October 2, 2018
Once again Republicans are bowing to the Democrats’ playbook in fear that they will be painted as anti-woman. Almost unanimously they have praised the testimony of Christine Blasey- Ford, and declared it credible. However, there are too many inconsistencies, memory lapses, and outright lies in her testimony, her prior accounts of the alleged assault, and the events surrounding the “attack”, to classify her as a credible.
Ford’s most glaring inconsistency is her reporting of when the alleged attack by Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh occurred. It would not be unreasonable if Ford did not remember the exact date of the event. However, her various accounts of the year when it took place has varied greatly.
When Ford first reported this event, anonymously to the Washington Post on July 6, she claimed that it happened in the “mid 1980s”. A few weeks later in a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) she wrote that it occurred in the “early 1980’s”.
Perplexingly, in Ford’s handwritten polygraph statement detailing the event, she originally wrote that it happened in the “early 80’s”, but then crossed out the word “early”. Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor who cross examined Ford in place of the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday, asked Ford why she made that change, she had no explanation.
Further, as reported by the Washington Post in a September 16 article, referencing Ford’s 2013 therapist’s notes, Ford claimed that the alleged assault happened when she was in her “late teens”.
In spite of what she apparently divulged to her therapist years prior, she told both the Post reporter and the Committee that she was 15 when the “assault” occurred. Ford could not explain how amongst all of the uncertainty she came to be sure that it occurred in the summer of 1982.
This is a significant discrepancy. If it happened in the early 1980’s Ford would have been in high school. The mid 1980’s would place her in college. It’s not plausible that she would get this time period confused. She would have been in two completely different periods of her life.
Moreover, in her testimony before the Committee she claimed that as a consequence of the alleged assault her grades suffered significantly in her first two years of college. Why did she make no mention of her high school grades suffering? If the assault happened at 15, she would have been in only her second year of high school.
One of the most damning aspects of Ford’s account to her credibility is the claim that she doesn’t know how she got to or from the party where the alleged attack took place. As Ford reported to the Washington Post the party took place near the Columbia Country Club, which, according to Ford, is a 20 minute drive from her home. It’s therefore inconceivable that someone didn’t drive her to and from the party.
If the event occurred as Ford explained she would have been openly upset when she left the house. Whoever drove her home would have asked her what happened, and would now be a corroborating witness.
It’s also noteworthy that cell phones didn’t exist back then. If she left a party earlier than expected she would not have had a ride home lined up, and would have been stuck. This would have been a dilemma that she would not have forgotten. Did she have to walk to a payphone, a neighbor’s house, did she take her belongings before leaving the party? Did she even have money to make a call?
Leaving the party unexpectedly in the manner she described makes it inconceivable that she doesn’t remember the details of how she got home. Finding a ride would have been an ordeal, especially in conjunction with the trauma she supposedly just suffered. It also conveniently insulates her from providing “evidence” that could easily be investigated.
Another implausible aspect to her story is that her “life-long friend” Leland Keyser, whom she has claimed was with her at the party, not only doesn’t remember this gathering, but doesn’t even remember ever meeting Kavanaugh. It’s unlikely that a 15-year old girl, who was at a house party with a couple of senior high school boys who were as heavily intoxicated, as Ford described Kavanaugh and his good friend Mark Judge, would not only forget this day, but forget ever meeting Kavanaugh, even 36 years later.
It’s also not believable that Keyser wouldn’t have followed up with her friend that night or the next day and ask Ford why she abruptly left the party. Being that they were good friends and the only girls at the party Ford’s sudden absence would have been glaringly obvious to her friend, and would have added to making this event more memorable to Keyser.
All three individuals, Leland Keyser, Mark Judge, and Patrick “PJ” Smyth, named by Ford as being in attendance at the gathering where the alleged attack took place have submitted letters, under penalty of felony, denying any memory of the party. Keyser, through her attorney even wrote, “Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”
Incredibly, when asked by Mitchell at the congressional hearing why her friend Leland Keyser is denying any knowledge of the party, she responded that Keyser has health problems, and therefore delegated the writing of her statement to her attorney. Believing that someone would lie, under penalty of felony, because of health issues is nonsensical.
Ford’s account of how many people were there has also varied. As reported by the Washington Post she told her therapist that there were four boys in the room when she was assaulted. She told the Committee that only Kavanaugh and Judge were in the room when Kavanaugh assaulted her. In her letter to Feinstein she claimed that there were five people including herself at the party. Yet she told the Committee that there were 6 people at the party, one of whose name she can’t remember.
According to Ford the alleged assault was first discussed in couples therapy, in 2012, when she and her husband were renovating their home. Reportedly the therapist’s notes do not mention Kavanaugh by name. Although requested, Ford has refused to turn over these notes to the Committee.
Ford has claimed that the alleged attack came up in therapy because she and her husband argued over her desire to add a second front door. She told the Committee that this desire was the result of feeling the need to escape brought on by the alleged attack 36 years prior. Her husband opposed the idea, because, according to her testimony, it “was not aesthetically pleasing”.
Interestingly, Paul Sperry, former reporter for Investor’s Business Daily has unearthed the building permit records issued to Ford and her husband. The Palo Alto building permits were issued in 2008, not 2012. It has also been reported that the extra door was actually put in place to provide a separate entrance for renters. During the hearing Ford acknowledged that she and her husband have rented out part of their home to Google interns, and others, and their tenants use the “second door”.
BREAKING: Palo Alto bldg permit records raise questions about Ford’s testimony she completed an “extensive remodel” of home in 2012 & that this was seminal event that led her down path to coming out against Kavanaugh b/c she needed to add an escape door. Permit was issued in 2008
— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) September 28, 2018
Another blatant lie by Ford was her claim to the Committee that she had a fear of flying, and therefore needed the hearing delayed. During her congressional testimony she revealed that she flies frequently. When questioned about this her only response was that it was easier to fly for vacation. In other words, it was a complete fabrication.
In Rachel Mitchell’s report on Ford’s testimony she surmised that Ford’s claims were not solely her own. Mitchell stated “ The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account.”
Mitchell’s “bottom line” statement, “A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult to prove. But, this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations, or failed to corroborate them… I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor, do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance- of- the-evidence- standard.”
In spite of the lack of evidence many believe Ford, merely due to the fact that she came forward, and they wonder, if it’s not true than what would be motivating her? To those that say “believe the woman”, and that women don’t lie about sexual assault, tell that to the Duke lacrosse players falsely accused of rape in 2006.
Julie Swetnick who has accused Kavanaugh of participating in gang rapes when he was in high school, has also come forward. Thankfully, most are dismissing her. However, like Swetncik, Ford also has no evidence, no corroboration, and even some have come forward that outright rebuke her account.
It’s not up to the public, the Committee, or the Senate to figure out Ford’s motivation. She is a registered Democrat, has hired radical left lawyers. Maybe she is politically motivated. Or maybe she was actually victimized, and believes it was Kavanaugh. Perhaps she was at a gathering with Kavanaugh 36 years ago, but the events that took place between the two were very different from her perception and memory.
There is no way to know the absolute truth. What is clear is a good man, who has worked for years to reach the pinnacle of his career, who before this nomination process had a sterling reputation, is now seeing all that destroyed. He has become collateral damage in the left’s attempt to prevent the 5th conservative vote on the court. Any Senator that votes no on Kavanaugh’s confirmation is complicit in this travesty of justice.
