Watch the trap being set for Ford by Mitchell
I am heartily sick of Christine Blasey Ford, and I hope her three weeks of fame is now over or will be over very very very soon, and she will return to the obscurity she professes to crave. Whatever happens, I believe the left will continue to laud and reward her as a great heroine.
Note that I didn’t call her “Doctor,” the title used 99% of the time when referring to her. I know a huge number of people with PhD’s and not one of them —not one—insists on being called “Doctor.”
I have no idea whether in Ford’s pre-Kavanaugh-accusation life she habitually used the title and insisted on others using it when addressing her, but I believe that the consistent use of it ever since she became the center of America’s attention has been an attempt to bolster her credibility (I have become quite sick of that word, too) by keeping her professional status foremost in viewers’ minds.
This post isn’t going to be a thorough discussion of all the reasons I find Ford not “credible” but rather “incredible.” But I do want to take a moment to analyze just a single brief clip of Rachel Mitchell’s questions about flying, that exposed Ford as a blatant, brazen liar. This passage makes me wonder why anyone would believe a word Ford says after seeing it. And yet many do.
Mitchell was extraordinarily low-key in her own presentation. I believe that is a very studied and practiced role for her, meant to disarm and put the interviewee at ease. Mitchell seems friendly, but here she is carefully and calmly asking a series of questions to which she almost certainly knows the correct answers, although she’s not sure how Ford is going to answer. This basic line of questioning also had to be one that Ford anticipated being asked by Mitchell, so no doubt Ford had prepared some basic answers in advance. But it didn’t go quite the way Ford had hoped.
At the start of the clip, a very friendly, seemingly relaxed Mitchell asks how Ford got to Washington, a question Ford had to know would present her with a conundrum. How could she possibly explain that, after having put out word that she was afraid to fly?
Ford answers in her little-girl voice, “In an [here we get a slightly abashed smile from Ford] airplane.” Mitchell then asks her more directly about her fear of flying, a question Ford had to have been expecting, and Ford responds that she was [emphasis mine], “hoping to avoid getting on an airplane, but eventually was able to get up the gumption [to fly to DC] with the help of some friends.”
This is a very carefully crafted answer. In it, Ford attempts to convey the idea that she is indeed afraid of flying and therefore was telling the truth about that when she had asked for the delay, but that in certain rare and very pressing circumstances, with a lot of help from her friends, she can manage to muster up the courage to fly. She’s indicating that she’s emotionally vulnerable, and that if Mitchell or anyone else pushes too hard she could crumble, but that she is also strong when needed, although only with the help of friends and after great effort. Thus she is vulnerable yet strong when needed, and dependent on others to be kind to her and help her out. She’s asking Mitchell (and the listeners) to be gentle and kind with her, too.
At that point I think Ford believes she’s established exactly what she set out to do.
Shortly afterward, in the same gentle, non-threatening manner, Mitchell asks, “In fact you fly fairly frequently for your hobbies and you’ve had to fly for your work, is that true?” Note that “hobbies” comes first. If Ford answers “yes”—and she pretty much has to, because she knows there are probably records of this—she sounds frivolous, as though she’s ready to jet off at a moment’s notice, for a lark.
So Ford fastens on the “work” portion of the question, and answers “Yes, unfortunately.” emphasizing her reluctance and fear again. Then there are questions from Mitchell about possible work Ford’s done in Australia, and Ford answers that, although she worked for a company based there, there’s no requriement to go there and she’s certainly not been there. With a little smile she adds, “No, I don’t think I’ll make it to Australia!” The clear implication is that Australia is way too far for her to travel, and Mitchell responds by doing another friendly thing, smiling and agreeing, “It is long.” Ford smiles, too. Again, I think she believes she’s dodged that bullet, which is what Mitchell wants her to believe.
And later Mitchell says, without raising her voice or changing her friendly affect, that in Ford’s CV she lists as interests: surf travel, Hawaii, Costa Rica, South Pacific Islands, French Polynesia, and asks whether Ford has ever been to those places. The listener can’t help but contemplate how far away those destinations are—almost as far as Australia, a place Ford has just denied traveling to (and a place Mitchell almost certainly already knew that Ford had not traveled to but asked about anyway because Mitchell wanted to elicit the denial for contrast). And Ford says quite simply: “Correct.”
Correct. She’s flown to all those places. And they are vacation spots, too. It dawns on the listener that this women doesn’t just fly now and then, when she works up the gumption. This women is a world traveler, for adventure and fun. Nothing forced her to go to any of these places, and of course she wouldn’t hesitate to go to Australia too if she needed to or wanted to.
At this point Ford realizes how bad that sounded, and she regroups. Intensifying her little-girl affect, she says that it’s “easier for me to travel that direction when it’s a vacation”—which really makes no sense at all in terms of fear of flying. And what difference does the direction—east or west—make? At this point Ford’s body language also gives her away. She does a little flutter with both hands as though to say “Oh, whatever; I guess that wasn’t my most effective answer,” and then she shakes her head “no” almost imperceptibly.
An untrustworthy witness.
I didn’t see it in this clip, but the odd thing I noticed in her testimony was her locks of hair frequently getting in her eyes and snarled in the bows of her eyeglasses. I suspected it was some kind of rehearsed affect; her wounded doe routine.
A good analysis.
I still want Ford and her other two accusers to be convicted in some way for lying. They should be held criminally responsible for their lies. We can’t let accusers go scot free to possibly ruin a man’s (or woman’s) life.
I never bought into the criticism of Mitchell. I thought she was stealthy in how she laid the trap (I wholeheartedly agree with your choice of phrasing) for Ford. There are numerous times throughout her time on the national stage that are “aha” moments. The flying story was one. Mitchell set the trap and let her walk into it. Ford wasn’t pushed, bullied, or coerced, but snared by her own inconsistent ramblings.
When I was watching the testimony live, I thought Mitchell was giving Ford too much rope to kill the clock- at the beginning, Ford was in the four-corners offense, but as it continued, I understood Mitchell’s purpose- she had to make sure Ford couldn’t claim to not remember something because she was asked to read and verify it just 10 minutes before.
Yes, that part about the flying was impressive- especially the set up on the Australia question.
I think some Arizonans should inquire about Mitchell’s interest, if any, in being appointed to the Senate. Kyle stated his was taking the position only until after the election.
As time goes by, now that Kavanaugh is confirmed, Ford’s story will start unravel. The media is not interested but, just like the Bush AWOL story in 2004, private persons will start picking at the threads and unravel it. There is a deep FBI connection that may come out in the investigations of McCabe, et all.
Ms. Mitchell was indeed very clever in her questioning and that was a telling exchange.
I am mystified by any woman who wants Christine Ford to be the face of the victimized woman. As you pointed out, she acts and sounds like a little girl, and that doesn’t do any favors to women.
Christine Blasey Ford is an education major. When I was an undergraduate we made jokes about the education majors because they were notorious for being the dumbest kids on campus. We thought it was funny that people of such modest intelligence wanted to teach other people. We didn’t think that was going to work out very well and it hasn’t. Dr. Ford isn’t smart enough and convincing enough to pull off the lies.
I didn’t listen to the hearings, just read about them except for a few snippets on the radio. Listening to Ford for two minutes gave me the creeps. She reminded me of my long ago youth and of the affect girls and women would put on when they were playing the poor poor silly old me drama queen. It always involved insincerity if not deceit of the worst kind. You can hear the same voice if you watch a Marylyn Monroe movie, she used it all the time. (I seem to remember Scarlet O’Hara in Gone With the Wind trying it on Rhett Butler). A commentator on another blog who identified herself as a Steel Magnolia described it as the voice of the rattle snake and still used today in the South.
Does anyone have the original statements from Ford or her attorneys regarding flying and the testifying in DC?
Her lawyers are now saying this:
I can see some wiggle room here, but the implication is that they never used fear of flying as a reason to delay. I do recall that reason being cited, but come to think of it, that may have been the characterization of Republican Senators or someone other than Ford or her attorneys.
Intensifying her little-girl affect, she says that it’s “easier for me to travel that direction when it’s a vacation”… At this point Ford’s body language also gives her away. She does a little flutter with both hands as though to say “Oh, whatever; I guess that wasn’t my most effective answer,” and then she shakes her head “no” almost imperceptibly. –Neo
You are dead-on right about that hand flutter, it’s fascinating. And probably also on the “no” shake of her head. CBF is acknowledging that she just lost a few points in this game.
To a sociopath, what she is doing is a game. Certainly not a vicious assault on a man nominated to the Supreme Court. Just sayin’.
If she didn’t have a fear of flying then she had no reason to ask for a week long delay. Of course we all know her reasons for demanding a delay, she needed all the hypnosis sessions and coaching provided the democrats’ experts to appear credible in the testimony. She also needed time to smooth out the rough edges in her story such as using Mark Judge’s book as the source to make up anecdotes to make her story more believable. but of course those couldn’t be said publicly.
Manju:
Quit embarrassing yourself.
The fear of flying as an excuse was reported at the time in the papers friendly to Ford. Neither Ford nor her lawyers saw fit to correct that report at the time. But now that she’s been discredited they bring it up.
But more than that, in the video at :08 Mitchell specifically cites it in her question. Ford nods while Mitchell makes the statement. Ford herself never says “Oh, but I didn’t say that!” She answers the question in a manner that indicates that she’s trying to explain that she somehow heroically overcame her fear of flying for the occasion.
A fear of flying that she overcomes all the time, and probably does not even have. Zero evidence that she has it; au contraire.
the implication is that they never used fear of flying as a reason to delay. I do recall that reason being cited, but come to think of it, that may have been the characterization of Republican Senators or someone other than Ford or her attorneys. –Manju
Manju, you are trying hard! Yes, surely that was something the Republicans made up. They wanted to delay the vote as long as possible. I think the Republicans hoped to drag it out past the election, in fact. I forget why, but I think it might have been as you say, nothing that could have originated from Mrs. Ford or her upstanding, cooperative attorneys on loan from the DNC.
This has been an interesting several weeks and in a short time I hope we have a new member of the Supremes. What a deal and Now, a question:
Since us gun guys kind of like conservative values, if and when Kavanaugh gets enough votes this afternoon to be seated, are we allowed to go shoot off guns in the air?
. . . . . . . . . . Just asking for a friend.
“she says that it’s “easier for me to travel that direction when it’s a vacation”—which really makes no sense at all in terms of fear of flying. And what difference does the direction—east or west—make?”
Neo, as someone who has flown from Chicago to Japan more than 40 times over the past 5 years, I agree with Ford that on long trips it is easier to fly west. Of course, the obvious consideration is that you must fly east to get home. But yes, what does that really matter if you have a pathological fear of flying. Point, set, match Mitchell
We normally only use our title when trying for better seats at fancy restaurants. Behind their backs, we mock the insecure “Dr. Fords” of the world.
“Note that I didn’t call her ‘Doctor,’ the title used 99% of the time when referring to her. I know a huge number of people with PhD’s and not one of them —not one—insists on being called ‘Doctor.'”
Don’t forget Maya Angelou, That’s Doctor Maya Angelou to you, racist!
Hearsay.
Interestingly, she cites press reports, not a communication received by the Senate from Ford or her attorneys.
Inconclusive. Suspicious, but inconclusive. It’s possible that someone from her camp speculated to the press that fear-of-flying would be a factor. Perhaps she thought it would be a factor.
All that might be true. But ultimately, if, in their communications with the Senate, they did not use that as a reason to delay, your line of argument is DOA.
CBF is so full of s**t.
OldTexan, you can shoot in the air only if you are far enough from other people, dwellings, etc., so as to be certain the bullets won’t come down on someone. My husband shoots copperhead snakes, but aiming down, not up.
An excellent application of The Columbo Technique.
Ray,
Its been a while since I was in college but i remember that Education was one of the two dump majors (at the time): people who couldn’t cut it in a more serious major (usually one that involved mathematics) fell back and got dumped to Education or Psychology. I’ve heard its only gotten worse since then.
A couple points – when she was talking about flying, Ford first says she was hoping that the committee would come to her and Mitchell smiles, laughs and says something about being closer for her. So, that opens the door about whether she was told about Grassley’s offer of the committee going to the west coast.
A Powerline commentator noted that when asked about the truthfulness of a letter to the committee, Ford had to read it before she answered. He thought that it showed that she had a bad memory or that the letter was not written by her. I remember seeing that part, but my impression was you never answer or sign without reading, so I did not have that take-away., but it makes sense.
And, I also thought that the glasses were too large for her face and distorted her eyes. Along with the hair always being in her face, it was difficult to watch for any facial clues that she was lying. There is one meme going around that has a picture of her with that smirk along with the smirky Peter Storzk.
“I do recall … but come to think of it, that may have been …”
manju proving that the Dems’ humiliation in the Kavanaugh nomination won’t keep them from further baseless innuendo
“your line of argument is DOA”
Your smear campaign against Kavanaugh is DOA. He’s been confirmed. Sucks when you’re dishonest and it doesn’t even work, eh?
if, in their communications with the Senate, they did not use that as a reason to delay, your line of argument is DOA –Manju
If the sky is not blue, the sky is not blue. Good point, Manju.
Kate: I was just being goofy, I would never shoot anything anywhere that I was not sure of the background and never a rifle or pistol up in the air. Shotguns yes because that’s the way we shoot birds but even there you are responsible for the operation of your gun. I am an NRA Range Officer and we cannot over emphasize safety and how great it is, Cavanaugh had enough votes today to become a member of the Supreme Court of the United States.
The media uses the “Doctor” title on their allies to reinforce their own self-definition of intellectually superior. Several years ago someone noted how much more often Jill Biden was referred to as “Dr” than was Ben Carson. In the 90’s, Phil Graham, Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey, who all have doctorates, were seldom referred to as such.
Ray:
Christine Blasey Ford is an education major.When I was an undergraduate we made jokes about the education majors because they were notorious for being the dumbest kids on campus
According to Wiki, she has a Bachelor’s degree in experimental psychology, a Master’s in clinical psychology, and a doctorate in Educational Psychology, with her dissertation titled “Measuring Young Children’s Coping Responses to Interpersonal Conflict.” She later earned another Master’s degree in Epidemiology.
Having looked at a number of doctoral dissertations in Education, I would agree that Education is not the area for the brightest bulbs on the tree. The dissertations I read tended to be stories about a school, or stories about teachers, with very little quantitative work.
While I Dr. Ford is probably no more than run-of-the-mill quality in psychology, her degrees and work appear to be a step or two above most of those with doctorates in Education. She does a lot of work in statistics- the doctoral dissertations in Education that I saw avoided using statistics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford
When I was in college and graduate school, first half of the ’60s and a little less than that of the ’70s, the normal form of address for professors holding a doctorate was “Dr.”
Thus, Dr. Eugene Parker (physics), Dr. Norman Nachtrieb (chemistry), Drs. Karl Weintraub and Christian Mackauer (history), Dr. Richard Weaver (English), Drs. Levine and Levin (both in the social sciences). In fact that is still how I address and refer to those who hold or (if deceased) held the degree, unless I know them on a first-name basis.
Something I haven’t got clear in my mind though — in exactly what discipline did CBF earn her doctorate, if in fact she has one?
.
UPDATE: Gringo, I see your comment just above. It appeared while I was Composing. Answers my questions nicely. Thanks!
Christine Blasey Ford is an education major.
No. Her dissertation was completed in the psychology department at USC, not the school of education. It was on a child development topic. She doesn’t publish much in that area however. She’s participated in > 80 studies, though in only a few cases was she the lead author. Per the Raleigh papers, her baccalaureate degree (from UNC Chapel Hill) was also in psychology. Not clear whether she concentrated her course load in experimental psychology, tests-and-measurements, or neuroscience. Nowadays, I think it’s common for psych departments to require a concentration in a subdiscipline. Not sure that was the case 30 years ago.
Ray
Christine Blasey Ford is an education major. When I was an undergraduate we made jokes about the education majors because they were notorious for being the dumbest kids on campus.
That depends. An ETS study compared SAT scores of those passing Praxis (teacher certification) tests with the average SAT scores of college graduates. While elementary school, special ed and phys ed teachers score below the average on the SAT compared with other college graduates, high school teachers have SAT scores related to their licensing area (English, History, Math..) that are higher than the average college graduate.
For the SAT-Verbal, teachers in the following licensing areas scored higher than the average college graduate: Arts & Music , Mathematics, Social Sciences, Foreign Languages, Science, and English.
For the SAT-Math, teachers in the following licensing areas scored higher than the average college graduate: Science and Mathematics.
The following scores are eyeballs off a graph. which means they are estimates:
The stereotype of Education majors as dummies has some validity when looking at Elementary, Phys Ed, or Special Ed. However, high school teachers scored better than the average college graduate in the SAT section best related to their major.
No you don’t have to be a genius to teach. But being bright is no guarantee you will be a successful teacher. I found that out.
IMHO, the biggest impediment to becoming a successful teacher is the nonsense peddled in the Ed Schools. Teachers who are successful have succeeded in spite of what Ed Schools have taught them.
Educational Testing Service: Teacher Quality in a Changing Policy Landscape: Improvements in the Teaching Pool.
So Ford tried to promote herself as a frail, victimized Blanche DuBois?
How fitting, considering that Blanche was eventually exposed as nothing but a two-bit prostitute, only of the physical variety instead of political. Williams’ Blanche was far less despicable.
OldTexan: I thought you were probably joking, or maybe that you were making reference to the customs in some Islamic countries of firing into the air in celebration and killing themselves or their neighbors.
Have a beer, in honor of Justice Kavanaugh.
Thank you for this. Also for the part about PhDs not being called “doctor”. One of my own sons has a PhD in a hard science and isn’t called ‘doctor’ except in academic settings such as conferences when he is presenting a paper.
Comes across as pretentious in normal life.
How many normal people would answer, “In an airplane.”? The normal answer would would be, “By plane.”
Did Mitchell ask her about her “two door” story and the fact that the second door is actually for an accessory apartment and not an escape route from crazed drunken rapist teens? I wonder if she had that information.
What glass ceiling? Mitchell is competent and qualified.
Julie you obviously received a great education at the U of Chicago. Richard Weaver was a great intellect but born in the wrong century. I got to know him thru his written word.
stu, interestingly enough the class I had with Dr. Weaver was Rhetoric, which was concerned a good deal with Aristotle and logic. This fit in very well with my major, which was math. I still remember that the term paper I wrote was on the question of whether the definition of “definition” followed the Aristotelian genus-differentia scheme.
The upshot of all that was that I have annoyed a lot of people online by wittering on about logic, the importance of definitions and also of using words correctly (I will resist the urge for now *grin*), the difference between axioms and postulates in abstract systems, so forth.
To your observation: I had no idea that my Richard Weaver was the author of the famous book Ideas Have Consequences. I only discovered that sometime in, I think, the late ’90s! *blush*
Ford’s description of her unfamiliarity and trauma wrt the polygraph is a lie. You get theory of polygraph somewhere in early undergrad. And if she’d been as upset as she said, the results would have been indeterminate mush.
The parts of the hearing I saw led me to believe she’d been in CA so long she’d picked up a permanent vocal fry. Or she had a bad cold.
The items which would have nailed down the case-or cleared Kavanaugh–she couldn’t remember. There was no thread for the feebs to follow. And her named witnesses provided negative corroboration. The latter is not known as a result of trauma.
Manju:
I often wonder whether you have a reading comprehension problem or just pretend to.
Ford’s reaction both to the initial reports of her fear of flying cited as a reason for the postponement (silence; no correction) and her reaction to Mitchell’s question about it in the video (no correction, a nod, and a verbal reiteration of the fact that she was reluctant to fly because of her supposed fear of flying) all point to the idea that indeed, her lawyers had cited fear of flying as a reason for the postponement.
Do you, of all people, now not believe ABC news?
So we have reports in the news, lack of denial from the lawyers, lack of denial from Ford, the head nod from Ford—and you demand some sort of further proof before you believe it?
Sad, as Trump would say.
“I often wonder whether you have a reading comprehension problem or just pretend to.”
Do you really wonder, neo? Obviously he/she is a troll. And I think you know that, but allow him/her to comment here just to expose the individual.
That business about calling Ford a doctor irked me too.
I saw a Texas trial lawyer “forget” to call an expert witness Doctor. He apologized. The witness said, “you’ve always been a perfect gentleman.”
He then dropped the hammer. Witness destroyed. $300m jury verdict. Beautiful.
I understand that the talking point you have been breathlessly propagating, that Ford is “a blatant, brazen liar”, rests on the notion that “Ford’s lawyers were not citing her fear of flying to discuss her mental state in the abstract, they were citing it to justify a delay in the hearing because she could not fly as a result of that fear of flying.”
I also understand that you have not been able to provide a single quote from them where they cite fear of flying as a reason to delay the hearing.
Will not fly, instead of cannot. Flat Earth theory provides a reason for why Leftists go insane over fighting it: because Hussein told them to.
America gave all the individual power to the Deep State. Thus it doesn’t matter what the citizens say because the citizens and their elected officials don’t even run the country. They can talk all they want about punishing injustice, but Hillary Clinton is still free as a bird.
Talk, talk, just to appease the masses with some circus and games. That is all this hearing is, an entertainment Red vs Blue distraction to keep the peons distracted and kept down.
Dear Senator Feinstein:
Can I have the last three weeks of my life, which you wasted, back?
Yammer:
The fat lady hasn’t sung yet regarding Hillary 2016 and her minions in the bureaucracy. But that is what is so attractive about deep conspiracy theories for a believer in conspiracy theories (you seem so afflicted). Such thought patterns do not allow testing of the conspiracy. They are not falsifiable. They cannot be disproved. They are a form of mental masturbation.
Manju on October 6, 2018 at 2:49 pm at 2:49 pm said:
Does anyone have the original statements from Ford or her attorneys regarding flying and the testifying in DC?
Her lawyers are now saying this:
“At no time did members of Dr. Ford’s team advise Committee staff that she could not travel to Washington, D.C. because of her fear of flying.” – [as Manju quoted; emphasis added]
I can see some wiggle room here, but the implication is that they never used fear of flying as a reason to delay. I do recall that reason being cited, but come to think of it, that may have been the characterization of Republican Senators or someone other than Ford or her attorneys.
* * *
Her lawyers are saying a lot of things, and no, we don’t appear to have their original communications with the committee AFAIK, just like we don’t have a lot of the evidence that Ford’s attorneys are with-holding from the committee.
Hello Manju – it would help the conversation if you would link the stories you quote.
I found these articles, which include the same excerpt you gave in your comment. The second link gives some more context for the widespread public belief that she was afraid of flying (never disputed by her attorneys at the time, unless you think they weren’t reading Politico, CNN, or ABC, and nobody told them the scuttlebutt), but the Daily Wire’s Ashe Schow ultimately concludes in your favor.
You’re welcome.
None of which invalidates Neo’s analysis.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36813/christine-blasey-fords-attorneys-claim-senators-ashe-schow
“In a statement sent to senators, Ford’s attorneys Lisa Banks, Michael Bromwich, and Debra Katz presented explanations for what they called “numerous false claims” that have been repeated in recent weeks.
…
Her attorneys also countered a claim that Ford wouldn’t fly out to testify because she had a fear of flying.
“At no time did members of Dr. Ford’s team advise Committee staff that she could not travel to Washington, D.C., because of her fear of flying,” they wrote. “Rather, staff was told that Dr. Ford could not travel on the schedule the Committee demanded because she was focused on taking measures to protect her family from threats, including death threats.”
Her attorneys added that she met with the FBI at that time to discuss the threats, and said she does, in fact, have a fear of flying that requires medication.”
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36818/fords-attorneys-say-fear-flying-didnt-postpone-ashe-schow
“In their statement regarding “lies” being spread about Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony, her attorneys said they never told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she could not travel to Washington, D.C. due to a fear of flying.
…
On September 21, Politico published an article about Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) giving Ford and her attorneys more time to decide when, where, and how to testify for the committee. Buried in the article was the following:
“The GOP has been told that Ford does not want to fly from her California home to Washington, according to the Republican senator, which means she may need to drive across the country. Ford has reportedly told friends she is uncomfortable in confined spaces, indicating a physical difficulty in making the trip by plane.”
Politico reporter Burgess Everett tweeted the following when promoting the article:
“Dr. Ford has indicated to Republicans she doesn’t want to fly, in part revealing why she doesn’t want the hearing to be on Monday
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/21/trump-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-charges-834664 …
12:24 PM – Sep 21, 2018″
On September 23, CNN interviewed friends of Ford who claimed she had a fear of enclosed spaces that didn’t have multiple exits, such as a plane. These friends were allowed to claim, without evidence, that this was due to Ford’s alleged encounter with Kavanaugh 36 years earlier.
Kate DeVarney, one of Kavanaugh’s friends, told the outlet that Ford “really has a hard time being in a place where there’s no escape route.” She added that Ford did not like to fly because an airplane was “the ultimate closed space where you cannot get away.”
…
In their statement regarding this issue, Ford’s attorneys wrote:
“At no time did members of Dr. Ford’s team advise Committee staff that she could not travel to Washington, D.C., because of her fear of flying. Rather, staff was told that Dr. Ford could not travel on the schedule the Committee demanded because she was focused on taking measures to protect her family from threats, including death threats.”
Her attorneys said she was meeting with the FBI regarding those threats, and said she takes medication for her fear of flying.
We may not have seen all the correspondence between Ford’s attorneys and Grassley, but from what we have seen, there is no direct message from her attorneys saying she couldn’t appear to testify earlier because of a fear of flying.”
* * *
So, who told the GOP and the reporters all of this about her having a fear of flying that would require a delay in the hearing? Note that the Politico article citing Senator Grassley as a source is non-specific about what he actually told them he was told, other than “she didn’t want to fly” — the “which means” clause could be their reporter’s own conclusion.
They had some kind of “leak” from “sources close to the situation” or some other nom-de-rumor since apparently there were never any documents cited by anyone.
I’m willing to believe the news-hounds all jumped to the conclusion that fear of flying was her principle reason for wanting to delay the hearing (because her friends said she had a fear of flying), but although Burgess tweeted “Dr. Ford has indicated to Republicans she doesn’t want to fly, in part revealing why she doesn’t want the hearing to be on Monday” the Politico article he is hyping never adds the lawyers’ newly-revealed caveat “Rather, staff was told that Dr. Ford could not travel on the schedule the Committee demanded because she was focused on taking measures to protect her family from threats, including death threats.”
Now why would 3 major MSM outlets hostile to Kavanaugh imply “fear of flying” was her main problem, if Ford’s lawyers didn’t want it suggested as a reason, as the other concerns they cited later (but which were not publicized) were perfectly adequate to satisfy the walk-on-eggshells policy of the Committee leaders?
Because, IMO, the other concerns didn’t implicate
JudgeJustice Kavanaugh directly, as the “friends” explanations did.* * *
Since it is so fashionable to call out dog-whistles,
you all probably know what “Fear of Flying” means in the Feminist jargon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_Flying_(novel)
Another thing that bothers me about the reportage (at least on the “right-ish” weblogs and news sites) is that they, as well as GOP Senators, kept repeating that C. Ford said that no one ever told her that Sen. Grassley or the Judiciary Committee or its GOP members had offered to fly to California or anywhere else where she would prefer to give her statement, or to be interviewed, or whatever.
But when Prosecutor Mitchell asked her about that, what she said was that it “was never clear to [her]” that that offer had been made, or just what was meant by it, whichever.
(My own memory of the exact wording is inexact, and at this late date I’m not interested enough to listen again. But in both cases, the overall point remains. Had she or had she not been told that the offer as stated had been made?)
(I take the statement that Sen. Grassley did in fact make the “anywhere you like” offer. Otherwise you have to believe that he himself lied about or at least misrepresented that claim during the hearings.)
i liked the time when Ms Mitchell asked her if she at any time had ever coached any person on how to pass a polygraph test. her body language while answering was very telling
” I know a huge number of people with PhD’s and not one of them —not one—insists on being called ‘Doctor.’”
I’ve known one or two. Attaining a doctorate is a career killer in the military and naval career circles.
But I need to move on to more important issues. Are they making more of you at the factory? You are wonderful, I didn’t think anyone could get me to like ballet. I don’t comment as often as I lurk. I book mark a lot. I liked some opera. Cosi Fan Tutti. Then you introduced me to knife-throwing Georgian ballet and I’m thinking “Whoa! This is something I could get into.”
Also, the dancing is nice. The girls are kind of hot. But mostly the knife throwing.
The other day I couldn’t keep you out of my head. I was fighting a mouse infestation. And I was thinking it would be my lucky day if the damned mice would charge me up the stairs. Also, I was looking at my thirteen y.o. Gordon Setter and wondering if he was going to get off the couch and do something about the rodent in his food bowl.
He sleeps a lot now. I took care of it myself. Next dog:
https://www.dogbreedinfo.com/ratterrier.htm
“…a fear of enclosed spaces that didn’t have multiple exits, such as a plane.”
Seems to me that most commercial airliners these days have “multiple exits”.
(Course, that could just be me….)