Christine Ford – Conniver Not Survivor
When I first heard Christine Ford’s story unlike others who immediately rushed to her defense and agreed with her without seeing any facts, I was suspicious of her story. She told of stories in her yearbook of regretting she had so many sex partners and drinking nights until they passed out. She was associated with Anti-Trump organizations and there were pictures of her holding signs saying “Not My President” so naturally I was suspicious of her testimony saying she was attacked by Kavenaugh 36 years ago.
Her two laKavanaughe radical liberals who were involved with anti-Trump organizations and her one lawyer Debra Katz is a lawyer for the MeToo movement. When asked about Bill Clinton exposing himself to Paula Jones Katz remarked that what happened there could “not be considered a work place incident that caused her harm since it only lasted 10 or 12 minutes.” Gee I thought Hawaiian senator Maize Hirono said women don’t lie when it comes to these things. They sure seemed ready to deny Paula Jones, Juanita Brodderick who was raped by Bill Clinton and she had witnesses right after it happened or Kathleen Willey who Clinton forced himself on, but Christine Ford comes forward with something that allegedly happened 36 years ago and right away everyone believes her. If we’re going back 36 years ago I think we should re-open the case with Bill Clinton and his harassment and raping of women. At least Juanita is very much in the limelight now pushing for that very thing.
Recently conservative author David Horowitz published an article why he doesn’t believe Ford’s story which is excerpted here:
Kavanaugh’s high school yearbooks with tales of drinking were fair game, but Ford’s – which openly talk of the girls’ sexual promiscuity and boast of girls passing out at drinking parties – were not. Nor were her extensive political connections to the anti-Trump left, the pro-abortion movement, the Democratic Party and even the law firm involved in the Steele dossier.
Yes, the sexual crime prosecutor established that Ford lied to the committee when she said she couldn’t come to Washington for the hearings because she was afraid of flying. In fact, as she admitted under questioning, she has frequently flown all over the world for pleasure. But no one actually confronted her about this. For example, no one asked her directly, “If you were brazen enough to lie to a congressional committee about this, why should we believe you in regard to anything else?”
Yes, the same prosecutor gently asked Ford why she thought her best friend Leland Keyser, whom she claimed was present at the party and would corroborate her story, in fact refuted it, saying that she was never at such a party, and the one in question never happened. Ford gave a transparently evasive answer saying her friend had (unspecified) health issues, while never explaining what they were or why that should cause her to contradict what Ford had claimed.
Actually, all the alleged witnesses to the party where the incident was supposed to have taken place have denied that they were there. The one witness who was allegedly in the room where she claimed the incident took place says he wasn’t there. But none of the senators had the temerity to confront her directly with the obvious question: why should we believe your inflammatory claims about Judge Kavanaugh given that no one you have named supports any piece of your story? Moreover, no one asked her “How do you feel about besmirching the reputation of a stellar individual, and bringing incalculable pain to his family by advancing claims that no one corroborates? How can you say that you are 100% sure an incident happened, when you can’t remember anything else accurately about the evening? Did your lawyers instruct you to say 100%? What actually did your lawyers prompt you to say in your prepared statement?
No one said to her: you signed a letter attacking President Trump’s border policies and were able to get the anti-Trump ACLU to publish it; you contacted an anti-Trump paper, the Washington Post, to make your charges; you turned first to Democrats who are sworn to “resist” – actually sabotage –the Trump presidency and his judicial nominees; and you accepted attorneys recommended by Democrats, who are activist Democrat, anti-Trump lawyers. Can we conclude, therefore, that there might be a political motive behind your decision to bring up these character-ruining accusations about a rough-housing you allegedly received 37 years ago when you and Kavanaugh were too young to even vote?
No one dared to ask these questions or to vigorously pursue problematic areas of her testimony and behavior. Instead everyone expressed sympathy for her and her pain in testifying, and said how credible she sounded – even though, unlike Kavanaugh’s presentation, hers was vetted and coached by lawyers, and even though it amounted to character assassination if her memory was false.
This is the ideologically constructed atmosphere, which makes a latter-day witch trial like the Judiciary hearings possible. Christine Blasey Ford’s story is unbelievable on its face. She claims that after the alleged incident at the alleged party, where three of her friends (who have denied it) were allegedly present, she fled. Here are some questions that were not asked:
How did she get past those friends without them seeing her and her distress?
How could she not have warned her best friend, Leland Keyser, that there were two potential rapists in the house, if that’s what she thought?
How did she get home?
How did her best friend not ask her the next day why she left without her, or what happened?
Why was this such a trauma she could not tell her best friend? One can understand why she would want to conceal from her parents that she had gone to a drinking party with boys, but her friend who was allegedly there? She doesn’t even claim that she was raped, only that she was frightened in an incident that could have happened at any of the drunken parties she might have attended as described in her high school yearbook.
On the face of it, Christine Blasey Ford’s story is not only unsubstantiated. It isn’t credible. The destruction of Brett Kavanaugh’s reputation is the equivalent of a modern-day lynching – the third that Democrats have orchestrated in the last twenty-seven years. It’s despicable. At least Republicans like Lindsey Graham have laid that charge at the door of the Democratic culprits who worked so hard to accomplish it.
The left has vowed to continue with investigations into Kavanaugh after the mid-terms. Now a new friend has come forward not surprisingly, of Christine Ford Blasey to rip the FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh. Keith Koegler, Ford’s close friend, said the FBI did not even interview him even though he could “corroborate” Ford’s claim.
According to Koegler, Ford told him about the alleged assault in 2016. She informed her “friend” she has been assaulted by someone that was now a federal judge when they were both in high school. When Koegler asked her the man’s name, she told him it was Kavanaugh. That is what Koegler considers corroboration.
Corroborating evidence or a statement must actually back up specific events. This is nothing more than Ford telling someone a story, period. Had Koegler been at the site of the alleged attack, it would be a much different story.
While Koegler and Democrats have been very critical of the FBI investigation, the fact is the agency already had much of what they needed. Besides the FBI interviewed kavanaugh six times already in his past and this latest one makes seven..
Koeglers story is just like all the other witnesses, repeating something they heard second or third hand. Just like the song from REO Speedwagon’s ‘Take It On the Run’ “I heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from another that you were messing around.”
Without substantial proof you have no case. Kavanaugh is a good man. He’s been sworn in so it’s time for the left to let it go.