Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Senate’

In Tight Race, Tenn. Dem’s Own Staff Says He’s Lying To Get Votes


Reported By Karista Baldwin | October 11, 2018 at 11:33am

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas’ undercover reporting just exposed the double-dealing tactics that Tennessee Democratic candidate Phil Bredesen is using in his 2018 election campaign for the U.S Senate. The group released damning undercover video footage of staffers from Bredesen’s campaign revealing that Bredesen is not above lying to voters to get elected. And his staff has no problem helping him get away with it.

On Friday, Bredesen voiced support for Judge Brett Kavanaugh and said that he wanted him on the Supreme Court, according to The Washington Post. This, according to Bredesen’s own staffers, is a total lie.

On the Project Veritas video, a man identified as Will Stewart, a field organizer for Bredesen’s campaign, was asked if Bredesen “would actually vote yes” on Kavanaugh’s confirmation if he were in the Senate. Stewart quickly set things straight.

“Oh, he wouldn’t,” Stewart said. “But he’s saying he would.” (“It’s politics,” another campaign staffer added.)

“Which, I don’t know if it makes it worse or better,” Stewart continued. “No, it makes it better.”

“I don’t understand what’s to gain by saying yes,” the undercover Project Veritas journalist prodded.

“Moderates,” Stewart said.

“Moderate Republicans,” another staffer agreed.

The duplicitous strategy seems to be common knowledge among Bredesen’s staff.

A woman identified as Maria Amalla, another field organizer, responded to why Bredesen would lie about supporting Kavanaugh, saying, “Yeah, because it’s a political move and he’s trying to make up those points.”

“I guess we won’t know until November 6th whether or not this was worth it,” she said.

Apparently, lying was the only way Bredesen could see himself beating Marsha Blackburn.

“We’re down eight points and it also said that … 74 percent of Tennesseans wanted to see Kavanaugh confirmed. Logically, based on those numbers and what I’ve seen, is that he had already known that the gap between him and her has grown more,” Amalla said, referring to Blackburn.

“And so he thought that by coming out in support that it would get more Republicans on his side. He wasn’t doing as well in the rural parts … He thinks that by saying this he’s appealing to more moderate Republicans and he’ll get more of them to vote for us,” Amalla continued.

Bredesen doesn’t hold much respect for the people he wants to represent, with Stewart agreeing that Bredesen can get away with his tactics because Tennesseans are “ignorant.”

The Project Veritas journalist also talked to a man identified as James Miller of “voter protection” on Bredesen’s staff. “I think it’s important to just remind yourself that it’s just a political move, right?” the journalist asked him.

“Yeah.  But isn’t that gross?” Miller said, lowering his voice. “That’s the way it has to go.”

“I just hate that he has to like … lie to get that vote,” the journalist said.

“I know. I know. Tell me about it.  Unfortunately, that’s reality,” Miller agreed.

Another field organizer, identified as Delaney Brown, said she hoped that all the deception at least pays off in the election.

“I know I’m going to be p—ed if this doesn’t pay off,” she said in the video.  “If we lose, I’m going to be so mad.  Because not only did he forfeit a lot of moral high ground … if it’d still lose, if it’s by a small margin, that’s the base.”

But campaign staffers assured the reporter that Bredesen’s just pulling a bait and switch. Fear not! His staff says that once Bredesen gets in office, he won’t feel any obligation to follow through with his campaign promises, since he doesn’t plan on running for re-election again anyway. Phew.

“He’s not going to be running for re-election. He can get in there and do the right thing,” Stewart said. “Between you and me, once Phil actually gets into the Senate, he’ll be a good Democrat.”

Right … once Bredesen’s elected he’ll “do the right thing.” No reason to jump the gun and act ethically while he’s campaigning.

“Once you’re in, six years, you’re going to do the right thing,” Miller also said. He agreed that Bredesen would be a good Democrat, saying, “100 percent. Always has been.”

Stewart also said that despite orders not to act as if Democrats are simply running against Trump, that’s actually pretty much the point.

“We don’t say that out of these walls. But here, of course, we talk about that,” Stewart said. “Cause it’s so funny. The messaging is like, ‘don’t talk about the blue wave. We’re not running against Trump.’ All this sort of stuff. Even though that’s all why we’re all here.  We can’t put it out there.”

Stewart then added that Bredesen “hates Trump.”

But if Democrats want to beat Republicans, they could learn a thing or two from them. Stop looking down on the people you need to vote you and show them respect instead, starting with not blatantly lying to them to try to con them into supporting you.

Also, if you do need to con people to get them to vote for you, maybe re-evaluate some of what you actually stand for.

I’m with Bredesen’s staff on this one in one respect — it’s just plain gross.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Karista Baldwin has studied constitutional law, politics and criminal justice at the University of Dallas and the University of Texas at Dallas.

Blasey Ford Caves: Legal Team Shuts Down Further Investigation into Kavanaugh



Reported By Bryan Chai | October 7, 2018 at 9:58am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/blasey-ford-caves-legal-team-shuts-investigation-kavanaugh/

Christine Ford testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Christine Ford testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee. (ABC News screen shot)

And so the Brett Kavanaugh scandal has ended — not with a bang, but a whimper. That could change, of course, if Democrats continue their crusade to remove the judge should they take the Senate after midterms. But as far as the original accuser goes? Christine Blasey Ford is throwing in the towel.

Ford’s lawyers have told CNN that their client “absolutely does not want him (Kavanaugh) impeached if Democrats take control of Congress.”

Debra Katz, one of Ford’s attorneys, told CNN that Ford has done everything she originally sought to do.

“Professor Ford has not asked for (Democrats to continue investigating Kavanaugh.) What she did was to come forward and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and agree to cooperate with any investigation by the FBI and that’s what she sought to do here,” Katz said.

Ford was thrust into the national spotlight after she accused then-Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh of sexual assault at a party while the two were in high school. Countless accusations and investigations ultimately yielded nothing, and Kavanaugh was sworn in as the 114th Supreme Court justice on Saturday after a 50-48 Senate vote.

Some prominent Democrats, such as House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jerry Nadler, have made no secret of Democrats’ desires to further investigate Kavanaugh should Democrats have a successful midterm.

“If he is on the Supreme Court, and the Senate hasn’t investigated, then the House will have to,” Nadler told ABC News George Stephanopoulos. “We would have to investigate any credible allegations of perjury and other things that haven’t been properly looked into before.”

Nadler’s statements fly directly in the face of Ford’s desires. Considering the accusations that Democrats willfully ignored Ford’s request for anonymity, it’s not exactly surprising that Democrats might ignore her requests again.

“She does not want (Kavanaugh) to be impeached?” CNN’s Dana Bash asked Ford’s lawyers.

“No,” Katz bluntly responded.

It’s totally understandable that Ford wants this ordeal finished and tucked away. Another Ford lawyer, Lisa Banks, stressed that Ford wanted closure but had no regrets.

“I don’t think she has any regrets. I think she feels like she did the right thing,” Banks said.

“And this was what she wanted to do, which was provide this information to the committee so they could make the best decision possible. And I think she still feels that was the right thing to do, so I don’t think she has any regrets.”

Katz hinted that she wasn’t thrilled with how everything played out, but still supported Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s handling of the accusations.

“What I can speak to is when victims of sexual assault and violence go to their Congress people — when they go to their senators and they ask for their information to be confidential, I think that that’s a request that needs to be respected,” Katz said.

“Victims get to control when and how and where their allegations get made public,” she added. “Now, if we want to look at all the things that went wrong in this process, there are many. There are many issues that need to be addressed. But I think Sen. Feinstein respected the process of her constituents, and I think that was the right thing to do.”

It’s certainly up for debate whether or not Feinstein actually “respected the process of her constituents.”

But if Democrats continue the assault on Kavanaugh, they most certainly will not be respecting Ford’s request for this to end.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

If I could have two television shows and two movies on a desert island, they’d be “The Office,” (the American version) “Breaking Bad,” “The Dark Knight,” and “Die Hard.” I love sports, video games, comics, movies and television. And I guess my job, too.

Opinion: Scenes from the Kavanaugh Clash — And What the Media Badly Missed


Commentary By Amy Swearer | October 7, 2018 at 3:56pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/opinion-scenes-kavanaugh-clash-media-badly-missed/

Friday morning, as the Senate prepared to vote to advance Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, I took a field trip with some of our interns. It wasn’t anything intensive — just a lap around the Capitol to observe the anti-Kavanaugh protests.

One of our female interns carried a sign. It was a simple sign with four words: “I stand with Brett.”

I somewhat expected those words to attract attention — they are, after all, words so contrary to the sentiments expressed by the majority of individuals who held signs around the Capitol this week.

What I did not expect was the type of attention it would draw and from what type of people.

You see, we were mostly ignored by the large groups of screaming, borderline-hysterical, anti-Kavanaugh protesters. Occasionally, a lone individual would heap some abuse our way, often in the form of telling us we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. But overall, it appeared they had bigger fights to pick than with four fairly innocuous young adults who kept a respectful distance.

No, the attention we attracted was from people largely overlooked amid the shouting. And they were almost unanimously supportive.

Normal, everyday people — tourists from all areas of the country, couples pushing strollers, families with teenage daughters, middle-aged friends, elderly women out for a walk — all quietly, calmly approaching us for a word of thanks.

We could not go 50 yards without being stopped by someone expressing their gratitude or asking if we had any extra signs. I can’t tell you how many wanted to take pictures with the sign. I gave up counting the thumbs ups and smiles. I can’t tell you the number of ways we were thanked by different individuals.

What I do know is that the amount of encouragement received by people who would otherwise have stayed silent in the shadow of the larger anti-Kavanaugh mobs gave me hope.

More than anything, I was heartened by the women. For too many women, “I stand with Brett” is a phrase we’ve been told we mustn’t utter in public. It’s a conclusion we’ve been told we mustn’t reach. A rationale we’ve been told we mustn’t embrace.

And so many women have stayed silent. We’ve quietly absorbed the abuse aimed at us. Without retort, we have stood by and refrained from engaging in a prolonged ideological battle we fear we’ll fight alone.

But inside, we know. We know that there is not and has never been a shred of corroboration for the claims of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. We know that “Believe all women” is an irrational and untenable ideology that undermines every argument that we should be treated equally to men. We know that a good man has been forced to go to war for his honor and his family because he is being slandered on the altar of social justice run amok.

For dozens of women today, these four words printed on poster board were their voice, and they let us know it.

Reason and truth do not always belong to the loudest in the room. Sometimes, they belong to the whisperers the world barely acknowledges, and castigates when it does.

So let me unequivocally state today what so many of us have long known, but have too often refused to say publicly: Women, it’s OK.

It’s OK to not believe other women when the evidence is contrary to their claims.

It’s OK to adhere to basic concepts of rationality and fairness when making a judgment about a man accused of sexual misconduct.

It’s OK to stand with Kavanaugh if your reason so implores you.

These are things we need not only whisper in private. We can say them out loud, and boldly. Behind our whispers is a mighty roar to let others know they are not alone in thinking for themselves.

Amy Swearer is a legal policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

A version of this Op-Ed appeared Friday on The Daily Signal website under the headline “The Power of ‘I Stand With Brett.’”

Ford Ex-Boyfriend Devastates Her Testimony. Alleges Fraud, Polygraph Coaching


Reported By Lisa Payne-Naeger | October 3, 2018 at

7:36am

Tables have certainly turned on the left.

If the Democrats’ strategy was to manufacture a past that comes back to haunt opponents, their game plan to derail the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh should have included accusers and witnesses who had untainted histories of their own.

Unfortunately for chief accuser Christine Blasey Ford, a man from her own past has gone public to allege some major holes in her testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Those digging deep into Kavanaugh’s personal history to unearth any kind of scandal may have just been thwarted by a page from their own playbook.

Fox News reported late Tuesday that a man has come forward to contradict many of the statements Ford made in her testimony last week.

The man, an ex-boyfriend of Ford, said she never told him of an alleged sexual assault by Kavanaugh in all of the six years that they dated.

Further, in the sworn statement, the man contradicts Ford’s testimony that she never helped anyone prepare for polygraph examinations or had a fear of flying or tight spaces and limited exits.

“In a written declaration released Tuesday and obtained by Fox News, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, directly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination,” Fox News reported.

“The former boyfriend, whose name was redacted in the declaration, also said Ford neither mentioned Kavanaugh nor mentioned she was a victim of sexual misconduct during the time they were dating from about 1992 to 1998. He said he saw Ford going to great lengths to help a woman he believed was her ‘life-long best friend’ prepare for a potential polygraph test. He added that the woman, Monica McLean, had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s office.

“He further claimed that Ford never voiced any fear of flying (even while aboard a propeller plane) and seemingly had no problem living in a ‘very small,’ 500 sq. ft. apartment with one door — apparently contradicting her claims that she could not testify promptly in D.C. because she felt uncomfortable traveling on planes, as well as her suggestion that her memories of Kavanuagh’s alleged assault prompted her to feel unsafe living in a closed space or one without a second front door.”

All of those statements contradict, or cast serious question on, Ford’s testimony to the committee deciding Kavanaugh’s fate.

In particular, during her testimony, Ford was questioned about her experience with polygraphs several times by the prosecutor hired by committee Republicans. She denied ever helping anyone prepare to take a polygraph.

According to Fox, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley sent a letter to Ford’s attorneys demanding they release: “therapist notes and other key materials, and suggested she was intentionally less than truthful about her experience with polygraph examinations during Thursday’s dramatic Senate hearing.”

This isn’t the first time differing statements have come from friends of Ford who knew her back in the day.

On Sept. 22, as Mairead McArdle noted at National Review, longtime Ford friend Leland Ingham Keyser denied statements that she attended the party in which Ford alleges the assault by Kavanaugh took place.

Howard Walsh, an attorney for Keyser said in a written statement: “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.”

Perjury is a serious crime, and at this point I would wonder if Ford isn’t getting a little nervous as figures from her past emerge to shoot down her testimony and paint a picture of a very non-credible individual.

As speculation surrounds the coming conclusion of the FBI investigation into the allegations against Kavenaugh, I wonder if there will be any consequence toward those who came forward with such questionable accusations against the judge.

It shouldn’t be so easy to lie under oath. And the left shouldn’t assume that their obstruction tactics will go unchallenged anymore.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

An enthusiastic grassroots Tea Party activist, Lisa Payne-Naeger has spent the better part of the last decade lobbying for educational and family issues in her state legislature, and as a keyboard warrior hoping to help along the revolution that empowers the people to retake control of their, out-of-control, government.

After Noticing Aide’s Behavior Behind Feinstein, Body Language Expert Says They Betrayed Ford


Reported By Lisa Payne-Naeger | October 2, 2018 at

7:09am

There is an entirely different narrative to be understood about what someone is saying to you, and it goes far beyond listening to their words. It’s what people do when they speak, how they behave, what movements they make, that tells the story.

Body language is sometimes far more telling than the actual words that come from someone’s lips.

Mandy O’Brien studies body language. She’s become an internet go-to expert on reading the truth on many D.C. inhabitants.

And she’s got some pretty interesting things to say about Sen. Dianne Feinstein regarding the leak of Palo Alto University Professor Christine Blasey Ford’s letter accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when both were in high school.

In this video, O’Brien dissects every movement from Feinstein and those around her to come up with some fascinating conclusions regarding Feinstein’s statements in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings as she answers questions about the letter she received from Ford.

Personally, I never believed Feinstein was telling the truth when she said she did not leak Ford’s letter, but O’Brien’s observations offer another interesting perspective.

Feinstein says: “Mr. Chairman, let me be clear. I did not hide Dr. Ford’s allegations. I did not leak her story. She asked me to hold it confidential.”

To that O’Brein responds: “OK, Feinstein has said two statements and neither one of them match. The other part of this, she’s written it down. I don’t know if she wrote it down during this hearing. It wouldn’t surprise me, but it’s suspicious to write it down.

“What did she say? ‘I did not hide it,’ and ‘I did not leak it.’ So if you didn’t hide it, it means others knew, which kind of contradicts ‘I didn’t leak it.’ It’s a very ambiguous statement, especially since she went so far as to actually write it down so she stayed on point, just like lawyer-speak.”

Interestingly, not only does O’Brien find Feinstein’s statements not credible and suspicious, but the rest of the chamber is completely detached and unenthusiastic about her remarks. Bored.

At the 1:26 mark of the video, the camera gives us a wide angle shot of the room and the inattentiveness by the body is overwhelming. The body language by the rest of the committee is an enormous statement in itself.

O’Brien also notes Feinstein speaks to the body of the chamber, but does not make eye contact, a very tell-tale sign of disingenuous behavior.

“She’s not even actually looking up towards anyone of any status, at least in her mind,” O’Brien adds.

It’s possible Feinstein believes she isn’t lying if she can dance around the truth on a technicality.

“Now, there’s quite a few ways, especially since we’re dealing with lawyers, and they’re getting smarter, that you could approach this,” O’Brien says. ‘I did not leak,’ could mean she did not give anyone that letter because that part as she says it seems to be true. Her body sings with her.

“Everything is peaches and cream, and alas you’ve followed your little law. But, you know, whispered bullet points, whispered names, that’s not leaking, at least in their mind,” O’Brien says.

The next question is, if Feinstein didn’t leak, who did? A staff member possibly? Even if it wasn’t Feinstein herself, it was a betrayal nonetheless. And O’Brien gives a detailed description of a woman on Feinstein’s staff sitting behind her, and draws a conclusion that it is possible her staff could have been the culprit.

“But confronted on if your staff leaked it. See how her head goes back almost like a defiance and then she watches Feinstein to see her reaction. ‘Are you going to stand up for us?’ It makes me suspicious if the staff was the ones that were leaking it, whether they actually leaked the documents or, as I said before, leaked those bullet points,” O’Brien says.

Body language is a fascinating science. I can think of no better place to study it than inside the Beltway. There’s enough body language going on there to keep people watchers busy for a very long time.

Hopefully, the Kavanaugh hearings won’t go on much longer and we can watch an excited Justice Brett Kavanaugh take his oath as he proceeds to his seat on the Supreme Court.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

An enthusiastic grassroots Tea Party activist, Lisa Payne-Naeger has spent the better part of the last decade lobbying for educational and family issues in her state legislature, and as a keyboard warrior hoping to help along the revolution that empowers the people to retake control of their, out-of-control, government.

Ford’s Friend Who Was Allegedly at Party Issues Statement on FBI Investigation


Reported By Savannah Pointer | September 29, 2018 at 3:50pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/fords-friend-issues-statement/

Christine Blasey Ford testifies Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington.

Christine Blasey Ford testifies Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Melina Mara / AFP / Getty Images)

Ford claimed that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and attempted to rape her at a party 36 years ago. That accusation put Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote on hold until the FBI can further investigate her claims.

Thus far, the only evidence that Ford has brought in the case is her own testimony. All of the individuals who she claimed attended the party with her and Kavanaugh deny any knowledge of the event taking place.

One of those people is Ford’s close friend Leland Keyser. Last week, Keyser said in a statement from her attorney, on penalty of a felony, that she didn’t attend such a party and didn’t even know Kavanaugh.

“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,” attorney Howard Walsh III said.

Walsh spoke out again Saturday, saying that Keyser doesn’t have any helpful information.

In a letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he said, “Ms. Keyser asked that I communicate to the committee her willingness to cooperate fully with the FBI’s supplemental investigation of Dr. Christine Ford’s allegation against Judge Brett Kavanaugh.”

Walsh went on to stipulate that “as my client as already made clear, she does not know Judge Kavanaugh and has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

Keyser does, however, believe Ford, she said.

“Notably Ms. Keyser does not refute Dr. Ford’s account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford’s account,” Walsh said.

Her belief in her friend didn’t keep Keyser from conveying that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question.

The president’s stamp of approval on the controversial supplemental investigation came with some limitations.

“I’ve ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh’s file,” Trump said in a statement.

“As the Senate has requested, this update must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week.”

During Thursday’s questioning, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called out his colleagues for what he called the “charade” and for victimizing both Ford and Kavanaugh.

An earlier version of this article accidentally referred to Ms. Leland Keyser as “he” and, in one instance from her lawyer’s transcribed statement, as “Mr. Keyser.” We corrected these mistakes within a few minutes of their being pointed out by a reader, but failed to issue a correction in accordance with our own Ethics and Editorial Standards. We apologize to Ms. Keyser and our readers for these errors.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Savannah Pointer is a constitutional originalist whose main goal is to keep the wool from being pulled over your eyes. She believes that the liberal agenda will always depend on Americans being uneducated and easy to manipulate. Her mission is to present the news in a straightforward yet engaging manner.

Sex Investigator Issues Her Report: Absolutely Takes Ford Apart


Reported By Cillian Zeal | October 1, 2018 at

5:25am

For liberals, facts are painful.

The sex crimes prosecutor brought on by the Senate Judiciary Committee to assist with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings not only said that she wouldn’t have pressed charges against Kavanaugh in the case, she found the evidence presented by his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, was decidedly weaker even than a “he said, she said” situation.

In a memo released late Sunday, Rachel Mitchell questioned Ford’s version of events, including the shifting timeline of when the attack occurred, Ford’s inability to remember how she got home, the ambiguity of her willingness to remain anonymous, and the failure of other witnesses to back up her story.

“In a legal context, here is my bottom line: A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove,” the Arizona prosecutor said at the beginning of the memo, which can be viewed here.  The document was addressed to “All Republican Senators.”

“But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses in 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.”

Among the major problems Mitchell had was the fact that Ford couldn’t give “a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.” In her conversations with The Washington Post, for instance, she said it was the “mid 1980s,” which shifted to the “early ’80s” in a letter to California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. Therapy notes seemed to indicate she said it happened in her “late teens,” while Ford’s eventual account had her at age 15.

While Ford eventually narrowed it down to the summer of 1982, Mitchell remained unconvinced.

“While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the time frame to a particular season and particular year,” Mitchell wrote.

Mitchell also referred back to notes taken by Ford’s therapist in 2012, which didn’t seem to identify Kavanaugh by name. The first time her husband recalled hearing a name was in 2012, Mitchell wrote, when Kavanaugh was “widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.”

Mitchell also took aim at Ford’s memories of the party where she claimed the alleged sexual assault happened.

“She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity,” Mitchell wrote. “Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.”

“She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.”

While Ford was able to describe details of the night — including “hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house,” the drive back is more elusive.

Ford “has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver,” Mitchell wrote.

“Given that all of this took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.”

The memo also notes the inconsistencies in Ford’s accounts of who was at the party and her discussions with The Washington Post, and the fact that Ford “refused to provide any of her therapy notes to the Committee.” (italics in the original)

Mitchell didn’t examine Kavanaugh’s testimony in the memo. However, this kind of analysis, one assumes, is why the Ford team didn’t want a sex crimes prosecutor present at the hearing. This was something that the left was crowing about the moment this hit the news wires, as evinced by the reaction of BuzzFeed’s legal editor, Chris Geidner:

Yes, and that actually doesn’t refute any of the points made in the memo. However credible — or at least sympathetic — Ford may have seemed as an individual to the layman, there are still significant issues with her account of what happened (and how that account has shifted).

That’s what a prosecutor is supposed to do — provide a dispassionate version of things. Mitchell wasn’t there to take sides. What she did was point out the multifarious inconsistencies in the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford.

In a situation where it’s horribly impolitic to state the facts, that’s an invaluable service.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Writing under a pseudonym, Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad in a country that doesn’t value free speech and exercising it would put him in danger.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: