04-18-2019 07:46:35 AM -0700
04-18-2019 07:18:40 AM -0700
04-15-2019 06:20:33 PM -0700
04-11-2019 03:17:31 PM -0700
04-08-2019 01:57:34 PM -0700
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.
X


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?

2. Her Immediate Family Is Silent

Does it seem convenient that the only people close to Ford who have come out in support of her are friends and non-blood relatives? The Washington Post noted the following a few days ago:

The letters appeared within days of Christine Blasey Ford’s name becoming public. One was from her high school classmates. One was from her colleagues at Stanford University. Her Palo Alto neighbors wrote another letter. Groups of attorneys, statisticians and teenagers wrote too. Then came a letter that began, “As members of Christine Blasey Ford’s family ...”

It was signed by a dozen people. But none of them were related to Ford by blood. The letter was from the relatives of her husband, Russell Ford.

Christine’s own parents and siblings — the Blaseys — have not released any similar statement of support. As their daughter and sister has become the country’s most talked-about woman for accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexual assault while both were in high school, the Blaseys have strategically avoided the press. Voicemails, texts, emails and letters from reporters have gone unanswered. Friends of the family have politely declined to comment on what they are going through.

Why is this significant? Her immediate family would be able to corroborate her story. Ford has said she never told anyone but has testified to the impact the alleged assault had on her, resulting in various symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. She blames the alleged assault for, amongst other things, academic troubles and a fear of flying. Anyone in her immediate family could corroborate this happened during the summer she was fifteen but nobody has. Why not?

1. Her Claiming Privilege on the Therapist’s Notes

Was it not suspicious that the therapist's notes from the 2012 couples therapy sessions were repeatedly cited as corroborating evidence but then suddenly declared privileged? Why would Ford want to hold back corroborating evidence?

Lawyer Margot Cleveland, who is a contributor to The Federalist, National Review, and Townhall, explained in a long thread on Twitter that the therapist’s notes are more than likely exculpatory. I’m posting the original tweet below but will summarize the key points.

According to the Washington Post story describing the information on the therapist's notes, Ford described a “rape attempt” in therapy that occurred during her “late teens.” She was 15 years old in 1982; her late teens would place the assault after that summer, in the mid-1980s, likely in her junior or senior year of high school. In addition to other discrepancies in her story, in Ford’s own handwritten statement for her polygraph, she had written the assault happened in the early '80s, but then crossed out “early.”

There are other curiosities, including how Ford eventually narrowed down the time to the summer of 1982. But, there’s another issue. By Ford’s own testimony, the worst time for her was the first four years of the attack, but she only struggled academically when she was in college. So, how is it that after the alleged assault, she went through three more years of high school before suffering academically? This and her original mid-80s/late-teens timeline documented by her therapists suggest that she may have been assaulted in her later high school years, but not in the summer of 1982.

There’s also the curiosity that Ford claimed these notes were privileged, but she apparently gave them to the media… although she says she can’t remember doing so.

_____

Matt Margolis is the author of the book, The Scandalous Presidency of Barack Obama and the bestselling book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. You can follow Matt on Twitter @MattMargolis