02-22-2019 04:41:18 PM -0800
02-21-2019 02:04:47 PM -0800
02-21-2019 11:01:19 AM -0800
02-20-2019 06:05:04 PM -0800
02-20-2019 04:41:47 PM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.

Stretch, grab a late afternoon cup of caffeine and get caught up on the most important news of the day with our Coffee Break newsletter. These are the stories that will fill you in on the world that's spinning outside of your office window - at the moment that you get a chance to take a breath.
Sign up now to save time and stay informed!

Five Red Flags Concerning Christine Blasey Ford's Credibility

In the short time since Christine Blasey Ford testified, many have gone out of their way to equate her emotional testimony with credibility. But, there are several red flags that should inform reasonable people that she can’t be trusted.

5. Her Bogus Fear of Flying Story

By her own testimony, she revealed she flew to Washington to give her testimony, contradicting earlier claims that her fear of flying prevented her from testifying. Rachel Mitchell then uncovered that Ford flies frequently for business and pleasure. Still, Ford claimed she was hoping the committee would come to her. Well, it turns out they repeatedly offered, but she claimed she’d been unaware of this fact.

How could she have not known about the offer, which was made repeatedly and reported on widely in the media? Was she sequestered by her lawyers and completely disconnected from news coverage? That may be the case, but that seems unlikely. If she was, they were still obligated to inform her of the offer.

In short, there are only two conclusions we can reach: She was lying about the fear of flying in order to delay the hearing, or she legitimately didn’t know because her lawyers never told her, which proves she’s been manipulated by them and the Democrats entirely for politics. Either option is devastating for her credibility.

4. All The Bizarre Demands

Further proof that Ford is being manipulated by Democrats and her lawyers came immediately after the new supplemental FBI investigation was announced. Ford’s lawyer Debra Katz released the following statement.

“A thorough FBI investigation is critical to developing all the relevant facts. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford welcomes this step in the process, and appreciates the efforts of Sens. Flake, Murkowski, Manchin, and Collins — and all other senators who have supported an FBI investigation — to ensure it is completed before the Senate votes on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination. No artificial limits as to time or scope should be imposed on this investigation.”

Christine Blasey Ford is in no position to make any sort of demands about how the FBI investigation should be handled. This comes in the wake of prior demands, which were beyond absurd, asking, amongst other things, that Ford be allowed to testify after Kavanaugh and that GOP senators ask her questions. Despite extensive efforts to accommodate Ford, they were bashing the process as unfair. Ford and her lawyers seem more concerned about politics, optics, and delaying the process than the truth.

3. Her Incomplete Polygraph Results

John Hawkins previously noted weird issues with Professor’s Ford’s answers regarding the polygraph test she took, including her inability to say for sure when it happened and who paid for it. But, by her testimony, she sounded strangely ignorant of polygraphs, how they work, and was unable to say whether she was recorded, be it by video or audio. But, she said she was “asked a lot of questions” and described it as taking “much longer than I anticipated." She also said she“told my whole life story.” But, the committee was only provided with the results for two specific questions. Those two questions were based on a handwritten statement, and not multiple, specific questions about the incident. The statement also included revisions like cross-outs and added words. Did we only get the results for two questions that referenced her sloppy handwritten statement, because answers to questions regarding specific details were exculpatory?