Christine Ford and truth
I’m not going to write much about Ford’s ex-boyfriend’s letter—the one that indicates she’s been telling many lies during her testimony—for the simple reasons that (a) others have done so quite thoroughly, and (b) I’m not sure that he’s telling the truth, although I hope we can find out soon. I also refer you to this article about her front doors. Make of it what you will.
But Rachel Mitchell’s report had already shed a lot of light on the inconsistencies, evasions, and in some cases lies (that flying to the hearing was not possible for her, due to her phobia about flying) that Ford has already told. These problems are important and material, not tangential. They cast doubt on her basic story and they indicate manipulative motives (quite possibly of the politically oriented variety) as well.
Initially I felt that Ford at least thought she was telling the truth, and that she probably had a distorted and/or “recovered” memory. Now quite a bit of doubt has been shed on that theory, as well, to be replaced by the very real possibility that she made it up out of the whole cloth, or certainly knew that Kavanaugh was not involved in whatever incident she may have experienced.
Another thing I haven’t seen too much discussion about is that Mark Judge had already provided her with all the information she needed to formulate an untrue accusation, if that’s in fact what she did. He went to school with Kavanaugh, and wrote a book about his (Judge’s) own drinking problems as a young man. I haven’t read the book, but it’s in the public domain and Ford had full access to it. Did she ever read it? That in itself would not be proof of anything much, because she might have read it with the completely innocent motive of reading a memoir by someone who grew up around the same time as she did and within the same milieu, and whom she knew at least slightly.
However, I’d love to know if she read it and when she read it. Did she read it at all? If so, was it not too long before she told her therapist about the Kavanaugh incident in 2012? Was it between then and the letter she wrote to her House representative that started this whole nasty mess?
To my mind, the option that she is sincerely deluded is becoming less and less likely. This bears the marks of a political hit job with assistance from Democrat lawyers and lawmakers. They’re using Mark Judge’s story and imputing his problems to Kavanaugh.
Like her own statements, the ex boyfriend’s statements need some verification. Does he have, for instance, documentation on the credit card matter?
Mark Theissen has intereswting observations in his recent article (H/T Don Surber:
https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2018/10/washington-post-rachel-mitchell.html
The link for the above excerpts from Don Surber:
https://siouxcityjournal.com/opinion/columnists/marc-a-thiessen-prosecutor-expertly-picks-apart-the-case-against/article_61ff5dbb-7ce3-5908-a404-c110272930ce.html
I have stated, possibly here, that I have little or no sympathy for Dr Ford, or her story.
One reason for lack of personal sympathy is that she reportedly asked in her letter to the Senator from California** that her name not be made public. As I rather graphically noted in another forum, she hoped to throw a shovel full of horse manure into the confirmation process with no risk that her own hands get soiled. That is as close to despicable as anything we have seen; although, admittedly, the despicablilty index is rising by the day.
I think it is now fair to say that her story is either a deliberate untruth, or the construct of a troubled mind.
** As a resident, I really hated noting the role of the Senator from California in this fiasco. Why does California elect so many unpleasant or dysfunctional women politicians? (Boxer, Pelosi, Feinstein, Kamala Harris)
Geller has a damning post on Ford & Co.
https://gellerreport.com/2018/10/for-cia-friend-letter-hlp.html/
Read the whole thing. It’s astounding.
Ford’s cred is in shreds.
blert:
It’s beginning to look like Mitchell may have based some of her questions for Ford on the ex-boyfiend’s letter. Interesting also that Ford specifically mentioned composing her own letter while in Rehoboth, and that the polygraph was administered to her by a retired FBI agent near there.
I didn’t experience her testimony but that photo of her smiling behind sunglasses next to a surfboard always struck me as at odds with the shattered sexual victim pose.
I further read she’s been an avid surfer for years — a big reason for those trips to Hawaii and Tahiti — and apparently she still surfs in Santa Cruz and San Francisco. You have to be a serious surfer for SC and SF. The waves are very cold and often nasty. That takes a lot of grit even for guys.
She has also taught at top-level schools like Pepperdine and Stanford. Again, very competitive stuff — broken victims need not apply.
Knock on wood, but the Kavanaugh smears look like they are backfiring.
Not only may Kavanaugh be confirmed, but it may further energize Republican voters for the midterms.
Clearly, being the responsible adults in the room (as opposed to making the claim) was not an option for Democrats. However, it’s an interesting thought experiment to imagine how the past couple years would have gone if Democrats had.
In attempting to smear Kavanaugh, Democrat politicos and the accusers reveal much more about their own darkening characters. I say darkening because they appear to be sliding further and further into a moral abyss by continually yielding to politically motivated temptations. Neither they nor their media allies seem to realize or care how obvious their motives are.
Life presents tests for the purpose of learning, and learning inevitably happens in the long run. When tests are failed, they are presented again – either in this life or lives to come.
There are doubtless many lessons to be learned from the Kavanaughcalypse, three of which are timing (don’t sit on allegations when there is an opportunity to have them investigated immediately), the importance of following established protocols, and (needless to say) honesty. Democrats have been so blatantly dishonest that they have badly damaged whatever valid causes they might still stand for. Put simply, they are leaving the impression that they cannot be trusted.
Sadly, none of them seem be looking for or open to learning any kind of lesson.
I just headed over to Amazon to check out his books, and found the same thing for all of them. Each had about 8-10 reviews within the last week in which they rated his efforts 1 star. Most were pretty blatant in what they were trying to do. Because the books did not have a great many reviews anyway, it drives down the overall rating unfairly. It’s a shame and obnoxious. I wish Amazon would do something about it, but won’t keep my fingers crossed. I did mark each review as unhelpful and reported them.
There is also a news story out today saying that Ford’s ex-boyfriend also said in his sworn statement to the Judiciary Committee that at one time Ford lived in a tiny, 500 square foot apartment with only one door, with no problem at all.
Doesn’t sound like claustrophobia to me.
Plainly stated, Ford’s whole “story” about how she was attacked by Kavanaugh is just that, a made up story, a crock of scheisse.
Gary A. Proctor:
I’m surprised it’s only 8 or 10. I would have expected a ton of them, all since the Ford allegations broke.
Just read the GELLER Report that “Blert” referenced.
WOW!!!!!!
Did she ever read it? (Mark Judge’s memoir) That in itself would not be proof of anything much, because she might have read it with the completely innocent motive of reading a memoir by someone who grew up around the same time as she did and within the same milieu, and whom she knew at least slightly.
I would wager that she read it. Several years ago a hometown peer published a memoir of his childhood and adolescence. In my visits back home I found out a lot of my peers had read it. I wasn’t the only one who read it more than once.
Gary A. Proctor +Neo:
Your interchange prompted me to go to Amazon. There is only one Amazon review before September 2018- a review from 1999 which gave it a 5-star. The only “verified purchase” is from September 2018- a 5 star. Which indicates the 1-stars are just hatchet jobs.
Regarding the 1999 review- I don’t know if Amazon did “verified purchase” back then.
Might be a good time to put the book into Kindle format. The hardcover version goes for $1899.99. I wonder if the 2018 “verified purchaser” paid that. Wasted: Tales of a Genx Drunk. There should be a current market for it at $3-$5 for a digital/Kindle version.
Lawsuit accuses Seneca Valley ‘mean girls’ of targeting boy with false allegations
https://triblive.com/local/regional/14142176-74/lawsuit-accuses-seneca-valley-mean-girls-of-targeting-teen-boy-with-false
The 26-page lawsuit — filed in Pittsburgh on the eve of Mean Girls Day — alleges that T.F. “was forced to endure multiple court appearances, detention in a juvenile facility, detention at home, the loss of his liberty and other damages until several of the girls reluctantly admitted that their accusations were false” this summer.
The lawsuit contends that T.F. was bullied on multiple occasions by classmates. In one example, the lawsuit said students last year placed masking tape with the word “PREDATOR” written on it on his back without his knowledge during choir practice.
The lawsuit alleges that the boy was further damaged by “gender bias” by school officials and Goldinger’s office, which even after learning the girls’ accusations were false “did not take any action against the females involved,” said attorney Craig Fishman of Pittsburgh, who represents the Floods.
“(T.F.) was basically being tortured in school by the other students and investigators, but the administration was only focused on protecting the girls who were lying,” Fishman said. “Once the allegations were proven false, they really didn’t care one bit about T.F. and there has been absolutely no repercussions against the girls.”
I have never believed a single word from Mrs Ford.
I’m sticking with “she cheated on her hubby, then made up this story to explain her infidelity.” And with the cascade of lies…who’s to say? And she became useful to the Ds & she craves the attention. Sick sick sick…
https://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/09/faces-of-evil.html
Check out the matching smirks…
I thought from the beginning that CBF and her lawyers read Mark Judge’s book.
Christopher Garrett per his attorney was interviewed by the FBI yesterday. We should have answers to certain interesting questions: his recollection of his own dealings with Christine Blasey ca. 1982 and his recollection as to whether or not he introduced her to friends.
Initially I felt that Ford at least thought she was telling the truth,
That seems to me the least plausible explanation of this dispute, but if discussions I’ve participated in are any guide, the one to which people are most attracted. I cannot figure it except that in our cultural moment many people are resistant to a frank acknowledgement that a woman is lying. Not buying the recovered memory shizz for one moment.
Agree 100% with John Guilfoyle, above. Art Deco, too. Cornhead might be right with his angle. It strikes me as a complete sham by a person incomplete in the accountability department. Nowadays, that means a liberal 90% of the time. Blame your deficiencies on the people you dislike most.
And every once in a while you can leverage your victimhood by charging them rent for their bad, bad oppression, which is the only reason they are more successful than you. Through GoFundMe, let’s say. And maybe the notoriety for your bravery will bring a better faculty appointment somewhere. Not to mention damaging a very bad man who will do his best to ruin liberals’ lives everywhere. A bit of a gamble, but good chances for a win win win. Underneath all that motivation, is there some original hurt? There must be, reason says, but not everything is reasonable. If there is, though, what that hurt actually consists of, could be anything. Someone, anyone, a person or an institution, once surprised you with his, her, or its meanness when you weren’t expecting it. You were not their top priority. Life.
I believe she read Mark Judge’s book to discover that he worked at the Potomac Safeway in the summer of 1982 and that is how she finally narrowed down her dates from the mid-1980s and early 1980s to the summer of 1982. That really is the only explanation for her mentioning Mark judge working at the Potomac Safeway five times during her testimony at the hearing on Thursday.
Art Deco:
Actually, my idea that she believed her own story comes from my knowledge of how memory works over time.
However, her affect also always disturbed me somewhat and made me think she might be lying—the little girl voice, the quizzically cocked head (sort of like a puppy).
I still am not sure which it is. But at the moment I come down slightly on the side that she is lying, or at least lying about Kavanaugh and a lot of other things. She may be using the bare bones of the story of something that once happened to her at the hands of someone, and shaping it to political ends.
Actually, my idea that she believed her own story comes from my knowledge of how memory works over time.
Your memory manufactures fictional events and inserts into them people you’ve never met (but happen to be referenced in published work)? Not the memory of anyone I’ve ever known.
Art Deco:
“How memory works over time” in general.
Perhaps you missed a rather lengthy piece I wrote recently on the subject. Please see this.
I believe she read Mark Judge’s book to discover that he worked at the Potomac Safeway in the summer of 1982 and that is how she finally narrowed down her dates … That really is the only explanation for her mentioning Mark judge working at the Potomac Safeway five times during her testimony at the hearing on Thursday. –Tom R
And each time she so sweetly suggested she could come up with the properly correctly exactly right answer if Ms. Mitchell would call Mark Judge up to testify. The sociopath in her. As glimpsed by her ex-BF when she was done with him, his letter told us. Why not cheat his bank account after cheating on his heart, too. No biggie, he probably deserved it. Don’t they all.
Have a feeling we have not heard the last of, or about, Mrs. Ford. Now that she has no further usefulness to the media.
Oh, and the ever-so-kindly placed dagger into BFF Leland Keyser. (Former BFF, now liar.)
A formidable woman behind that disarming affect. Daddy should be proud. (Or was that part of the original problem?)
I think that if it can be proven beyond a “reasonable doubt” that she lied under oath she should be prosecuted and serve time in jail. Same thing goes for the other two accusers.
texexec:
I agree that if it can be proven that she knowingly lied, she should face the full extent of the law.
That would be very hard to prove, though.
The denial of the polygraph knowledge, and previous preparation of her friend — wasn’t that a direct contradiction of fact? If you go back and look at her expressions at the start of the testifying, and again in the 15 minutes or so before the lunch break, you see a remarkable change. By 12:20 or so, she is exhilarated by this. Exhilarated that damning Brett Kavanaugh as a sexual assaulter, perhaps attempted rapist, is going so well. Only a sociopath could have that reaction, seems to me. A normal woman would not be thrilled by what she is doing, even if she were fully convinced she was telling the truth. Prosecute her.
Kai Akker:
Her friend denied that it ever happened. So it’s ex-boyfriend vs. friend. I doubt there’s any other evidence of it either way.
Kai Akker:
I find Ford’s entire affect very “off” and quite contrived. I would be reluctant to characterize it with some word like “sociopath” without knowing a great deal more, however.
Yeah, it’s a speculative diagnosis. But I think there are signs it is correct, now that we know more about her.
OT question: should embryonic sociopaths, if we can someday identify the marker, be genetically modified out of existence? Turned, genetically, to eliminate the sociopathy?
Her family-of-orgin has tried to keep a low profile in all this. People who’ve read the statement of support attesting to her character are, I’ve been told, largely drawn from Russell Ford’s relatives. I have a feeling they know their gal.
I readily admit that Rachel Mitchell was more effective when questioning Blasey-Ford than I originally thought. But still, Mitchell let a lot of things go past her. When Prof. Ford said she wasn’t “clear” that Grassley was offering to have the SJC staff interview her in CA, there were so many follow-up questions I would have asked.
Such as, “Did you have a vague idea that the SJC chair had made some sort of offer,” “What was unclear to you,” “How did you form this vague idea,” “So you had no idea,” etc.
OK, I’m a blunt insrument and the, “Always believe the woman!” crowd would have been all over me like white on rice, and I realize that Mitchell had to cover a lot of ground in five minute increments in her allotted time. But still, isn’t Blasey=Ford’s “I wasn’t clear” statement the most obvious of lies? The only way she could be telling the truth is if she is willing to say that despite being born in Maryland she needs ESL classes. How else can you explain not being “clear” on Grassley’s offer of anytime, anywhere, public or private, including flying to CA to get her testimony. Did the unnamed and perhaps imaginary, “beach friends” confuse her?
Artfldgr
Lawsuit accuses Seneca Valley ‘mean girls’ of targeting boy with false allegations
When Every Boy Is Guilty, Every Girl Becomes a Monster.
Yes, there are false accusations.
Art Deco:
Ford’s husband gave an interview to the WaPo a while back in which he said Ford has been estranged from her family for political reasons, for quite some time. He didn’t give a time frame, but it was clear he did not mean it had just happened as a result of her allegations. The article can be found here.
I readily admit that Rachel Mitchell was more effective when questioning Blasey-Ford than I originally thought. But still, Mitchell let a lot of things go past her. –Steve57
Ms. Mitchell’s presentation was good if the whole intent was to elicit an expected perjury. Did it? We don’t know, although Neo says no. There is a youtube version of the questioning with all interruptions eliminated, so you can watch the entire run of the two of them at it, if you’re interested enough. I have not been; maybe at 3 a.m. some night.
I think public opinion matters, and as far as that goes, the Republican strategy flopped in not creating a conflicted moment that would tell to those watching. So if there is also no perjury charge, what did they get out of it? Ms. Mitchell’s summary made it clear for the Senators who didn’t get it or needed more coloration and protection. But we don’t yet know that that worked; McConnell better have the votes right. To me, this was a loss on prosecution (no cross-examination); a loss on public opinion; a loss on perjury; and maybe, maybe a boost for the vote.
That last is big, it is the objective; but the rest was poor. And the precedent was set; sociopathic females get a free ride, destroy away! So, nominees, step right up.
Kai Akker:
A Perry Mason moment would have been nice.
I was speaking with a liberal friend the other day, a very reasonable person who isn’t far left, and she was convinced Ford was telling the truth. This was before other stuff had come out, but although she follows the news she just watches CNN and probably hasn’t even seen the arguments for Ford’s lack of veracity. I think a Perry Mason moment might have made her feel differently.
That assumes that a Perry Mason moment was possible. I’m not so sure about that. Mitchell didn’t really know all that much about Ford, who had not been subject to discovery. She was asking questions without really knowing exactly what story Ford would tell. However, I agree that she should have cross-examined her more (gently) and made her inconsistencies more clear to the audience who will never read Mitchell’s report (my friend didn’t even know Mitchell had made a report).
a very reasonable person who isn’t far left, and she was convinced Ford was telling the truth –Neo
Did your friend grow up in an affluent suburb and attend public school, Neo? The whole secret of The Rise and Fall of the American Republic. In our post-war triumph, in the prosperity and generosity that accompanied it, we let our standards slide to mediocre complacency and feel-goodism. Critical thinking was celebrated in word, but de-emphasized in deed. In short, so many “educated” people are ignorant in every important way. They know almost no history; they can’t analyze; they don’t think — not necessary, life is basically good in every material way — and thus they are blind to contradictions and red-flag events that matter bigly. How does the nation survive our dumbness? When does native intelligence fail to carry the day as it did, barely, in 2016? And then what. Ah, God help us. : )
P.S. The market was bad today, may be breaking down at last. If so, it will mean many things will be different and we cannot even forecast them.
Kai Akker:
My friend attended public school—as did I, by the way—but she did not grow up affluent. Not poor, but not affluent at all. Maybe middle class or lower middle class, very small modest home, parents did not attend college.
unnamed, and perhaps imaginary, “beach friends” confuse her? –Steve57
Here was one of the few things she said that rang true to me! Steve, I am guessing you are not an East Coaster? One of the great touchstones of life along the mid-Atlantic is the family gathering for a week, two if you’re fortunate, at the Jersey Shore. Of which, Rehoboth is an associated subsidiary across the Delaware Bay serving Delaware and Maryland.
No matter where you plunk down on the shore from late July through mid-August or so, there will be at least one large family group right near you. From 10 to 20 people in three generations, coming and going from a beach house to the sand and back again all day. It is a wonderful thing. From Mantoloking at the top, to Long Beach Island, Ocean City, Avalon and Stone Harbor, Cape May, and then a ferry ride across to Rehoboth, this has never changed in my lifetime. It is a ritual of summer, and even CBF could still want to partake of it.
To Neo, my point is simply that the suburban schools are probably the single biggest culprit in the dumbing-down of America. Their monopoly position combines with the comforts of suburban life to lull the residents into a complacent toleration of mediocrity and worse. City schools have their own different issues, but the suburbanization of America that accompanied the Baby Boom really lowered the quality of education, from most things I have seen. The shortage of critical thinking and analysis among the broad population, even many with advanced degrees, is one of our biggest vulnerabilities. A shonda like the Kavanaugh hearing should never have been acceptable even to the 40% who may still believe it was mostly true; and wouldn’t have been to a higher-IQ population, at least in my opinion.
Ford has been estranged from her family for political reasons,
Ye Gods.
To Neo, my point is simply that the suburban schools are probably the single biggest culprit in the dumbing-down of America.
Kai, I don’t think this has a blessed thing to do with intelligence and education. It does have something to do with the secular decay of honor and virtue in this country as well as some shifts in the way phenomena like honor and shame can be perverted. A century ago, the Southern honor culture countenanced and promoted the murder of Leo Frank. Now, the culture of our big city professional-managerial class maintains social markers delineating in groups and outgroups whereby people have to endorse the fabulism of one Christine Blasey to signal they’re not one of ‘them’. A dozen years ago, the blacks of Durham, North Carolina from top to bottom were on board with Michael Nifong’s frauds, along with a bloc of faculty at Trinity College, Duke and elements of the local and national press corps. When these frauds were exposed, the number of people in those subcultures willing to state publicly and explicitly that they had erred was close to zero. The faculty at Trinity College are educated up the wazoo. Educational deficits are not the problem here.
Art Deco:
Note that the article in which Ford’s husband gave that quote was from 9/22. I’ve been pointing it out to people ever since, quite a few times, but in general that interview seemed to have dropped under public awareness. I would have thought that the revelation that Ford was so into politics that she’d gotten estranged from her family because of it would have been big big news. But it wasn’t.