DONATE

Thursday, October 4, 2018

Me Thinks Blasey Ford is a Liar

OR Manipulated OR Both

John R. Houk, Blog Editor
Posted October 4, 2018



After Christine Blasey Ford’s Senate passionate/heartfelt testimony, I was convinced she was sexually assaulted. I even had a wait-n-see moment to wait for Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s testimony to decide if he was the culprit. That is how undeniably believable Ford came across.

Then Kavanaugh testified and I went back to believing someone assaulted Ford but NO WAY IN H-E DOUBLE HOCKEY STICKS was it Judge Kavanaugh.

AND THEN the examination of details of her testimony including Blasey Ford’s own past has convinced me she is either a FREAKING LIAR or a manipulated tool of Dem Deep State OR perhaps even a bit of both.

Now below are a series of articles that show what I mean including a few embedded article titles that I simply don’t have time or patience to cross post.

JRH 10/4/18
In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping
in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.
************************
Ex-Boyfriend of Ford Raises Speculation That She Gave False Statements To Senate

By Sara Carter
October 03, 2018 3:15 PM EDT


As the Senate Judiciary members grapple with testimony provided by Christine Blasey Ford last Thursday regarding accusations that she was attacked by Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh 36 years ago, a letter from a former long-time boyfriend is beginning to raise serious doubt about her credibility and truthfulness to the lawmakers about her past.

On Wednesday, Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) told reporters that the FBI, which was tasked by the committee to conduct an expanded investigation into the incident, is almost done with their investigation. The FBI has already done six full background checks into Kavanaugh (who is also facing allegations from two other women), none of which ever discovered the allegations Ford. The expanded investigation also includes allegations from Deborah Ramirez, who said Kavanaugh exposed himself during the time they attended Yale University. The New York Times, however, could find no one to corroborate her claims and discovered that Ramirez had been calling former classmates saying she couldn’t remember if it was Kavanaugh or someone else.

“I think it’s very close,” Grassley said. “I have not talked to the FBI, and I don’t think I should talk to the FBI. People that seem to know said it’s getting close, but when, I haven’t heard.”

The ex-boyfriend, whose name was removed from the letter at his request for privacy, sent  the letter to Grassley’s committee saying “I do not want to become involved in this process or current investigation, but wanted to be truthful about what I know.”

The former boyfriend established that he had a long-time relationship with Ford from 1992-1998. He had been friends with Ford since the early 90s and then dated Ford off and on from “approximately 1992 to 1988,” according to his letter.

The boyfriend detailed Ford’s friendship with a woman named Monica L. McLean, “who I understood to be her life-long best friend. During that time, it was my understanding that McLean was interviewing for jobs with the FBI and the US Attorney’s Office. I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam. Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam. Dr. Ford was able to help because of her background in psychology,” the letter stated.

During last Thursday’s testimony to lawmakers and under questioning by Republican-appointed Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, Ford said that she never spoke to her attorneys or anyone ever about “how to take a polygraph” test. In fact, she was emphatic in telling Mitchell she “never” participated in such a discussion.

Mitchell, a 25-year prosecutor from Arizona who served as the Deputy County Attorney in Maricopa County Attorney’s Office in Arizona, has already released a memo to the Senate questioning the contradictory answers and failed memory lapses given by Ford. Mitchell, who went through a litany of what often appeared at times boring questions, established a laundry list of 9 reasons why Ford’s testimony failed to meet any standards to prosecute Kavanaugh if such a case were ever to be brought to court.

Mitchell is an expert in the field of sex crimes. She is also is the division chief of the Special Victims Division, which handles cases of domestic violence, sex crimes, and auto theft and she took a leave of absence to come to Washington last week for the questioning.

Mitchell stated in her memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”

The ex-boyfriend also called into question some of the same issues that Mitchell pointed out were inconsistent in Ford’s testimony. Mitchell questioned Ford’s excuse “fear of flying” based on testimony she provided to the committee.

In Mitchell’s memo, she noted that Ford “maintains that she suffers from anxiety, claustrophobia, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was informed that her symptoms prevent her from flying. But she agreed during her testimony that she flies ‘fairly frequently for [her] hobbies and … work.’ She flies to the mid-Atlantic at least once a year to visit her family. She has flown to Hawaii, French Polynesia, and Costa Rica. She also flew to Washington, D.C. for the hearing.”

The boyfriend noted that he and Ford kept a long distance relationship after she moved to Hawaii ‘sometime around 1998.” He stated that she had no apparent fear of flying and no fear of small spaces.

He said “while visiting Ford in Hawaii, we traveled around the Hawaiian islands including one time on a propeller plane. Dr. Ford never indicated a fear of flying. To the best of recollection, Dr. Ford never indicated a fear of flying. To the best of my recollection, Dr. Ford never expressed a fear of close quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit. I assisted Dr. Ford with finding a place to live in  (redacted) CA. She ended up living in a very small, 500 sq. ft. house with one door.”

To this day, no-one has come forward to corroborate Ford’s recollection of the night she alleges Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her at a high school party, while his high school friend Mark Judge stood by. The witnesses provided by Ford have all denied attending this party and have no recollection of Ford’s account.

Ford’s close high school friend Leyland Keyser stated in a letter through her representative, Howard Walsh that “simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” Keyser also said she never met and doesn’t recall ever meeting Kavanaugh.

++++++++++++++
SORRY FOR BLURTING IT OUT, BUT CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD IS A LIAR
And her story isn’t credible.

October 3, 2018


One thing I learned watching the witch trial of Brett Kavanaugh on MSNBC, is that a prestigious university in New York has a Vice President for Social Justice. (She is an MSNBC commentator). Her Orwellian title is but one of many signs that our country is already on the threshold of 1984; the Judiciary Committee circus is another.

In her comments on the hearings, the Vice President for Social Justice, Maya Wiley, was clearly out for blood, and had no interest in evidence, due process, or the facts. She is also of course both a woman, a woman “of color” and a lesbian. In other words, she occupies three of the top rungs in the hierarchy of the oppressed - all bombs waiting to blow up in the face of any straight white male who stumbles into their cross-hairs.

Any fair-minded observer of the Kavanaugh proceedings would have noted that no one – Republican or Democrat - so much as laid a glove on his female accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, even though she had come forward to destroy the life of an exemplary individual and his family. No one, dared to do so. Call this feminine or victim privilege. 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.

At the bottom of these asymmetries lies the fact that despite half a century of women’s “liberation” and “hear me roar” proclamations the feminist attitude towards women is still Victorian. Women are fragile violets who wilt before the raised voices and impassioned claims of male innocence. But this image is a one way mirror. Let a moment go by and then, when they or their defenders are on the counter-attack, hear them roar. Senator Mazie Hirono put it mind-numbingly well: “Men should just shut up and stand up (for their female accusers of course).”

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. But, as a nation, we have obviously not reached the point where we can grant women true equality by confronting their lies and their reckless accusations with the same candor and frankness we would if they were coming out of the mouths of men.   

++++++++++++++++++
 Christine Ford’s ex-boyfriend submits sworn detailed letter refuting her testimony: She lied. Repeatedly.

 October 3, 2018 

Christine Blasey Ford — the liberal professor who leveled decades-old, 11th hour groping accusations against Brett Kavanaugh — better hope she doesn’t end up in jail for perjury after Kavanaugh inevitably gets confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a sworn declaration to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ford’s ex-boyfriend said she once coached her “lifelong best friend” on how to pass a polygraph test when the friend was interviewing for jobs with the FBI and DOJ.

This directly contradicts Ford’s sworn testimony at her Senate hearing, when she claimed she never helped anyone prepare for a lie detector test.


“During some of the time we were dating, Dr. Ford lived with Monica L. McLean, who I understood to be be her life-long best friend,” Ford’s ex-boyfriend wrote. “During that time, it was my understanding that McLean was interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office.”


The declaration continued: “I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam. Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked, and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam.”
This is relevant because Democrats have repeatedly bragged that Christine Blasey Ford is credible because she passed a polygraph test. Polygraphs are inadmissible in court because they are unreliable, since even the biggest liars can be coached to pass them.


In his sworn statement, Ford’s ex-boyfriend (whose name was redacted) also said she never once mentioned Brett Kavanaugh or said she was a victim of sexual misconduct during the six years they dated, from 1992 to 1998.

“During our time dating, Dr. Ford never brought up anything regarding her experience as a victim of sexual assault, harassment, or misconduct. Dr. Ford never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh,” the letter states.


 



Ford’s former boyfriend also shot down her bogus claims that she had a pathological fear of flying and was claustrophobic.

Ford had insisted at her Senate Judiciary hearing that she developed claustrophobia because Brett Kavanaugh had groped her in 1982, when they were in high school.

Ford also delayed her Senate Judiciary hearing for a week, claiming she was petrified of flying. But her ex-boyfriend said Ford had no problem living in a “very small,” 500-square-foot apartment with one door. He said she even gleefully boarded a tiny propeller plane when they went island-hopping in Hawaii.

The ex-boyfriend said he dumped Ford after she cheated on him, and said she admitted that she fraudulently used his credit card to make purchases a year after they broke up.

Meanwhile, Democrats have laughably pinned their hopes of derailing Kavanaugh’s SCOTUS nomination on an apparent lying, thieving grifter.





In a scathing letter that referenced the ex-boyfriend’s sworn declaration, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley demanded that Ford’s attorneys turn over her therapist notes (which she shared with the Washington Post but not with the Senate).

Grassley noted: “These notes have been repeatedly cited as corroboration even while written 30 years after the alleged event and in apparent contradiction with testimony and other public statements regarding several key details of the allegations…Please provide the requested materials to the Senate Judiciary Committee immediately.”


 



Meanwhile, Fox News host Brit Hume said the Democrats have shifted their line of attack from “Kavanaugh is a rapist” to “Kavanaugh drank beer in college” to questioning his “judicial temperament” because the sham allegations of Christine Ford and Julie Swetnick have imploded.

It appears that the Blasey Ford allegations are receding. The Swetnick allegations appear to have almost totally collapsed. The nomination was made, the Democrats came out almost unanimously against it, immediately before any hearings.

Then, during the course of the hearings, his record as a judge — what you would think would be the most important thing — went almost unremarked upon. No questions about it, no criticisms, none of it.”

“Then, after the hearings were over, these unverified allegations leak out…You almost want to laugh at [how desperate and ridiculous the Democrats are].”





Samantha Chang is a politics/lifestyle writer and a financial editor. She is a law school graduate and an alum of the University of Pennsylvania. You can find her on Twitter at @Samantha_Chang.

++++++++++++++++++
HUGE! Christine Ford Published 2008 Article on Self-Hypnosis Used to Retrieve and “Create Artificial Situations

By Jim Hoft
October 1, 2018


Christine Ford has not turned over her therapist’s notes to the Senate regarding her suppressed memories about Judge Kavanaugh abusing her decades earlier.

This may be because if the memories were revealed through hypnosis they would be “absolutely inadmissible” in the court of law in many states, including New York and Maryland.


There were also accusations that Christine Ford was under a hypnotic trance during her testimony.


Now this…

One of Christine Blasey Ford’s research articles in 2008 included a study on self-hypnosis.

The practice of self-hypnosis is used to retrieve important memories and “create artificial situations.”

Via Professor Margot Cleveland:


+++++++++++++++




__________________
Ex-Boyfriend of Ford Raises Speculation That She Gave False Statements To Senate

© 2018 Sara A. Carter | All Rights Reserved.
_________________
SORRY FOR BLURTING IT OUT, BUT CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD IS A LIAR

© COPYRIGHT 2018, FRONTPAGEMAG.COM
________________________
Christine Ford’s ex-boyfriend submits sworn detailed letter refuting her testimony: She lied. Repeatedly.

Copyright © 2018. All Rights Reserved. BizPacReview
_______________________
HUGE! Christine Ford Published 2008 Article on Self-Hypnosis Used to Retrieve and “Create Artificial Situations

© 2018 The Gateway Pundit – All Rights Reserved.


No comments:

Post a Comment