowitz told associates that he had been personally responsible for getting Bharara fired, saying he had warned Trump, “This guy is going to get you.”

    Milhouse in reply to AmandaFitz. | October 21, 2018 at 7:36 pm

    I imagine that the Democrats have similar plans for ANY Trump nominee to the Supreme Court.

    Of course they do. This is why there was no point in withdrawing Kavanaugh, and why, contra Trump, no R president would have withdrawn him. It was obvious that the same allegation would be made against the next nominee, and we’d be back where we started, so what would be the point?

“In other words, Ford was not consciously lying, she suffered from a case of mistaken identity.”

Reminds me of a Murray Povich show I saw. A woman was accusing a person of being the father of her child. Eight guys later she STILL hadn’t found the father.

Christine Blasey Ford is as credible as the caravan of paid tools, criminals, and fools mobbing its way through Mexico to our southern border — conveniently timed with the midterms.

The opposition will use, abuse, and then adandon whomever is expedient.

The end does not justify the means.
There are no coincidences

Focus should be on Moncia. It was interesting in her testimony that she said she talked to friends at the beach. It should have been ask “who those friends where”. We know Moncia was one.

Our nation is facing great challenges and what are we focusing on? Someone telling a lie that everyone knows is a lie and they tell an even bigger lie because to tell the truth would not be acceptable because a bunch of women would get their skirts all twisted up if the liar was called a liar. Meanwhile………

Why did CBF have her social media scrubbed?

Who scrubbed it for her?

Occam’s razor, she’s lying.

I think most posters here have it right: the story was concocted. I watched with dismay as GOP senators refused to even hint at the possibility that this was all one big lie. Lying for political gain!? Why, whoever heard of such a thing! Gimme a break. As for her therapist notes, which they would not turn over, I suspect the reason is that they would reveal some unpleasant realities about Ms. Fords mental state.

    ” I watched with dismay as GOP senators refused to even hint at the possibility that this was all one big lie…”

    Keep watching, because these guys will sell us out at the drop of the proverbial hat.

Her original story (to the therapist) was she was late teens (which meant she could have driven herself home), mid ’80’s (ditto) – at some point it became convenient (to the left, which includes her) to make it a few years earlier so Kavanaugh could be put into the picture – couldn’t drive at 15, so “can’t remember how I got home.” So modify the above; she could very well have been assaulted, and testified “believably” to the details which did happen to her (and blame discrepancies on therapist’s note-taking), and could have very well collaborated on purposely and falsely accusing Kavanaugh of being the perpetrator. She certainly has been rewarded through go-fund-me.

    Joe-dallas in reply to jlronning. | October 21, 2018 at 4:53 pm

    The original story of late teens / mid 80’s does raise a time line issue.

    a) given the differences in age, the ages 15/17 or 16/18 were the only time frames that their social circles would likely have crossed. Once Kav was in college, their respective social circles would much less likely cross.

    b) She commented that she only drank one beer – the implication was that it was common for her to drink beer socially, but not frequently. However, very few 15 year old girls will drink beer – because it tastes awful at that age. Drinking a beer socially for girls typically doesnt happent until age 17 or 18. Maybe less than 2% of girls will drink beer at age 15 whereas 25-30% of girls will drink beer at age 17/18.

      malclave in reply to Joe-dallas. | October 21, 2018 at 9:04 pm

      Wine coolers would have been more plausible. The Dems should update the script before they pull it out again.

        Joe-dallas in reply to malclave. | October 21, 2018 at 9:29 pm

        Wine coolers or some other sweet drink would be far more plausible at age 15 than beer. Even at that, drinking typically doesnt start for another year or so.

    luagha in reply to jlronning. | October 22, 2018 at 5:10 pm

    To add to this:
    She knows that Kavanaugh has been through 6 FBI background investigations where they talked to his schoolteachers and acquaintances for security clearance so that he can judge on cases that require security clearance.
    So it can’t have happened during the school year because the FBI would have gotten wind of it. Had to happen during the summer.
    Can’t be a large party because then people would know about it, tell the FBI, and it would have come out, has to be a small party.
    Mid-80s is good for her but Kavanaugh is off to Yale. Oops! Now it’s 1982 or 1983.
    Can’t be 1983 because he leaves for Yale. Gotta be 1982.
    But she dare not remember a date in 1982 because Kavanaugh might have proof he’s out of the country or on vacation in another state.
    Which happened! Kavanaugh had calendars of the time.

    But that makes her 15 and unable to drive, leaving her running out of a party in tears but having no way to get 5-10 miles on foot in the land before cellphones without telling her mom or any other person.

    She clearly wanted to get Mike Judge up on the stand because Mike Judge is an admitted blackout drunk in his younger years and whatever he says can be impeached devastatingly. So of course he did his best to stay off the stand.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | October 21, 2018 at 2:50 pm

Victim Details Accusations of Sexual Assault by U.S. Senator Corey Booker…

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | October 21, 2018 at 2:55 pm

Victim Details Accusations of Sexual Assault by U.S. Senator Corey Booker

The last refuge

From its conception, and the successful labeling of Judge Moore as a warlock, Democrats knew that #MeToo was not only viable, but politically congruent (i.e. profitable).

Marshall is about half right. There was a real conflict between what was likely to be true, and what was politically acceptable to say.

Of course, her theory that this was the result of some strategist is absurd. It was obvious from the beginning that Ford’s story could not be corroborated. Partisans on the Democrat side didn’t care. They just wanted Kavanaugh’s nomination to be rejected.

It was just as obvious that anyone who suggested she was lying would be attacked as “anti-woman” and “blaming the victim” — even though there was no evidence that Ford was, in fact, a victim.

Given this conflict, it’s only natural that people who rejected her claim would still try to giver her some benefit of the doubt by saying she was perhaps assaulted by someone else. That requires no strategist behind the scenes. It’s just human nature to rationalize like that.

I would say the point is that it doesn’t really matter whether Ford was lying outright, or had been assaulted by someone else, or had a manufactured memory. Frankly, all three are plausible. Ford herself admitted that the reason she was certain it was Kavanaugh is because of how she understands people to process memories who have been through a trauma. That’s practically an admission that this was not a long-standing memory that she had always had, but something rationalized and justified after the fact. In other words, not at all what we generally mean by a memory.

I think it was most likely a political lie cooked up between her, her friend Monica McLean, and a few political operatives. But Ford apparently drank a lot in high school and went to a lot of parties, and I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if she was sexually assaulted at one of those high-alcohol parties by a boy who had too much to drink. In fact, the only part of that I don’t find plausible is her claim that she only had one beer before being assaulted.

Nean – see my comment regarding beer above –

Your comment “In fact, the only part of that I don’t find plausible is her claim that she only had one beer before being assaulted.”

She commented that she only drank one beer – the implication was that it was common for her to drink beer socially, but not frequently. However, very few 15 year old girls will drink beer – because it tastes awful at that age. Drinking a beer socially for girls typically doesnt happent until age 17 or 18. Maybe less than 2% of girls will drink beer at age 15 whereas 25-30% of girls will drink beer at age 17/18.

This is a clearly disturbed human being, and my heart goes out to her on that level. What she did, though, was knowingly participate in a leftist character assassination and witch hunt against someone whom she cannot prove or even (to my mind) convincingly argue harmed her in any way.

She’s not stupid; she knew what she was saying and what it might mean in terms of destroying Brett Kavanaugh’s career.

If she’s meant to be a lesson for all women, let the lesson be: never ever put money and ideology over fact and doing the right thing. Once she knew she was busted (i.e. all of her supposed corroborating witnesses denied any knowledge of the event; and she had no idea where she was, how she got there, or how she got home), she could have stopped it all, but she chose not to. As a result, Kavanaugh will be forever tarred with her “believable” “credible” accusations, and every single post that validates her on any level is a part of the narrative that will forever paint Justice Kavanaugh as a gang rapist (do you really think it matters to the narrative that she didn’t personally say this?).

It almost doesn’t matter that I don’t believe her and have zero sympathy for her on that count. She’s walking away with piles of money and Kavanaugh will forever be attacked based on her ridiculous, unsubstantiated claims. Piling on by conceding something we have no way of knowing (she was at one point sexually abused by someone, somewhere) is fruitless, speculative, and counterproductive.

    inspectorudy in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | October 21, 2018 at 6:24 pm

    She is not only NOT paying any price but on the contrary being made into a female folk hero! I just saw a documentary on her college where she teaches and it is a social justice warrior breeding ground. It is 80% female student body and 70% female professors. Their number one stated goal is not the education that is chosen but the creation of social justice changers of society. She has been honored by her school and has made over $700,000 dollars from “Go fund me”. She is living in a $3,000,000 home with two entry doors so she can rent out a room! By the time she is invited to all the feminist gatherings around the world, she will be filthy rich. All of this because her buddies have one simple question that any doubter must answer, “What did she have to gain from coming forward”? I think it is obvious what she had to gain. Just take a look at Anita Hill and follow her meteoric career AFTER she became a “Victim”!

      I just occurred to me that the likely reason for her “I’m-so-crazy-I-need-an-extra-door-in-my-house” tap dance is because she lives in a neighborhood that is zoned R1A.

      R1 zoning is for single family residences ONLY. It means you can have only 1 dwelling unit on the property. You can’t add another unit with a kitchen/separate entry.

      It’s a BIG deal in CA. Because rents are so high, nice neighborhoods don’t want people chopping up their houses into apartments, adding to traffic, parking, noise, etc. The city has to respond to complaints.

      She talked of “hosting” google interns – which implies they are living “with” as opposed to renting a separate living space.

      It could be a significant loss of income to her if someone were to file a complaint. The city has to respond to complaints when filed. It’s illegal to have a separate dwelling unit in r1 zones.

      A separate door and separate bathrooms (Kitchens are easy to create with a microwave) would mean an illegal dwelling. It’s a bid deal.

      I suspect she lives in R1A and was VERY fearful she would lose a BIG chunk of income, as well as have to pay back taxes. I believe you can collect money for “hosting” exchange students, etc.. because hosting payments are considered reimbursement, rather than income; hosting implies that you “host” them and provide food and other assistance.

      If someone cracks down it, she could potentially lose thousands per month in income. I suspect the whole two door BS was just setting up the cover to imply “hosting” rather then “renting”.

      And, as a bonus…’s tax fraud if she’s claiming “reimbursement” for hosting rather than claiming the rental income for a separate dwelling unit.

Ford boasted publicly, in her yearbook, about having some 60 sex partners while in HS. And we’re supposed to believe she was scarred for life because a boy once tried to kiss her and she thought he might try to feel her up? Seriously??

And this at a party that all four of the people she named as being there are on record, under oath, testifying never happened. Not just the events described at the party never happened, but there never was any such party.

Her own life long friend testified she never met Kavanaugh. Not once, ever, in her entire life.

This was 100% a smear job. Just a complete fiction from start to finish.

I had not been a huge fan of Senator Collins but I am really impressed by the courage she showed standing up to the left. Her stock has risen in my humble opinion. I hope the voters of increasingly liberal Maine do not make her pay for this brave stance.

The Dana Carvey “Church Lady” character had it right: “Isn’t that convenient?!?!” I was hearing my ‘inner skeptic’ screaming that to me throughout most of the testimony.

Y2K has a very prescient point about Dr. Ford’s Social Media accounts being scrubbed: How does ‘a common citizen’ do this (without help from Silicon Valley ‘insiders’ – and we know the political leanings of these companies leadership teams)?

As a person, compassion must be applied: We should treat any victim with respect. But that can not include the carte Blanche #BelieveWomen demands of the left, that we presume guilt against anyone accused of sexual assault of a woman. The Democrat Media Apparatchik prefers a Trial by Media, where they alone can shape the narrative, in the court of Public Opinion, rather than testimonies and cross examinations in a Court of Law, with the accused being judged by a jury of their peers.

It’s sad that we had to leave Susan Collins a way to ‘save face’ with her constituents on voting for Justice Kavanaugh. It shows just how far we’ve ‘progressed’ as a society.

Joseph Farnsworth | October 22, 2018 at 3:18 pm

During her “therapy” sessions, she may well have developed a false memory. About some boy jumping on her at a party 36 years ago when she was 15. “Horrors!” Can’t remember where or exactly when. Then as Kavanaugh becomes well known as a part of a political party that she HATES,she then starts to “remember” him as the perpetrator of something that probably never happened. This is the process that is well documented in false memory cases. Ford seems to recognize that this is the likely case, too.
In Maryland a few years ago, an unhappy 48 year old (y/o) woman went to a psychotherapist and after months of therapy she “remembered” that she was raped when she was 16 by a 16 y/o neighbor boy. Didn’t remember exactly when or where either (details!) and had forgotten about it for all those 32 years. The now 48 y/o former neighborhood boy was almost arrested and prosecuted for this since Maryland does not have a statute of limitations on rape and an ambitious prosecuting attorney and governor-wanna-be saw this as his ticket to winning the governor’s race. Sweet!!! Luckily through efforts by Elizabeth Loftus and Mark Pendergrast “recovered memories” has largely been debunked and the case did not proceed.
Sadly, even people like Loftus and Pendergrast in recent interviews and articles seem to give too much sympathy to people like Ford probably due to sympathy and political biases (note Jonathan Haidt’s commentary on the Hive Mentality in his “Righteous Mind” book).
Ford’s story with all (that’s right, ALL!) her volunteered corroborators explicitly denying any knowledge of the alleged events is simply unbelievable and laughable if it wasn’t potentially tragic. When she states she has had nothing to do with coaching to beat polygraphs and this is denied by an old boyfriend; when she, with a phD, asks what “exculpatory” means, in a ridiculous valley-girl uplilt voice drowning in vocal fry, she certainly comes across as confused at best and intentionally mendacious at worst.