There was a moment during Thursday’s hearing when Christine Blasey Ford was asked, “Was it communicated to you by your counsel or someone else, that the committee had asked to interview you and that — that they offered to come out to California to do so?”
At which point, her lawyer Michael Bromwich grabbed the microphone to interrupt: “We’re going to object, Mr. Chairman, to any call for privileged conversations between counsel and Dr. Ford.”
A poker player would call that a “tell.” Among the many things we learned from Thursday’s hearing was that the excuse given for delaying Professor Ford’s testimony was a lie. She wasn’t afraid of flying. She was a frequent flyer, traveling to vacations around the world and, in point of fact, at the time the Senate Judiciary Committee was offering to fly to California to interview her, Professor Ford was not in California. She was already in the D.C. area, having flown there to strategize with her lawyers, who were recommended to her by Sen. Dianne Feinstein. She had also flown to the D.C. area in August, when she took a polygraph test at the Hilton Hotelnear Baltimore-Washington International Airport.
This was all a set-up, a carefully planned ambush by Democrats, calculated either to force Judge Kavanaugh to withdraw his name for the Supreme Court nomination, or else to delay the process past the midterm elections, turning the nomination into a campaign issue.
Once you understand this, the coordination between Senate Democrats and Professor Ford’s lawyers appears highly significant. Anyone could look at the calendar and see how long Feinstein, her Democrat colleagues and the media prepared this ambush. On June 27, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and, within a few days, Professor Ford contacted the Washington Post to share her 1982 tale about Judge Kavanaugh, who was widely reported to be on President Trump’s short list of candidates to replace Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh’s name was announced July 9, and days later, Profesor Ford met with her Democrat congresswoman, Rep. Anna Eshoo, who recommended that Professor Ford detail her accusations in a letter to Feinstein. That letter was hand-delivered to Feinstein on July 30. The next day, Aug. 1, in an interview on the Hugh Hewitt radio program, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said:
“If we could get this all done by October 1st when the Supreme Court starts its new fall session, [that] would be ideal. But I think we can get it done soon after that if we don’t get it done by October 1st.”
Grassley explained in that interview that the hearing would likely be delayed until after Labor Day, because August was already booked up with the Senate committee scheduled to consider a series of votes on President Trump’s lower-court appointees. The clock was ticking, however, and Professor Ford’s lawyers wasted no time getting to work. By Aug. 7, Professor Ford was being polygraphed — and Feinstein didn’t say a word about this accusation to her Republican colleagues on the committee. That’s a crucial fact to keep in mind, now that the vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation has been delayed because Jeff Flake got harassed in an elevator by Soros-funded protesters.
The confirmation hearings for Judge Kavanaugh began Sept. 4. Feinstein had been in possession of Professor Ford’s letter for 36 days, and the accuser had been a client of the lawyers recommended by Feinstein for five weeks. Yet while Judge Kavanaugh sat for more than 30 hours of hearings in the Judiciary Committee, where Feinstein was the ranking Democrat member, she never asked a single question about this accusation and, most importantly, nobody on the Republican side of the aisle had any clue that Christine Blasey Ford existed, and was working with a team of lawyers hand-picked for her by Feinstein.
Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony ended Friday, Sept. 7, and the Judiciary Committee vote was already scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 20, allowing another week for the full Senate to debate the nomination and vote, thus to have the new appointee confirmed by the time the Supreme Court convened on Oct. 1. Feinstein, who had been holding onto Professor Ford’s letter since late July, waited until Thursday, Sept. 13, to go public with it, pretending that this delay was about protecting the accuser’s anonymity. Of course, the Washington Post had been talking to Professor Ford for more than two months by then, and they had a feature story ready to go for the front page of their Sunday edition on Sept. 16.
What happened here was all a result of Feinstein’s bad faith (mala fides) in handling the accusation from Professor Ford. She had an obligation to inform her Republican colleagues of this accusation, and her failure to do so in a timely manner is inexcusable. We have been repeatedly told, by Democrats and their allies in the media, that Professor Ford’s accusation is “credible,” and yet it was not until Sept. 13 — nine days after Judge Kavnaugh had begun testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and a week before the committee was scheduled to vote on his nomination — that Feinstein dropped this bombshell. Judge Kavanaugh has testified that, when the accusation first became public, before Professor Ford discarded her mask of anonymity, he had no idea who could be making such a claim against him. Everyone named as a potential witness to this alleged incident has disclaimed any knowledge of it. Leland Keyser, the accuser’s “lifelong friend” whom she named as a witness, said she “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.”
Professor Ford’s description of the party at which the alleged incident occurred, near the Columbia Country Club, has been suggested as indicating the home of Judge Kavanaugh’s friend Chris “Squi” Garrett, whom Professor Ford briefly dated. Yet she didn’t name Garrett as having been present at the party, and no one else named by her — Kavanaugh, his friend Mark Judge or P.J. Smyth — lived near the country club. However “credible” Professor Ford may seem to anyone, the known facts simply don’t match her story. Can the FBI unravel this?
During Friday’s meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse focused on one date — July 1, 1982 — on the calendar that Judge Kavanaugh fortuitously had kept all these years. That entry indicates that Kavanaugh went to “Timmy” Gaudette’s house for a party where Judge, Smyth and Garrett were also in attendance. The problem, however, is that Gaudette lived 10 miles from the country club, and Professor Ford never mentioned him as being present at the party where this alleged incident occurred. Furthermore, as has been often noted, Professor Ford was 15 at the time — too young to drive — and the country club was some eight miles from her family’s home, but she has no memory of who drove her to this party, or who drove her home. If this is a “credible” story, what would an incredible story look like?
Cindy Sheehan got less sympathy altho she was for sure a victim of her son’s death.
Mrs Ford was a victim of being assaulted by we don’t know who did it, where or when.
Yet she’s gotten a bigger pass then Cindy ever got.
Both women had other agendas they were using their victimhood to obtain, but why should Ford’s facts go unquestioned?
Maybe the FBI will get to the bottom of it, probably not.
But perhaps the FBI timeline will sideways prove that her story is just that, when it comes to Kavenaugh, just a story.
I’d have given her more credibility if she had admitted that the incident was what led to her 6 year + bout with alcoholism and sex with over 60 different partners.
But she tries to hide that part of her life.
The FBI shouldn’t play along with her game, but they have been politicized, so who knows.
And Sen Flake might just e the biggest sociopath on the committee.
He’s shiftless with no core values in him whatsoever.
Liberal Democrats are so nasty if a Cobra bit one the snake would die
A sociopath has an anti-social personality disorder. They think and act without regard for others. They lie, cheat, and manipulate for their gain. Their narcissism and lack of remorse allow them to do whatever they want to achieve their desires. On the surface, sociopaths may appear like anyone else. High functioning sociopaths usually can hold jobs, be married, and have children. In fact, they could be successful in life, even holding elected office. Their sociopathic traits often surface under stress or during life transitions like marriage, layoffs, election changes or whenever social pressures challenge their view of self.
First we need to accept that we are surrounded by sociopaths. If we assume everyone is good, they can take advantage of us. Everyone isn’t good. Good people don’t want to believe evil people exist, but they do.
Best to ignore them and get on with important work to be done, dont feel sympathy or be manipulated by their definitions of fair.
No doubt the legal team was interviewed and chosen before Ford was informed she was about to be used as a prop for the radical left. Is there any indication Ford is smart enough and has figured out that she was played by Democrats? Or, is she simply in on the charade herself?
If she had, the accusations would have been investigated and it would have been found long before that the accusations were weak and unsupported. This would not align with Feinstein’s and the Democrats goal to smear Kavanaugh and wreck the hearings.
They didn’t need to be. Proving any facts was NEVER the goal, only destroying whomever Trump nominated.
Or, they will say, as with the Mueller “investigation” that it merely needs to continue… and continue… and continue. Since the Dan Rather tactic of simply printing up fresh evidence you KNOW already exists has been exposed and people are looking out for it, perpetual investigation is all the left has… until they develop another one.
The last thing the Democrats want right now is to pinpoint who the actual assailant was. That would be a disaster.
@Nan G:
But when this is all over, she’ll be sharing a bench in a park somewhere feeding the pigeons and wondering about the irony of pigeons serving pigeons. Of course, Ford will still have her $900,000 GoBribeMe payout.
I may have some of the following wrong so forgive me, but some questions come to my mind.
1. What 15 year old girl travels alone? I work where I see 15 year old girls all the time and they do not walk alone. They are in groups or at the very least paired up. I also see grown women walking as well. If they are alone they have a dog on a leash with them. (I work in a large somewhat wooded park setting near a high school.) Observation is part of what I am paid to do.
2. If she came from swimming with her one piece suit on. Who goes to a party wearing a wet swim suit? What did she have over it or did she walk miles on public streets in a swim suit?
3. The area she describes has homes of colonial style and larger. Meaning they would have main level bathrooms. Why did she not go to one of those instead of upstairs? She never explained this.
4. She does not remember how she got there nor how she got home. Is this a normal occurrence for her. How many times in her life has this kind of thing happened? Did no one see her on her way home?
5. Where long walks for miles alone her normal way of traveling?
6. It doesn’t seem to make sense that out of the blue with other people around a person, in this case Kavanaugh, would on the spur of the moment see someone they don’t know grab them and toss them on a bed and attempt assault?
7. What drugs is she one now and for how long?
8. Is she in still in therapy and for how long?
9. Why does no one else agree with her version this event? Given the other people she says where there have all signed sworn statements that do not support her account.
10. How does she account for this? Are they liars? What have they to gain by doing so?
11. Has she ever supported Democrats and attended anti-Trump events?
Perhaps I am off base on some of this but I can’t see how her claims would ever work in a real court of law. She lacks verfiable facts.
@Mully: Yes she has participated in anti Trump events. But has had some type of odd hate for Kavanah for a long time, at least since Romney put him on a SCOTUS list 2012, was it the shame of finding out her parents were broke and about to lose the house, no one elses parents from the country club had those problems. All the other girls are getting their prom dresses from Nordstroms why are we at JC Pennys?
@kitt: Is believing her baseless, unproven and unprovable accusations a form of “white privilege”?
@Deplorable me: No its NOT believing her, to not be a pathetic MSM mockingbird mind controlled leftist, thats privilege, to accept them as they really are…. hopelessly insane.
@kitt: Look how much proof it takes to force Democrats to accept the guilt of one of their financial benefactors or future political stars. It has to be overwhelming and impossible to continue to ignore before they finally accept it and if it can be suppressed and rationalized, it is NEVER accepted.
Meanwhile, liberals like Greg consider 5 FBI background checks prior to one more for this confirmation as rendering him “not vetted”. In their mind, the only reason you haven’t found the proof they need is because you’ve quit looking. Real Beria mentality.