Reasons to Not Trust Ms. Blasey After Her Testimony

16

Mrs. Ford’s testimony was not only uncorroborated, but she offered nothing new today except to talk in a little girl voice and fight back tears. She didn’t act like the middle-aged woman she is, but rather, a victim.

Mrs. Ford frequently asked the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary during the hearing Thursday, “What can I do to be more helpful to you”. That’s because she is testifying to help Democrats stop Kavanaugh.

Democrats made some big points and emphasized her statement that she is 100 percent certain the attacker was Brett Kavanaugh. The lawyer substituting for the Republican senators, Ms. Mitchell made smaller points but she did bring out some obvious dishonest answers on the part of Ms. Ford. Unfortunately, she was interrupted in the middle of important lines of questioning by Senator Grassley.

Fox News was annoyingly supportive of the accuser as they commented during breaks. If they say she’s ‘credible’ once more, it will amount to media malpractice.

When Ms. Mitchell asked how she arrived at the date of the attack after not even knowing the year, she answered a different question. When she was asked again, Blasey answered a different question yet again. Mitchell didn’t pursue it.

Ford said she needed another door on her home because of claustrophobia but she has no problem sitting on a 15-hour flight to French Polynesia.

THE AIRPLANE QUESTION

  • Mitchell: How did you get to Washington, D.C., today?
  • Ford: On an airplane.
  • Mitchell: When you were here in August, how did you get here?
  • Ford: On an airplane.
  • Mitchell: You’ve been to Hawaii and Tahiti?
  • Ford: Yes.
  • Mitchell: How’d you get there?
  • Ford: On an airplane. It’s easier to fly when it’s for vacation.”

She is a liar.

Despite the public nature of the Senate GOP’s offer to fly to California to meet with her, Blasey Ford claimed she was unaware of it. This was communicated both to her attorney and to the public-at-large but she claimed to not know.

She is a liar.

Ford doesn’t know who paid for her polygraph test — if you believe that.

She doesn’t remember if she took the polygraph test on the day of her grandmother’s funeral or the day after. It was a month ago (Oh, and she flew there for it), but she can remember 100 percent the accuser is Kavanaugh.

How do you forget those details but remember the details from 36 years ago?

She said she was asked on advice of counsel to take a polygraph but was happy to undergo it. She found it stressful and much longer and she had to tell the whole life story.

The polygrapher only asked two questions!!!

She couldn’t remember who recommended Jerry the polygrapher. She was asked twice and wouldn’t answer.

Not only is there zero corroborating evidence, zero corroborating witnesses, and zero corroborating statements from Ford, but the notes of her alleged 2012 revelation also never mention Kavanaugh. His name didn’t appear until two months ago, via leaks to WaPo.

Kavanaugh’s name is never mentioned in the therapy notes where she first discussed the alleged assault 30 years later.

She won’t give her therapist notes to the Senate —she’s hiding something.

She can’t remember if she gave the Washington Post reporter her therapist’s notes? That was just a few weeks — not years ago.

Mrs.Ford remembers: 

  • The stairwell
  • The laughter
  • Brett Kavanaugh

What she doesn’t remember:

  • When it happened
  • Where it happened
  • How she got there
  • How they grabbed her and who did it
  • How she got home
  • Who took her home
  • Who was there
  • Conversations she had even as recently as three months or three weeks ago.

She used her best little girl voice throughout.

RELATED STORY

Credible Christine Blasey Ford Might Have Told Another Fib

16 COMMENTS

  1. I’ve only heard a clip of her and that clip alone seems to be contradictory. She specifically replied to a question she had NOTHING to drink, but from what I read she specifically stated she DID drink.

  2. What. Another clip is about her seeing Mark at a Safeway store. She can describe THIS event in clear concise detail and little about the actual event. Furthermore, she speaks about getting a ride from “someone”. If she was in such a state of distress wouldn’t the that person “notice” something was amiss and ask about it. That alone should be a memory trigger of who it was, which apparently she doesn’t recall.

  3. She seems to be a very weak minded, flaky individual. Someone got hold of her and impressed her to point the finger at Kavanaugh. Something very well may have happened to her, it just was some other guy. The fact that all of her “witnesses” that she said were there all deny that anything like that happened or just were not there at all!

  4. Would a person scrub their ENTIRE social media if it weren’t contradictory evidence.

    If the Democrats REALLY got the “type” of FBI investigation they wanted it would have mean “interrogating” the accuser on any discrepancies in any testimony. Would they, or even this woman, actually want THAT. It would be necessary if you really Wanted to get to the “bottom of it”.

  5. If it weren’t for the Democrats playbook, and media accomplices, I would probably give consideration to “allegations”. But they have rode this horse far far too many times, in far far too many different ways. Invariably they resort to the most extreme of charges. This is Only attractive to those who believe in the very worst of people and I, for one, cannot sustain that type of thinking. To do so contributes to the very essence of a person’s psyche and is not only emotionally damaging but cognitively also.

  6. Is she an “educated woman”. From what I’ve listened to so far she sure doesn’t sound like it. She seems to have a Very POOR memory of recent events.
    If she is SO claustrophobic that required an additional “door” in her house then wouldn’t it be even More claustrophobic being in an airplane. This really sounds ridiculous. The more I watch and hear it appears to be one big ACT.

  7. We have come past the divide in our political disparity where “By any means necessary” is more than acceptable to many, but actually REQUIRED. ….. I think this is the most obvious example of people who believe themselves superior to the masses holding fast to their notion of “The end justifies the means” …. To aire completely unsubstantiatable claims about a person with the hope that the word of one person alone about another might be enough to besmirch their character to the point where it derails their chances at a job they are eminently qualified for seems to low for a Senator such as Fienstien, not to mention her presenting such unverifiable info at the eleventh hour.

  8. There were some strong questioning, bordering on attacking, regarding Kavanaugh’s complaint of partisan attacks. How is it NOT partisan when members of Congress were FUNDRAISING off of Ms Ford.

  9. She wants Mark Judge interviewed because she said “hi” to him after 6 weeks after he allegedly tried to attack her, and HE was the one who was uncomfortable? She is so “brave” to tell her “story” right before Kavanaugh gets confirmed to the Supreme Court, but she wasn’t brave enough to mention to her best friend (whom she left alone at the party with rapists who almost accidentally murdered her but didn’t contact the police or the friend’s parents) and all her other high school girlfrends at the time that they should be careful around the two boys who tried to rape her? It wasn’t her civic duty to warn the mothers of the girls Kavanaugh coaches? She wants an FBI investigation but isn’t willing to contact Maryland police which have jurisdiction? She’s a Ph.D. but she gets her advice on how to proceed with her concern from “beach friends”? I don’t buy any of it. p.s. Was she asked, as a psychologist, if she’s familiar with the well-established research on memory that someone can be “100% confident” of a false memory? If not, that was a miss on behalf of the Republicans’ questioner.

  10. The more I think about it those Republicans that waffled on the confirmation of Kavanaugh and wouldn’t commit until they “heard both sides” are complicit in the destruction of an honorable man’s life And reputation. It wasn’t a matter of waiting to see if your mind would “change” by her testimony they actually didn’t give the man the benefit of the doubt. They are just as guilty as Democrats by Not giving a presumption of innocence. Rather, they equivocated in an attempt to appease, for the fear of possible bad press.

    I believe it was Sen Cornyn who set the record straight. The one side was stating the presumption of innocence doesn’t apply because this is a “job interview”, as one Senator said. Well, Cornyn correctly pointed out this IS a criminal matter. Kavanaugh IS being accused of a crime and could still be subject to criminal prosecution, albeit unlikely due to lack of evidence. Therefore those Senators that “sat on the bench” during all this are just as complicit as the Democrats. But, in the end, they will set their mind at ease, now, by their vote for the man and laud “themselves” for being “even-handed”.

    The sanctimonious Senators that resorted to this final destruction of the man didn’t bother to stand in front and be counted at an opportune time. It wouldn’t have been so difficult to say “I will not participate in the destruction of a man who, by all accounts, has given no indications of such behavior or actions”. Granted, the hearing still would have commenced and if something was actually revealed then it would be an opportune time to change that stand. Thus, the presumption would have been maintained.

    • Very well put, Greg! The Republicans on the committee were so fearful about looking “mean” that the judiciary committee didn’t take the proper respectful attitude of neutrality. The Republicans never should have agreed to a public televised hearing when this woman wouldn’t participate via telephone. They should have insisted on taking her “testimony” in a private, untelevised session, which she claimed to want, and like all the OTHER “background” witnesses in the FBI reports, especially if this was just a “job interview” and not a trial. Rules are rules. There they could have asked their own questions without fear of the visual image, and released the transcript publicly. But we all know her attorneys (and I suspect she too) wanted the televised emotional story because they had nothing else solid, and the Republicans kowtowed.

      Unless they hoped they would come out looking better than the Democrats looked? Is being on television more addictive than drinking beer? Do they have blackouts after binging on each other’s speeches or do they just throw up?

      Thus, this woman was treated like “EveryWoman” instead of a specific woman making a specific accusation against a specific man. So unfair to Judge Kavanaugh and to Dr. Ford too, if she truly hadn’t wanted the stress of national attention.

  11. Everybody, Everybody is saying “she sounds believable”. Instead of watching I mostly listened to the audio. The audio seems to tell a different story. There is a distinct difference in the emotional tone depending on a question. It would almost seem like a case of poor editing as that tone was turned on and off like a switch.

Comments are closed.