"To Be Believed": The Case Against Blasey Ford & the Democrats

(source: senate.gov)

First I would like to make clear that I am a person of empathy and compassion for women – and men – who are victims of sexual harassment, abuse and assault. These are serious, heinous crimes that have terrible, lasting effects on the survivors. In no way should they ever be excused, minimized or tolerated.

Because I feel for survivors, I tend to believe those who come forward with allegations of this nature. Most people who do so are courageous and resilient, and offer hope to those who have not yet spoken up about their own experience. However, it is also true that sex crimes have a higher rate of false reporting than has been claimed in recent weeks by those supporting Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations. The figure that has been cited is that only 2% of reports of sexual crimes are false. According to criminologist Brent E. Turvey that rate is actually closer to 40%. Even the Pentagon reports that approximately 25% of reported sexual crimes in the military are found to be unsubstantiated. (Rowan Scarborough/ Washington Times/7 Oct 2018) With this in mind, it makes sense to question reports of sexual assault and not to assume that all women are simply “to be believed”.

That caution is particularly valid when the purpose of the disclosure is to affect the political process. Ford said that she felt it was her “civic duty” to disclose her experience so that it could be considered in the process of vetting a Supreme Court nominee. That is, by definition, political motivation. Not to imply that that in itself means she is not telling the truth, just that it should be noted along with other factors when evaluating her claims.

So what are her claims? Well, she described the assault itself with pretty solid detail, to be sure. However, she did not recall when it took place, where it took place, how old she was, how she got to the party, how she got home, how many were at the party, who she talked to at the party or any more than the four named who were at the party (none of whom could corroborate her story). Those are not only major holes in her story, but also very convenient holes if your purpose is to falsely accuse someone of the offense. Sketchy, to say the least. There may never be a confirmed answer as to whether or not this assault ever happened. Therefore it is left to us, based on what we have seen and heard (or not), to decide for ourselves. I believe Ford was lying. Here is why:

At first Ford said she wasn’t sure of the year, let alone the month or day of the assault. She later settled on 1982, but still no month or day. It is sincerely doubtful that such a traumatic event could not even be placed in the right year by the victim. She was not claiming that she’d repressed the memory, when it might have made sense that the year and month could be in question, rather she said that she had remembered it all along and it had affected her life through the years. Even when she decided that it was 1982 she couldn’t name a month or day.

I find this to be quite convenient for Ford and her Democrat friends. After all, had she been able to name the day, or even the month, the Democrats could not have been sure that Kavanaugh may not have had an alibi for that time. Had she said it was July 17th, for example, he may have been able to prove that he was at his aunt’s funeral in Illinois on that day. If she’d said it was even in July, well he may have been at basketball camp that entire month. They didn’t know, so they couldn’t risk putting even a rough date on the accusation. It was necessary to leave it vague and un-provable. That way he had little chance of being able to provide any specific alibi.

Her assertions that she was afraid to fly were easily shown to be lies by the questioning attorney. When asked why she didn’t take the Judiciary Committee up on their offer to interview her at her home in CA, she had to pretend she hadn’t known about that offer. Really? It was all over the news for several days prior to the hearing. But she had to have some reason why she didn’t agree to those terms, which would have provided for a private interview, away from cameras and reporters, presumably what she would have preferred. The reason, of course, is because the Democrats didn’t want a private interview. They wanted the media circus that they orchestrated. A private interview at Ford’s home wouldn’t have accomplished the display that they needed to put on for public consumption.

But what about Ford’s demeanor during the hearing? Wasn’t she so very credible? Didn’t she seem sincerely traumatized and “terrified” to testify? Yes, she did seem so. I could have too. It’s not hard for someone with decent acting skills to appear to be sincere, traumatized and entirely truthful. Her convincing demeanor proves exactly nothing. (More than one person who has known Ford for years have said that they never heard her speak in the “little girl” voice that she used during her testimony.)

What about the polygraph test? And the therapist’s notes? In the first place, neither were provided to the Republicans for examination, even though they were cited as evidence. (Gregg Re, John Roberts/Fox News/10/04/18) Secondly, the reason polygraph tests are inadmissible in court is because they are not that difficult to “pass” fraudulently and are easily manipulated by the person administering the test. A former boyfriend reported that he had witnessed Ford coaching a friend on how to pass a polygraph test. (Gregg Re, John Roberts/Fox News/10/04/18) As for the therapist’s notes, I would have liked for the FBI to have been provided with the originals. It is possible to forensically date how long the ink has been on the paper. I wonder if it would have indicated several years ago, as reported, or perhaps closer to July of 2018. But these documents weren’t provided despite requests for them. No wonder.

This entire accusation was concocted by the Democrats. It was held back as a last resort, in case Kavanaugh could not be stopped by other means. When it looked like he had the votes to be confirmed, the fraud was set in motion.

How Ford was contacted will likely never be known, but it wouldn’t be hard to identify and approach a person sympathetic to the Democrats for the purpose of recruiting that person, particularly if there were financial incentive involved. (What is Ford’s ‘gofundme’ page up to now, half a million at last count?) That is not to mention the book deals and movie screenplays that will likely gain her many more millions in the future nor the feminist heroine stature that will follow her for the rest of her life in professional, social and political circles. She is a liar, but she’s not stupid. And, by the way, check out Palo Alto University, where she is a professor of psychology. It is an eye-opening example of an ultra-feminist institution which specializes in women’s trauma, combating male patriarchy and feminist political activism. See? Not that hard to find her.

How the Democrats could do something so incredibly devious, disgraceful and damaging is easily identified. POWER. That’s it.

The Democrats are terrified of a Supreme Court that has a majority of justices who actually do what they’re supposed to do: interpret the Constitution. They need justices who will base decisions on what they wish the Constitution said, shape law from whole cloth, read things into our most revered document that are not there, turn the intention of the founders on its head in order to achieve the social change they desire. They need these justices because it is the only way they can ram their extremist, socialist agenda down the throat of the American voter who will not support their ultra-liberal policies at the ballot box. The fact that Kavanaugh is far from the most conservative judge that could have been nominated and is, in fact, considered by constitutional scholars to be within the “mainstream” of judicial thought that the Democrats are always talking about illustrates their level of desperation. With Kavanaugh now on the Court, it is likely to remain a conservative majority for decades. The best avenue for Democrats to pursue their aims is now closed to them.

For this reason they have shamelessly perverted the process of selecting Supreme Court justices, destroyed an innocent man’s reputation, dragged his wife and two young girls through the mud, created and deepened division in the county, demeaned the Senate as a governing body, and turned their backs on any chance of conducting their responsibilities in a decent, civil manner with their colleagues on the other side. They have shown themselves to care much more about their own power over the lives of Americans than about the integrity and well-being of America herself.

That is completely unforgivable.

Kat

- Washington Times Article

- Fox News Article