Christine Blasey Ford: a friend in need
The woman Ford is speaking about here is her lifelong friend Leland, who failed to back up Ford’s story of the party and the attack, and who also denied ever having met Kavanaugh at any time in her life:
I have never before heard a 50-something-year-old woman speak in the cadences of a 22-year-old. That speech pattern is popular among the under-thirty crowd, but Ford grew up in a different era and I’d be curious to know when she came to adopt that way of speaking.
One might say it’s a case of youthful trauma freezing her development. But as I already noted, this sort of speech was not at all common in her youth, so that’s not the explanation.
Other things we learned today about Christine Blasey Ford:
(1) she flies a great deal, and yet she had requested extra time because of fear of flying (thus validating my earlier “Midnight Run” reference).
(2) no one has ever seen those therapist’s notes from 2012 except her attorney—not even the reporter.
(3) we still don’t know why Ford’s social media history was scrubbed (although we can guess), because no one asked.
But I have decided that treating Ford with extreme kid gloves was exactly the right thing to do, although I didn’t initially think so. The Republicans laid low during Ford’s appearance, and Mitchell was also delicate in her questioning and reluctant to challenge Ford.
Their condemnation and scorn was all directed at the Democrats and not one iota at Ford, and I don’t think the Democrats expected that to be the case. What they had expected was that the Republicans and/or Mitchell would challenge Ford at least somewhat, and the Democrats wanted that to happen because they felt they could use it to campaign in November. They did not expect all of the GOP’s ire to be aimed squarely at the Democrats’ own duplicity and personal destructiveness.
And they most definitely didn’t expect the most ferocious attacks to come from Kavanaugh and their old longtime friend, none other than the ordinarily affable Senator Lindsey Graham.
As I noted on an earlier thread, Mitchell was correct in her approach. The responses from Graham and Cruz were of flamethrower quality. If it doesn’t play in the Midwest it doesn’t play at all. That’s how djt won the EC votes to crest 270.
Does polygraph work on sociopaths?
She is not credible. If she could lie to the face of the country about being afraid of flying just so she could delay the testimony til the last day before the deadline she could lie about anything else.
Agreed, Neo.
Up until today, I was inclined to believe Ford was an active and willing participant in this mendacious circus concocted by the Democrat-media-entertainment troika. But her testimony convinced me otherwise. I think it is fairly likely she truly believes what she alleged. But I don’t think it’s objectively true. She has clearly suffered serious trauma in her life. I’m speculating, of course, but I think she wrote the letter hoping she could truly remain anonymous. When the fear she might be revealed developed, she lawyered up and got a polygraph done (albeit a half-hearted one). When she was revealed, she hesitated and sought cover before reluctantly agreeing to testify.
None of this makes her allegations objectively true, or in any way suggests Kavanaugh is guilty of anything. But I do think Graham made a crucial point: In some sense, Ford is a victim too…of the Democrats shameless political maneuvers. Very, very sad.
Lindsey with Hannity tonight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CUpu–Qgxo
We didn’t have her academia style vocal fry and uptalk, but there was Valley Girl, which was totally grody to the max. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WWDY2iBqFTo
I thought Kavanaugh’s ire was predictable, but what is up with Lindsey Graham? Did he grow a spine after McCain’s death? And why would the two be connected in any way? Obviously, maybe they’re not connected, but this is one of several forceful statements Graham has made post McCain.
I’m not going to speculate about Ford’s life off-camera. Who cares? She was upstaged. People are now talking about Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh, and Did you see Lindsay Graham?
This is not where the Democrats wanted US attention. They were outfoxed.
We’ll see if it lasts.
TommyJay,
There’s an old saying where I come from.
Even the most timid dog will turn and bite you if you beat it often enough.
KRB
That is one messed up lady…she talks like a kid being grilled by the school principal.
Sen Graham is right, she’s a victim too…as much as a willing accomplice can also be victimised by the real criminals.
I hope Justice Kavanaugh is seated before next weekend. And yes let’s pray for another Trump nominee before the year is out.
“…she’s a victim, too…”
I’m getting very, very tired of this.
She may well be a victim in one sense; but she has decided—of her own free will (unless “the Devil—i.e,. Trump—made her do it” of course….) to join forces—to be, in fact, the point person—with evil-doers to flay and burn at the stake, to draw and quarter, to methodically destroy a decent man, his entire family, and those who support him.
For political reasons. So that no lie is too egregious, no “misremembering” is unredeemable, no invention can be criticized, no indecency blameable.
Because “she’s a victim, too”….
To say so, is simply PC run amok (but then we’ve known that for ages….).
Barry, I said “in some sense, she’s a victim too.” She is not a victim in the same way Kavanaugh and his family are. Not at all. But the Democrats clearly manipulated and exploited her. That is despicable.
Barry read my whole sentence:
“she’s a victim too…as much as a willing accomplice can also be victimised by the real criminals.”
She’s an adult not a child…she could have said “No” at any point to sending her letter to Eschoo or even talking to Feinstein, (the “real criminals” here) but here she is in all her “glory.”
But there’s something “wrong” with her…she actually talks like a kid in trouble for writing naughty words in the library books…or something…She’s just off.
A friend of mine said most psychologists took up that profession to heal themselves…that lady needs some healing & she isn’t going to get it from herself.
establishment democrats are desperate. diane fienstein is finished if she can’t stop kavenaugh. her democrat opponent is already calling her a corporate establishment donor class stooge. the left is ready to take over democrat party if establishment clintonistas fail to stop kavenaugh.
I think that this lady has been traumatized, I don’t think Judge Kavanaugh did it. I have little to no faith/trust in the “mental health” profession and think that she is just bumpy, like most of the psychologists I’ve met. This fits into the Dem/Prog problem dealing with reality. They just won’t recognize some facts even if the truth comes up and bites them.
Graham was walking down the hall after the hearing and some women were screaming at him about something. I think it, “believe the victim.” The victim was Kavanaugh; until he fought back. The Dems are insane.
establishment democrats not insane just desperate to stop the base from throwing them out for leftys.
I must say that as a fellow Jesuit HS alum that Brett Kavanaugh is the ideal and perfect Jesuit HS alum. My school has a concept called “the grad at graduation” which are goals that a Jesuit education should instill. He has it in spades.
Kavanaugh has a sharp intellect and competitive fire. He used that yesterday. He had to make his opening a closing and he did so brilliantly.
The Dems wanted him to quit. No way. He learned that on the court and fields. Durbin tried to browbeat him. No way.
I understand that the Jesuits at GT Prep were way more liberal than the Jesuits at Creighton Prep, but Kavanaugh is a conservative.
Brett Kavanaugh is a great, great man. To see him slandered was horrible. But he fought back and won it by himself with an assist from Sen. Graham.
I was never prouder of Jesuit education than I was yesterday.
I thought Dershowitz was credible in arguing that the female cross examiner should ask hard questions and correct to say that she didn’t in the end. But I agree with Neo and others here who think the Republicans played this well. I am not 100% sure that all the pundits are correct to say that the Republicans are finished if they don’t confirm Kavanaugh, but I sure felt a whole lot better after I saw Graham remind the Democrats that he had voted for some of their nominees and call them out in no uncertain terms. As I said in a previous comment I have come to trust Mitch McConnell as a man who has some guts after all – so if he pulled the nomination because he didn’t have the votes, I’d accept that. Still, I am not convinced by the allegations and, while Ford is somewhat credible, the two follow on accusers were far less so which tells me that the thing is probably completely political and therefore I have no concerns about Kavanaugh’s confirmation. The most sensible thing i have heard from the left was an opinion from a Roman Catholic friend who voted for Bernie who told me that she opposed Kavanaugh because his record showed a consistent conservative Roman Catholic bias. I’m not sure I buy that, and I am no fan of that sort of religious conservatism, but that is at least a rational reason to oppose him. I also take my friend’s non engagement in the sex accusations a sign that even very committed Democrats are not comfortable with what is going on. So, I have to ask the question: ‘What if the Democrats had acted like any normal party after unexpectedly losing a close election and started tirelessly opposing Trump but accepting that he was president and had been elected legitimately. He has been an outlandishly different president and they could have collected their Blue Wave along with a house on Boardwalk just by being boringly ordinary. So the big outcome is the collapse of the credibility of the dominant elites, their media, their universities and all the rest and I increasingly suspect an entire world view.
Ha! I thought I was the only one who’d thought of “Midnight Run” re: Ford’s inability to fly.
I haven’t seen whether Ford has joined the #MeToo folk and told her story there — since 2012 she should be getting used to discussing it and trying to move on from it.
Failure to tell your accusations now should weaken the believability of them in the near future, for such “Pre-Clinton-Lewinsky” sexual issues.
Now that I think of it, Graham or other Reps are well-positioned to support more investigation of sexual assault allegations, as well as mistreatment, violence, and harassment. Especially against “the powerful”. Like Keith Ellison, in particular for now, but there are many many Dems vulnerable. Plus some Reps — but conservatives are more law-abiding, lady-respecting in general, so far fewer of them were likely to be doing so much.
And of course, Dem Derangement Syndrome means Dems hate all Reps, so any small Rep infraction over the last 20 years was quite likely to be called out by some Dem or other, while Dem infractions were winked at. Like Cosby’s for so long, and Ellison today; and even a good amount of Dem regret about Al Franklin, where there are pictures of him assaulting a woman. (Far far more evidence than Ford provides here.)
seems most don’t understand democrat base politics here. dem. establishment wants to win mid terms to survive. democrat base wants leftys to take over party and rid it of corporate establishment donor class deep state stooges like diane fienstein who couldn’t even get california democrat party endorsement! the lefts motto take control of democrat party then worry about elections.
I too thought that Ms. Ford’s speech pattern was unusual for someone of her age and occupation. The thought “Valley Girl” also popped into my head, Miss Moon Unit Zappa made a hit of the song in 1982. But Ms. Ford’s odd “girlie Kewpie Doll” voice seems not specifically San Fernando Valley in color but quite in line with the speech patterns of Cyndi Lauper (“Girls Just Want to Have Fun”–1983) and early Madonna Louise Ciccone (specifically her vocalization of the songs “Lucky Star” and “Borderline” from her debut album “Madonna”, 1983).
I can’t wait until some sexually abusive Democrat tries to use this hearing in his defense. “Don’t Kavanaugh me bro!”
By Ford’s own testimony-
She escaped an attempted rape/murder and slipped out of the house without talking to or warning her friend, leaving her as the only remaining female in a house with rapist/murderers.
Quite the friend.
Here in fly over country, Ford’s voice and mannner came off as California flaky (sorry neo). At first, I thought she was very likeable, but as the circus went on, I found her to be a little grating. I would love to see video of one of her classes just for a comparison. And I thought an interesting moment is when she realized investigative staff would have come to her, but her attorneys hadn’t told her of that offer. I have thought all along her attorney was doing her no favors (speaking of grating) and were doing Feinsteins bidding. Like others, I think Ford had some sort of event when she was younger, but it wasn’t Kavanaugh that inflicted it.
Probably picked up her speech patterns from her students.
Forgot to add. Brett and his classmates were – and are – still extremely tight. Same here with the other Prep. But he had – and has – great friendships with the women from the girls Catholic schools in the area and that is remarkable. Omaha and DC are similar in some respects.
Ford wrote the letter, and scrubbed her social media accounts. Maybe she was a keyboard warrior and when it spilled over into real life she got scared and insisted on remaining anonymous. The Dems used her ruthlessly in their political fight and to that extent she has been victimized.
It’s been so long since the Republicans actually fought back that I wasn’t expecting it. What a refreshing change.
If Republican/conservative voters were inclined to go for slogans: Believe Both Victims.
1. She has a repellent Georgia Engel voice. I didn’t notice peri-adolescent speech patterns of a sort which are common but not universal among young women (which they lose with age). An adolescent speech pattern is rapid chatter with masses of conversational junk and filler (and the ubiquitous ‘like’ construction). I can think of a contemporary of Blasey’s I’ve heard speak that way. She is childless, which Blasey is not.
2. No clue how she retained that voice. It is quite peculiar. With Georgia Engel you had the impression it was part of her act, not her default way of speaking. (Georgia Engel is a childless spinster, btw). It also sits ill with the rest of her. She looks like a tall and chunky woman who’d have a deep and somewhat brassy voice (I could hear a woman who looked like her in my mind’s ear saying, “Pretty little neck you got there. Bet it would break easy”)
3. Again, there are no coarse indicators of trauma in her life. The smart money says that any scar tissue she has is not from trauma but from everyday abrasions: say, a father with a volcanic temper or a mother given to self-centered and manipulative behavior or just the day to day anxiety one suffers from being somewhat unattractive (as she was as a youngster).
Yup – she made the whole thing up.
Knew it.
If the Republicans care to salvage anything . . . .
After confirming Kavanaugh’s appointment they should move to censure Feinstein. She withheld information about the nominee for naked partisan purpose, made a laughingstock of Congress (don’t ever talk about Trump’s disastrous foreign policy again) to the world, and she took advantage of Ford’s emotional instability. And by impugning Kavanaugh, damaged the Court itself.
BUT WAIT! After starting proceedings they should drop and it simply have a procedural vote to follow the Constitution; to simply vote up or down on any and all future SCOTUS appointments. No hearings, no circuses, and no grilling the nominees. Simply vote on the person’s professional record.
Exactly right Neo. Ford’s story has so many holes in it that the best way to confront it was to simply have her tell it. Grassley and the other committee Republicans played this perfectly. Ford’s own testimony, coaxed from her in the most gentle of ways by Mitchell, undermined the accusations. Graham’s identifying her as a co-victim of the Democrats was also a brilliant move.
They focused on the story or accusations, not the person. Well done.
I couldn’t bring myself to listen to the audio after reading the descriptions of her speaking style. To call that style grating would almost be a compliment.
I don’t think Ford is very bright. She spouts out things about brain chemicals, but she would probably protest foods containing chemicals, including dihydrogen monoxide. I think she has learned to take up the terminology of her bubble. Do you really think she would have followed Kavanaugh’s judicial decisions that might have worried her when he was a possible SCOTUS choice by Romney. She probably learned about Kavanaugh from her bubble and then learned that he was from her neck of the woods. From there, she concocted her trauma. Her testimony seemed to indicate that she followed orders from Katz & Co without really thinking about them. I would love to know more about her husband and his family.
She believes what she says because she has never really thought about it.
Bob on September 28, 2018 at 6:34 am at 6:34 am said:
I can’t wait until some sexually abusive Democrat tries to use this hearing in his defense. “Don’t Kavanaugh me bro!”
* * *
Won’t work; his name is too long.
Christine Blasey Ford talks like she has been brainwashed and handed a script written by an eighties stoner. All the delays were playing for time to let her learn her lines.
I don’t think the Mitchell questions helped the Republicans in the process battle. If anything , to most people, it strengthened her “credibility”. However, it might have created even more doubt, sufficient enough for Collins,murk, and flake
LOL, DWMF! This clip Neo posted shows CBF first looks down at the table, where I am guessing her notes read How to Answer Question About BF Leland.
Also running note, use up as much time as possible.
But I have decided that treating Ford with extreme kid gloves was exactly the right thing to do, although I didn’t initially think so. The Republicans laid low during Ford’s appearance, and Mitchell was also delicate in her questioning and reluctant to challenge Ford.
Accepting the terms that female accusers cannot be cross-examined is a mistake and a bad precedent, IMO. At least Arlen Specter raised a few of the issues with the story Anita Hill was telling, and they still talk as though Anita was telling the whole truth. No way. How long will we hear about poor CBF and her rapist on the Supreme Court?
Mrs. Mitchell’s approach to questioning may have worked on its own if it had been a forensic interview, as she alluded too.
In the end it worked because Judge Kavanaugh rose to the occasion and presented what others have already said– an epic closing argument in his opening statement. He laid out the evidence that refuted the charges without attacking Mrs. Ford.
He did what the Democrats said he had to, he proved he didn’t do it. That left the Democrats playing their only option– delay the hearings again with incessant calls for a FBI investigation
It was a defense that you wanted to stand up and cheer for. Some might say the fact that he ripped up his prepared statement and wrote this statement was divinely inspired.
Nothing less would have saved his nomination, IMO.
“Ford’s own testimony, coaxed from her in the most gentle of ways by Mitchell, undermined the accusations. Graham’s identifying her as a co-victim of the Democrats was also a brilliant move.” [Steve Walsh @ 11:44 am]
The Senate Republicans allied Ford with Kavanaugh (as both being victims) and then turned the Democrats into the bad guys for harassing both the “reluctant” accuser and the “browbeaten” accused. Trump used this same tactic during the 2016 campaign by making the MSM the enemy of the people instead of his adversary alone.
In reality T, there were many victims here. Ford, Kavanaugh, the American people, the confirmation process was a victim.
The MSM is the enemy of the people. Reporting is not opinion. Reporting should be facts. Reporting should be devoid of more than half of what is “reported”.
It is ok to have a Maddow show or a Hannity show. Those are not reporting shows. But to have CNN report AS MANY STORIES as they did over this last 2 years and get things SOOOOOO wrong shows how much time they spend not reporting but making things up.
I’ve moved from liberalism to libertarianism (wanting an 80% cut in government) back in 1991 and now to centrism. I saw the bias in 1991. There USED to be surveys of journalists asking who they voted for but they STOPPED that practice because it showed an ever decreasing number from 9% to 7% back in 1991. Now….. it might be 3%. Really????
Here is my perspective T,
BOTH Democrats and Republicans have GROWN government and therefore are to the left of center. As a centrist this is disconcerting. Anyone who believes Republicans are extreme right are simply smoking something. Anyone who believes in intersectionality and identity politics are racists, sexist, practicing the opposite of Aristotle’s kyros, logos, ethos, pathos (rhetorical appeals). Let each argument stand on its merit with facts and logic in context. Period. (little Joe Biden speak). lol
Baklava,
Your comment @ 1:29 pm contains nothing I would disagree with.
Jeff Flake is speaking before the vote:
Jeff is asking to delay the floor vote for an FBI investigation.
Flake is the worst.
Vote was 11-10 including Flake’s to advance the nominee to the floor
Flake…an apt name.
Neo,
Could it be that Dr. Ford has picked up the speech cadences of a 22 year-old because, as a professor, she spends so much time around people of that age? Wouldn’t someone with a underdeveloped personality be more inclined to pick up the speech habits of those around her?
Or maybe she’s just playing us.
Highlander, The speech cadence is common in California – even among men and women who are above 50.
At 0:09 in the clip, the question about why Leland disputed CBF’s story is completed.
At 0:10, CBF looks down at the table in front of her. For nine seconds, she stares at her notes and during that time begins to answer, clearly reading the first key phrase, that Leland “has significant health challenges.” What does that mean? Is Leland dying? It obviously means that, at the least, Leland is not in control of her life, so that is why she said what she did, through her lawyer. Then, at 0:19-0:20, CBF looks back up to make eye contact with Ms. Mitchell.
At 0:25, CBF needs the next thought, looks down again, says Leland is “getting the health treatment that she needs” and she “needed her lawyer” to handle this. Leland would never have said what the lawyer said; naturally, only a lawyer would have said such a thing as that repudiation of my story.
That is proven because Leland texted CBF “right afterward with an apology.” Oh; Leland was sorry her lawyer had had to lie like that, it was only because Leland is so sick.
Then the coup de grace: “I’m glad that she’s taking care of herself.” Well done! Ever so kind and nice, Christine. Your friend is sick unto death and that’s why she lied about you so. She didn’t mean it; she just couldn’t help it.
Dave on September 27, 2018 at 11:55 pm at 11:55 pm said:
Does polygraph work on sociopaths?
* * *
Short answer: no.
They don’t work with trained spies either.
Or with people who really believe they are telling the truth.
https://www.nap.edu/read/10420/chapter/2
Brian E on September 28, 2018 at 11:59 am at 11:59 am said:
Mrs. Mitchell’s approach to questioning may have worked on its own if it had been a forensic interview, as she alluded too.
In the end it worked because Judge Kavanaugh rose to the occasion and presented what others have already said– an epic closing argument in his opening statement. He laid out the evidence that refuted the charges without attacking Mrs. Ford.
He did what the Democrats said he had to, he proved he didn’t do it. That left the Democrats playing their only option– delay the hearings again with incessant calls for a FBI investigation
It was a defense that you wanted to stand up and cheer for. Some might say the fact that he ripped up his prepared statement and wrote this statement was divinely inspired.
Nothing less would have saved his nomination, IMO.
* * *
Sadly, it hasn’t saved him yet — in fact, the failure to follow-up while the enemy is on the run will totally vitiate all of the momentum gained by his testimony and Graham’s last-minute cavalry charge.
If Judge Kavanaugh were to now tell the Committee that he was willing to fight, but not to be their sacrificial scapegoat, I would lament his decision but support it.
Stodgy old Christian conservative that he is, he probably would not flip them off as he said it, but if he did — stodgy old Christian conservative that I am — I would stand up, applaud, and yell
“damn straight.”
Dr. Ford is a victimizing manipulator. She just uses her so called “assault” as an excuse to hurt other people and to get other people to feel sorry for her. Give me a break! A lot of people have had a lot worse happen to them and they don’t feel traumatized for the rest of their lives. She is a gift to the democrats. She is probably the one who released her own name to the media. Talk to a veteran to get a real PTSD story.
Re:. Dr. Ford’s voice & speech patterns
I recall that Jacqueline Onassiss’s voice was described as “breathy” and “little girl,” as was Marilyn Monroe’s. That voice was described as a way to project vulnerability and entice the more powerful to protect them.
I would be interested in hearing a recording of Dr. Ford lecturing to see if her voice changes with the circumstances. As a psychologist, Dr. Ford is probably aware of how voice and body language influence the listener/observer. Whether she deliberately would manipulate them would be difficult to prove.
The comments here are thoughtful and helpful to me in clarifying my impressions of the last 2 days of the hearing. I agree that Ms. Mitchell did a good job in revealing the inconsistencies of Dr Ford as a credible accuser. It permitted Ford to speak. And, for me, the vocal fry and upspeak weaken my assessment of an adult’s character…because it is an affected manner. Mitchell’s demeanor and the 5-minute limit did not provide for a Perry Mason moment. But it did provide an opportunity for the Repubs, the next day, to pound home the holes in her story. Their attacks on the Dems were gratifying…but they could have better coordinated their remarks with the problems uncovered by Mitchell, especially for the benefit of Sen. Flake: If Flake is so blinded by his hate of Trump that he would allow the destruction of an innocent and decent man/ nominee, then this is a malicious behavior worthy of a place far hotter than Phoenix.
I know this comment is a day after the vote but I was noticing the stark contrast between how many family members and friends were there to support Kavanagh and the fact that there were zero there to support Ford so I started googling her family and this is really all I could find:, other than the fact that she does have two parents and two siblings who refused to comment and obviously didn’t send letters of support for her.
Is this for real?
Have you seen this?
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2659.htm
To me Dr Ford was completely brainwashed and re-programmed.
I believe the Polygraph test she underwent is only to check the efficacy of the new scripting.
A full scale investigation on Dr Ford may reveal the technique used in various school shootings.
Pingback:My Theory on Christine Blasey-Ford – LonelyConVoice.com
I worked at a call center for fifteen years, and I too noticed the childlike manner of speech she used – unusual for such an accomplished woman. I don’t know if Kavanaugh assaulted her or not; but I think the “fragile, traumatized teenager” persona she portrayed is very suspicious.
Ms Blase Ford PhD seems very unstable – upspeaking and childish voice, overly agreeable and “OK after she has her coffee”, crying to smiling in matter of seconds, changing words on emails and letters, can’t remember hugely important details as if she took a polygraph on same day as her GM funeral, changing story that is “seared in her mind” repeatedly, looking like a lost child wanting her lawyers to save her every time she received even a slight question to her story, lying about flying and two door issue ( was years before therapy), and don’t forget that every other person she says was there denies any knowledge of incident. Should never been before the Senate comm. Not credible and no supporting evidence