Posted by DrJohn on 17 September, 2018 at 8:28 am. 47 comments already!



democrats have been desperate to stop the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. The Chinese spy in the Senate, Dianne Feinstein, has thrown a Hail Mary in the form of a decades old accusation from one Christine Blasey Ford.

[…]  While his friend watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth.

“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” said Ford, now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”

Ford said she was able to escape when Kavanaugh’s friend and classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling. She said she ran from the room, briefly locked herself in a bathroom and then fled the house.

Kavanaugh has categorically denied it.

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh vigorously denied claims involving an alleged high school incident made in an undisclosed letter and turned over to FBI by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

“I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time,” Kavanaugh, 53, said in a statement Friday.

Feinstein ignited controversy Thursday by releasing a statement saying she turned information about Kavanaugh over to the FBI. She did not detail the accusation, and Republicans accused her of trying to orchestrate a last-minute smear.

The other person named by Ford in the alleged incident has also denied it:

Now that Ford’s name and more details about her allegations were released in the Poststory, Judge reiterated his denial:

“Now that the anonymous person has been identified and has spoken to the press, I repeat my earlier statement that I have no recollection of any of the events described in today’s Post article or attributed to her letter,” he said in a statement to Breitbart News.

Before Ford’s name was publicly released on Sunday, Judge strongly denied that the incident ever occurred. “It’s just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way,” Judge said to the Weekly Standard, addressing allegations that at the time stemmed from reports citing an unnamed woman.

Kavanaugh has been vetted 6 times by the FBI and this never turned up.

The event is said to have occurred 35 years ago. It was never reported- not to the police, not to anyone- her parents included, apparently. That alone makes it ring false to me. Ford also has a selective memory about the event:

According to the Post, Ford has an imperfect memory of the events. “Ford said she does not remember how the gathering came together the night of the incident.… She also doesn’t recall who owned the house or how she got there.” She does seem to remember the county, and this will no doubt be helpful to the committee if she musters the courage to appear.

Now, why might Ford be suddenly remembering this event?

In anticipation of public disclosure, Ford scrubbed her social media.

But not completely:

Motive 1

Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who claims she was physically attacked at a high school party by Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh three decades ago, has taken part in events opposing President Donald Trump, including a science march in California last year where she donned a version of the “pussy hats” worn at the January 2017 Women’s March.

Motive 2

Brett Kavanaugh’s mother was the judge in a home foreclosure proceeding against the accuser’s parent.

And there’s this, and it’s a biggie:

She never mentioned the event to anyone until 2012, when she attended couples therapy. Why?

Motive 3. It may have been a plan since 2012.

So what happened in 2012? Coincidentally (or not), 2012 was another election year.

In 2012, Romney ran against Obama. Up until his 47% gaffe, Romney was doing well. He actually had a shot of winning.

For the Democrats, as has been the case since Bork, having a Republican in the White House, especially with the ever-aging but never retiring Ruth Bader Ginsburg a perpetual risk, raised the specter of a conservative judge getting appointed to the Supreme Court. With that in mind, one Twitter user, who must have an amazing memory, remembered something interesting he’d read back in 2012:

I’ll save you a click to The New Yorker website. The article, which The New Yorker published in 2012, is a Jeffrey Toobin analysis about Bret Kavanaugh and the threat he would pose should he get on the Supreme Court. According to Toobin, Kavanaugh was a scary conservative who, if he got on the Court, might overturn Obamacare:

In other words, according to Kavanaugh, even if the Supreme Court upholds the law this spring, a President Santorum, say, could refuse to enforce aca because he “deems” the law unconstitutional. That, to put the matter plainly, is not how it works. Courts, not Presidents, “deem” laws unconstitutional, or uphold them. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Marbury v. Madison, in 1803, and that observation, and that case, have served as bedrocks of American constitutional law ever since. Kavanaugh, in his decision, wasn’t interpreting the Constitution; he was pandering to the base.

In the nineteen-nineties, during Kavanaugh’s first brush with prominence, it was said that some conservatives suffered from Clinton derangement syndrome—an obsessive belief that the President and the First Lady had committed every misdeed that was attributed to them. (Hillary Clinton was involved in Vince Foster’s death; Bill Clinton had trafficked narcotics through Mena, Arkansas; and so on.) Kavanaugh’s bizarre opinion confirms that a contemporary analogue to the Clinton malady has taken hold: health-care derangement syndrome.

There’s more blah-blah from Toobin, a man who can never be trusted to be honest about the law. Don’t bother reading it. Just pay attention to that last paragraph:

If a Republican, any Republican, wins in November, his most likely first nominee to the Supreme Court will be Brett Kavanaugh. (Emphasis mine.)

If you have any remaining doubts, see here and here

H/T John McCormack

This plot has been in the works since 2012.

Sixty five women who knew Brett Kavanaugh in high school have signed a letter in support of him. According to her lawyer, Ford is ready to testify publicly.

Republicans would like this to happen immediately.

In a statement, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said he “would gladly listen to what [Ford] has to say,” but if “the committee is to hear from Ms. Ford it should be done immediately so the process can continue as scheduled.”

But apparently, democrats want more time- like until after January 21st.

There is little doubt that these accusations are not going anywhere and there is much doubt as to their veracity.

First, one way to help test the veracity of old claims is to ask whether there is any contemporaneous corroboration. Did the accuser tell a friend or family member or anyone about the alleged assault when it occurred? With Clinton, Trump, Moore, and many other politicians and celebrities, there was ample contemporaneous corroboration. Here, there was not. According to the Washington Post, “Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband.”

That’s almost three decades of silence — three decades when memories can grow cloudy and recollections can change.

But even the allegedly corroborating notes of the therapist raise a separate problem. They actually contradict her story on a key detail. According to the Post, “The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy that Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.” Nor do the notes mention Kavanaugh’s name, even though her husband says Ford named Kavanaugh in the sessions.

Ford seems not to have told anyone. That’s very significant. I have a grown daughter and I can tell you for a fact that had something like this happened to her, she would have come to me or her mother immediately. Had it been me, I can assure you that there would have been consequences. Prompt consequences.

Yet she told no one- until 2012. When Romney might win and Kavanaugh’s name is brought up as a potential SCOTUS nominee. And now Ford has a lawyer who thinks that Trump advisers are “miscreants.” Debra Katz, a #metoo lawyer, has been dismissive of accusations against Bill Clinton and Al Franken.

Kellie Ann Conway issued a statement saying that “This woman should not be insulted and she should not be ignored.”

“Let me make very clear: I’ve spoken with the president, I’ve spoken with Sen. [Lindsey] Graham and others,” Conway said. “This woman will be heard. She’s going to … I think the Senate Judiciary Committee will decide how and through which forum.”

This is smart politics. Trump stays on the proper side of the debate and once this is swatted away, they can turn on Keith Ellison.


I’m shocked. A refusal to cooperate and allow Ford to testify promptly proves this is a stunt, a bluff- one that Katz never expected Grassley to call. This was and is about throwing some sh*t on Kavanaugh and hoping it stinks.

Update 2

I have amended the post to remove the student evaluations. It is not clear that this Ford is the teacher in question.



0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x