Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified under oath before the SJC on Thursday, September 27, 2018.
Here's what she knows:
- Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a party when she was around 15 and he was around 17.
- she had one beer
- she named four people* at the party, including BK
Here's what she does not know:
- when the assault occurred (35 years ago, give or take)
- where the assault occurred (it was a two story house with a bedroom and bathroom on the 2nd floor)
- how she got to the party (including who brought her or went with her)
- how she got home from the party (including who picked her up or returned with her)
* All four of Ford's witnesses, including a lifelong friend, testified under oath as having no knowledge of the party. For a more in depth look at Ford's witnesses, check out this article.
Ford's testimony stinks for three reasons:
- Reason 1 Ford should not have had to publicly testify to the SJC.
- Reason 2 Ford's testimony denies the accused the possiblity of providing an alibi.
- Reason 3 Ford's testimony practically eliminates the possibility of a perjury charge.
Ford Should Not Have Had to Publicly Testify to the SJC
- In
Dr. Ford's letter to Senator Feinstein dated July 30, 2018, she makes it clear she did not want
to go public with this allegation. The second sentence in Ford's letter to Feinstein reads:
"I expect that you [Feinstein] will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak."
- BK was interviewed publicly by the entire SJC starting September 5. Each committee member, including Feinstein
who already had Ford's letter for about a month, also inteviewed BK privately. None of the interviewers
who had knowledge of Ford's letter asked BK about Ford's allegation. Wouldn't you have asked BK
about this in either the open hearing or in private? I would have.
- Before Ford was outed, did you know that Democrats on the SJC could have initiated their own investigation
into Ford's claim without the public's knowledge? That's right. They have the authority to do that.
Feinstein (and camp) could have ordered the investigation, and if nothing was uncovered, kept it
on the down low protecting Ford's anonymity -- but no -- that would not have suited their political purposes.
- Instead, Feinstein waited until after the entire SJC hearing was over and just before the vote,
when it appeared BK would secure his nomination and be confirmed, to leak Ford's allegation and name,
pull the sexual assault pistol from her fanny pack and fire it in the air.
- Once Ford was outed, did you know that the Republicans on tbe SJC offered to have representatives
of the committee fly to CA and interview Ford at any venue and in private if she so chose? This is
completely unprecedented and was offered to Ford once Republicans found out about her apparent fear
of flying. If you weren't aware of the offer, you're in good company. When Ford was asked during
her testimony if she knew of the offer, she said she did not. Wow. The attorneys for the
Democrats* never told Ford about the offer.
* To keep things in perspective, those were not Ford's attorneys. The Democrats paid for them -- and as we all know -- "he who pays the piper calls the tune." The Democrats didn't want Ford to know about the offer and so Ford was not told. Why? Simple. They were concerned Ford would accept -- and that's NOT what the Democrats wanted. They did not want Ford interviewed in private. So, they outed Ford** and persuaded her to come to D.C. for public testimony. They got exactly the spectacle they wanted -- at Ford's expense.
** Ford sent the letter to Feinstein who denies leaking it. However, not one Republican was sent a copy of the letter nor did they know anything about the letter before it became public. That letter didn't just blow off Feinstein's desk and out the window. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out the letter was deliberately leaked by the Democrats. The end game was to keep BK off the Supreme Court -- at any cost. Outing Ford was just collateral damage. Whether you are a Ford fan or not, you should be furious with the Democrats for disrepecting Ford's wishes to remain anonymous, and treating her like a political pawn.
Three Reasons
TOP
Ford's Testimony Denies the Accused the Possiblity of Providing an Alibi
This occurred to me after hearing of Ford's recollection (or lack thereof) of events. When there is an accusation, an investigator:
- gets as much detail as possible from the accuser. In Ford's case, there are no details.
She does not know when, where, who she was with going to and fro, etc.
- goes and talks to any witnesses. None of Ford's four named witnesses, including a lifelong friend,
have any knowledge of this party and provided sworn testimonty to the SJC saying so. This is what's called
a dead end.
- goes and talks to the accused. Perhaps, the accused has an alibi. However, given Ford's complete lack
detail, there is no way to provide an alibi. Think about it. How could BK possibly provide an alibi
for an event that happend some time, somewhere? He couldn't.
- Maybe, BK was at an away basketball game and there are still school records --
that he left the city at 4:00 and did not get back until midnight -- and could not have
assaulted her at 8:00 pm.
- Maybe, BK's parents were vacationing in the Bahamas on the date of the alleged assault
and took BK with them. Under those circumstances, he could not have assaulted her.
- Maybe, BK was at an away basketball game and there are still school records --
that he left the city at 4:00 and did not get back until midnight -- and could not have
assaulted her at 8:00 pm.
Three Reasons
TOP
Ford's Testimony Practically Eliminates Any Proof of Perjury
Rush Limbaugh suggested that Ford's testimony would be next to impossible to be determined false. The only detail Ford provided was her four named witnesses. Again, none of them corroborated her testimony. If it was Ford's intention to make a false allegation with the motive of doing her part to keep BK off the Supreme Court, what better way to avoid a perjury charge then answer every question regarding when, where, with whom, etc., with either vague answers, or to say: "I don't remember." Again, her lapses in memory seem a little too convenient.
Three Reasons
TOP
Back to Brett Kavanaugh page
