It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
1) For starters, Ford still can’t recall basic details of what she says was the most traumatic event in her life. Not where the “assault” took place — she’s not sure whose house it was, or even what street it was on. Nor when — she’s not even sure of the year, let alone the day and month.
Ford’s not certain how old she was or what grade she was in when she says an older student violently molested her. (But she doesn’t plead inebriation: She described having just “one beer” at the party.)
2) Ford concedes she told no one what happened to her at the time, not even her best friend or mother. That means she can rely on no contemporaneous witness to corroborate her story.
3) Worse, the four other people she identified as attending the party, including Kavanaugh, all deny knowledge of the gathering in question, including Leland Ingham Keyser, who she calls a “lifelong friend.”
Keyser’s lawyer told the Senate Judiciary Committee: “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.”
The other two potential witnesses — Mark Judge and Patrick “P.J.” Smyth — also deny any recollection of attending such a party. The committee took their sworn statements “under penalty of perjury.” “These witnesses directly contradict Professor Ford’s allegations against Judge Kavanaugh,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley advised Ford’s attorneys last week.
follow the story
Protesters confront Flake after he announces Kavanaugh vote
Senate panel meeting descends into chaos after Flake vows to vote for Kavanaugh
American Bar Association urges postponement of Kavanaugh vote
Supreme Court Justice Kagan won’t discuss Kavanaugh confirmation process
Graham rips Dems for turning Kavanaugh hearing into 'unethical sham'
Eight big problems for Christine Blasey Ford’s story
SEE ALL STORIES▶
In her original letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Ford claimed that Kavanaugh talked to Keyser and Smyth right after he assaulted her. Yet neither shares her memory.
This is, to say the least, highly problematic for her case. No witness corroborates any part of her story.
4) Her own immediate family doesn’t appear to be backing her up, either. Her mother, father and two siblings are all conspicuously absent from a letter of support released by a dozen relatives, mostly on her husband’s side of the family.
The letter attests to her honesty and integrity. “Why didn’t her parents and brothers sign the letter?” a congressional source familiar with the investigation wondered.
5) This summer, Ford tried to reach out to old friends from high school and college to jog her memory. They couldn’t help her. “I’ve been trying to forget this all my life, and now I’m supposed to remember every little detail,” Ford complained to one friend in July, according to an account in The San Jose Mercury News.
6) Yet she still pushed forward with her bombshell charge, contacting The Washington Post tip line and Democratic lawmakers, while hiring a Democratic activist lawyer. Ford is also a Democrat, as well as an anti-Trump marcher, raising questions about the motive and timing of the allegations along with their veracity.
7) Ford contends that notes her therapist took in 2012 corroborate her account. But they don’t mention Kavanaugh.
They also point up inconsistencies in her story. For instance, her shrink noted that Ford told her there were “four boys” in the bedroom, not two as she now says. The notes also indicate Ford said she was in her “late teens” when she was assaulted. But Ford now says she may have been only 15.
8) In another inconsistency, Ford told The Washington Post she was upset when Trump won in 2016, because Kavanaugh was mentioned as a Supreme Court pick. But Kavanaugh wasn’t added to Trump’s list of possibles until November 2017, a full year later.
originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: trollz
Ex post facto protections.
At the time of the event, there was both a statute of limitations and the described actions don’t meet sexual assault definitions at that time. It would be like getting a ticket for a video of driving through an intersection that was not a four way stop at the time of the video.
originally posted by: Fallingdown
The Democrats could investigate it after the nomination process is over. Why is that not good enough from them? If they chargers are true he can be removed. But we all know why that’s not good enough for them. They’re only intention was to Derail the process
originally posted by: lakenheath24
I would have nominated Judge jeanne Pirro myself. Shes a hard righty....female....and ethnic minority.
The left would spontaneously combust.
a reply to: Butterfinger