Christine Blasey Ford
Let’s remember the following about her testimony:
- She has aligned herself with the far-left (was wearing Pussy hats and protesting Trump, typical far left Palo Alto girl). This hints there might be political motives involved.
- Her polygraph is a farce:
- they aren't admissible because sociopaths can easily cheat them
- She had one done the day of her grandmother’s funeral, but doesn't remember the day/date?
- It was done in a hotel conference room -- not a valid/controlled setting
- She said she was crying the whole time -- this is known to taint any readings
- It is inappropriate to give a polygraph to someone who is grieving
- She doesn't know who paid for it (which means it was the DNC/Feinstein)
- It was not someone trying to get to the truth or challenge her, it was a political ploy to offer credence to her story, especially based on the only two questions she admits to being asked.
- She doesn't remember whether it was taped or videod -- this was only a few weeks before? But we're relying on her memory from 36 years prior?
- She won't provide the lie detector administrator’s notes or list of questions or polygraph machine readings so that his conclusions could be validated/scrutinized by other experts? But trust her, it happened and she passed alright.
- She straight-up lied about being afraid to fly: she claimed she couldn't fly to DC to testify and that was why she needed to postpone the hearing to drive. She was an hour away in Delaware (which she flew to from California), and she has flown countless times, to remote places in the world such as Hawaii, French Polynesia, Costa Rica, and to D.C. for the senate hearing.
- She lied about wanting anonymity
- She went to the DNC (not the Senate), specifically the blabbiest person in the Senate (known for having a Chinese Spy on her staff for 20 years), had them get her a lawyer, pay for her polygraph (and rig it in case she failed), sanitize her social media, they setup a Go-Fund me page to launder $1M to her, withheld this while the Kavanaugh hearings were going on so they could spring it late, she sent letters to WaPo (far left Newspaper), all these things in advance of coming forward, because everyone that wants to remain anonymous does these things.
- This also hints to how non-partisan she wanted it, by not going to the Committee or Senate, but specifically the open arms of the DNC which aligned with her political agendas of wanted to sabotage the appointment.
- Her team was so desperate to have "The Woman Who Wants Anonymity" to testify publicly, that they turned down the opportunity to have her questioned in private at her home in California. Then they lied about it.
- Every single one of her witnesses refutes her story — has no memory of the gathering in question or says it doesn’t happen, and this includes a lifelong friend who said she has no recollection of the party and never met Kavanaugh. If Ford's memory can mistake her best friend being at the party when she was not, what else did she get wrong?
- Her therapist’s notes from 2012 collide with her letter and testimony in many ways.
- Ford originally claimed she was physically abused. Then it was four boys in the bedroom tried to rape her when she was in her late teens in the mid-eighties. She changed that to four boys at the party in her early teens in the early eighties. Then it only 2 in the room. Then her best friend was also there (maybe 4th unnamed boy, maybe not). The number of people and their makeup has changed at least 4 times, blowing away the theory that key facts are seared in a survivors mind -- the therapist notes, her letter to Feinstein, and her statement to the Senate all disagree with each other. And no one named agrees that this ever happened. It's worse than just they disagree with her version of events, they know of no such event at all -- which seems to match Kavanaugh's Calendar.
- Ford refused to give her therapist’s notes to the Senate Judiciary Committee -- why would she do that if they supported her testimony?
- Her written testimony (Letter to Feinstein) claimed she could hear the boys downstairs talking, her verbal testimony said she could not
- In the statement she wrote out for her polygraph, Ford crossed out “early 80’s” so it would only read “80’s.”
- Ford told the Committee the “primary impact” of the event occurred during the “four years after” it happened.
- She goes on to say, “I struggled academically. I struggled very much in Chapel Hill and in College. When I was 17 I went off to college, I had a very hard time.” Skipping over two whole years, her junior and senior years in high school; the two school years directly after the attack
- Then didn’t produce her high school and college grades and records to verify the assertion. Then went on to get a PhD and publish 30 peer reviewed studies in her field?
- Ford told the Committee she was able to pin it down to 1982 because she remembered she did not yet have her drivers’ license. But… she also says she doesn’t remember how she got to or from the house party, so how does she know she didn’t drive herself?
- Ford also used Mark Judge’s Safeway job to confirm the 1982 timeline (he'd written that in his memoirs). Since she could not yet drive, her mother drove her there, and according to her, they entered Safeway using different doors. So a few weeks after this vicious attempted rape (that traumatized her for decades), a 15 year old girl runs into one of her attackers in a supermarket while she is in the throes of anxiety and PTSD (her words), and forgets to testify about any feelings of terror? Only that she said “Hi” to him, and that Mark Judge wasn’t as “friendly as before”? (He “turned white").
- Her mom can’t/won't confirm any of this happened!
- Her parents and siblings were not in the Senate chambers (unlike Kavanaugh), and signed none of the dozens of letters put into the record supporting her? No affidavits from her parents saying that she had a noticeable behavior change after the alleged event, or any words to support her or her integrity. You know the lawyers asked (or they are incompetent), so why doesn't her own family trust/vouch for her?
- She testified she doesn't know how to access $500,000 in “Go Fund Me” accounts, but she also testified that money was paying for her security detail. These accounts have now topped $1M. When people ask why might a false accuser lie, and the answer in Anita Hill or Christine Blasey Ford's case will be millions of dollars, book and made for TV movie deals, speaking tours, tenure or promotions in academia, and so on. That doesn't mean they ARE lying, just that there are great incentives to do so. Oh, and it's illegal to pay a witness to testify, but 5 Go Fund Me accounts in her name, setup by the DNC or Soros for her, isn't considered payment?
- She claimed to be a Psychologist, she isn't, she's a psychology professor. The problem is that "Psychologist" is a legal term which includes licensing, having gone through internship/residency, and she has done none of that. This is the equivalent to someone with a JD or a paralegal claiming they are a lawyer (even though they haven't passed the bar), or someone with a doctorate in computer science claiming they are a gynecologist. No professional does this by accident.
- Her story about why she had a second door installed "because claustrophobia from PSTD", appears to be perjury. The reason for a second door, is because they rent out a self contained unit (with it's own entrance) -- not because it gives her the ability to escape. She never mentioned her live-in tenant, and intentionally mislead the Senate on this. 
So all four of her witnesses refute the allegations against Kavanaugh. Her notes by her therapist do the same. And her timeline doesn't makes sense. She's caught outright lying (misleading) at least a few times, and then what she does remember is so full of holes any rational person would be getting skeptical:
- She didn’t hear two very drunk and belligerent boys sneak up on her?
- What country club girl swims all day, then goes to a party with a wet bathing suit under her designer clothes?
- Why was music already on in a room no one was using? Wouldn’t blasting music ensure someone came upstairs to see what was going on, especially whoever’s house it was? And why would rapists turn it down before going downstairs (so she could hear them talking)?
- Two 17 year old strapping High School Football jocks couldn't rape a little 15 year old girl if they wanted to? Does anyone believe that?
- All getting all tuned up for a rape, setting the stage with music to cover the sound, the drunk boys wrestle around, forget the rape victim completely, and ignore the girl who locked herself in the bathroom? They don't jiggle the doorknob, or at least claim they were just kidding? They just go careening downstairs, laughing like nothing happened?
- She remembers how many beers she had (only one), but has been wildly inconsistent on the number of people who attended this small gathering, the number of people who were in the room where the assault allegedly happened, and by extension the number of boys who tried to rape her. And she can't remember how she got there or home, but trust her: only one beer.
- She left without telling/warning her best friend that there were two drunk rapists in the house? What a good friend.
- She goes on to not report the event, so that two attempted rapists can go free and assault other Women unchallenged? What a fine upstanding citizen that is.
- No one asked why she was leaving or found it strange enough to ask her the following day why she just vanished from the party?
- A 15 year old girl, after having the most traumatic event of her life (that will effect her for decades to come), didn’t confide in anyone else for 30 years? This isn't just a shocked layperson -- this is a Ph.D. in psychology (who testified to the etiology and pathology of anxiety and PTSD), but doesn’t mention any episode of sexual trauma to her own therapist for over 30 years?
- She never mentioned Kavanaugh's name, and she only started that process when it looked like Romney might win the 2012 election and appoint a conservative Justice. She also changed from telling her husband at the beginning of their marriage she had suffered physical abuse, to Sexual Assault.
- She can remember how many beers she had (one) but not whose house she was in, how she got home, the date, the place, how many people were there (sometimes it’s 4, or 5 or 6), or anything solid?
- If she walked for 2+ hours, it would certainly be memorable and seared in as well. If she had to call for a ride, what are the chances a 15 year old trauma victim wouldn't blab about what just happened? How did she call, since she ran out and this was the era before cell phones?
- She will show the far-left Washington Post her therapist’s note but not the Senate? Why is that?
- Goes to “couples counseling” because she and her husband can’t agree on the details on remodeling the house? Because she wants a second door after 30 years -- ignoring that the prior 30 years there was no such requirement by her?
- She wrote the book (study) on how to implant false memories under self-hypnosis (you can't make this up).  Of course that doesn't mean she did it, in this case. But if means she's trained on how to do it, if she needed to, because she wanted to block someone getting on the Supreme Court, for example.
If that passes your stink test, we have different standards for credible witnesses.
The prosecutor who questioned Christine said there's no basis for a case let alone a conviction, even by a lower civil court standard.
Whether in Martial Arts, sports being an abused kid, playing poker, or prior negotiations/interviewing training, you study learning how to read people. (I've done all of these). If you can read people, it can help anticipate next moves (where the punch is coming from). Knowing where people are glancing (and little physical tells) to figure out what’s real and what is manipulation (fake).
I was noticing some of this stuff but this vide breaks a lot more down. To the untrained she looked sincere. To the even slightly trained, she's consciously manipulating. That doesn’t let us know whether she was telling the truth or not. (Some people practice their own story, so it’s both a performance... and true). But it screams that this was highly practiced act and intended to manipulate the gullible -- and the people that buy the sincerity of the act are the gullible. So what we know is that the people that think it was completely sincere, don’t know what to look for, and are just projecting their own biases on what actually happened. (They took the bait).
There was a post on FB post and another article that was quite enlightening, it talked about "Statement Analysis"<ref>Statement Analysis:
- http://www.statementanalysis.com/cases/judge-brett-kavanaugh/<?ref>. People interrogated are asked to write things down, because the act of writing makes it harder to lie, and they slip in tells between the written and spoken confessions, as well as grammatical slips that give more information than they want. An analysis on Ford shows some interesting observations (especially on omissions):
- Why did she go upstairs? There's generally a first floor bathroom, and most people go upstairs at a party to make-out or do drugs.
- Her use of "we" in describing a sexual attacker is extremely unusual: it shows a partnership that doesn't usually exist
- She never mentions that anything happened against her will ~ there is no evidence that she wasn't receptive to the boys' drunken behavior at the time
- She wrote, I thought he might ‘inadvertently kill me’... so there was no intent to harm her?
- There are significant gaps in time in the statement that indicate deception - she didn't state how she arrived, how she departed and what happened before.
Time gaps hint there's stuff she's hiding. Perhaps that she was drinking, or that she was invited upstairs and she went willingly? The "I went upstairs to use the bathroom" needs more exploration (especially in a country-club area home). And it helps to remember that lies of omission are some of the most popular lies. So do we know anything conclusive from this kind of analysis? No. But there are again, more red flags that hint that Ford is giving us less than the whole truth. And we shouldn't convict people based on partial truths.
- Psychologist Perjury: https://www.dangerous.com/49836/records-show-dr-ford-is-not-a-licensed-psychologist-may-have-committed-perjury/
- Second Door: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/10/02/records_raise_questions_about_fords_double-door_story__138225.html
- Getting in touch with your inner psychopath and retrieving false memories: http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/01/kavanaugh-accuser-co-authored-study-citing-use-hypnosis-retrieve-memories/
- Motives: https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/09/what-motives-drive-false-accusers/
- Other inconsistencies: https://www.dailywire.com/news/36399/watch-christie-blasey-ford-makes-inconsistent-ryan-saavedra
- The Prosecutor wrote up her notes (which called out many of the same points I had):