Have You Ridden A Ford Lately?

(cartoon courtesy AF Branco at Comically Incorrect)

In case you have been living under a rock, the Democrats are trying a last minute “Hail Mary” to try and derail eminently qualified and well respected Judge Brett Kavanaugh from being confirmed by the Senate to sit on the Supreme Court. The Democrats are hoping to ride the story of one Christine Blasey Ford, who claims Kavanaugh and a friend sexually assaulted her sometime in the past.

The reason we say “sometime in her past” is that even she is confused of the date. At first Ford claimed that the assault occurred in her “late teens.” Kavanaugh is two years older than Ford, and if the attack occurred when she first said it did, Kananaugh would have already been off attending Yale. Ford has since changed her story to say that she thinks the attack happened when she was fifteen. No matter how you slice it “fifteen years” of age is not “late teens.” Right off the bat there are problems with Ford’s account.

The second issue is that she says she first told someone of the assault while in couples’ therapy with her husband. She has said “she didn’t realize that the attack had affected her so deeply.” There’s a problem with that as well. By definition, her recollection is what is called a “repressed memory.” Repressed memories are unreliable and sadly, take on what the person believes to have happened, rather than what did happen. Ford may not be lying because at this point in time, even with her confusion on the timing of the incident, she truly believes the incident happened. For the most part, repressed memories are so unreliable that courts generally reject them as evidence.

However, the notes from the therapist says that she initially said there were four assailants, not two as she now claims. Ford says that the therapist made a mistake in his notes, which would be somewhat odd as therapists generally take good notes for their files.

What is curious about the notes is that Ford has only allowed portions of the notes. She then turns that around and says “the notes aren’t accurate.” So what are we to believe?

The Wall Street Journal notes this:

The timing and details of how Ms. Ford came forward, and how her name was coaxed into public view, should also raise red flags about the partisan motives at play. The Post says Ms. Ford contacted the paper via a tip line in July but wanted to remain anonymous. She then brought her story to a Democratic official while still hoping to stay anonymous.

Yet she also then retained a lawyer, Debra Katz, who has a history of Democratic activism and spoke in public defense of Bill Clinton against the accusations by Paula Jones. Ms. Katz urged Ms. Ford to take a polygraph test. The Post says she passed the polygraph, though a polygraph merely shows that she believes the story she is telling.

The more relevant question is why go to such lengths if Ms. Ford really wanted her name to stay a secret? Even this weekend she could have chosen to remain anonymous. These are the actions of someone who was prepared to go public from the beginning if she had to.

The role of Senator Dianne Feinstein is also highly irregular and transparently political. The ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee knew about Ms. Ford’s accusations in late July or early August yet kept quiet. If she took it seriously, she had multiple opportunities to ask Judge Kavanaugh or have committee staff interview the principals. But in that event the details would have been vetted and Senators would have had time to assess their credibility.

Instead Ms. Feinstein waited until the day before a committee markup on the nomination to release a statement that she had “information” about the accusation and had sent it to the FBI. Her statement was a political stunt.

She was seeking to insulate herself from liberal charges that she sat on the letter. Or—and this seems increasingly likely given the course of events—Senator Feinstein was holding the story to spring at the last minute in the hope that events would play out as they have. Surely she knew that once word of the accusation was public, the press would pursue the story and Ms. Ford would be identified by name one way or another.

Ford herself is avidly anti-Trump, taking positions against the administration on the issues of cuts in research funding in her field, as well as border security. In other words, it is not as if the woman doesn’t have vendetta.

This whole thing reeks. It is one thing to say a person is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. It is another thing to attack someone because you don’t like the person who nominated them, and try and assassinate their character and lives because of un-substantiated politically back accusations.

Perhaps the Wall Street Journal puts it best:

No one, including Donald Trump, needs to attack Ms. Ford. She believes what she believes. This is not he said-she said. This is a case of an alleged teenage encounter, partially recalled 30 years later without corroboration, and brought forward to ruin Mr. Kavanaugh’s reputation for partisan purposes.

Letting an accusation that is this old, this unsubstantiated and this procedurally irregular defeat Mr. Kavanaugh would also mean weaponizing every sexual assault allegation no matter the evidence. It will tarnish the #MeToo cause with the smear of partisanship, and it will unleash even greater polarizing furies.

2 Responses to “Have You Ridden A Ford Lately?”

  1. Percy Veer says:

    This whole thing reeks of the standard dirty tricks that the far left uses to politicize and divide our country. They don’t care about the victims (or in this case the alleged victim) and only use them to promote their far left agenda, we see it over and over again whenever there is a crime involving a firearm. They use those cases to try to blame everyone but the actual criminal. In this case if they actually cared about this woman’s story they would have brought it up when they first heard about it, or when the senators had their private meetings with the nominee, or during the actual public confirmation hearings. But no, the dems chose to keep the information secret until the night before the final vote on the nominee to turn it into another political circus, shame on them. We will probably never really know if the alleged victims story has any merit now but the committee has provided an opportunity for her to testify if she wants, so we’ll wait and see what happens. Personally, I have a hard time remembering what happened last month with any accurate detail and really don’t believe she can accurately describe events that she claims happened almost 40 years ago in high school. I think the nominee has had so many positive references over his many years on the bench from women and other co-workers that I don’t find her story credible. The whole thing just seems to be a politically motivated attack trying to destroy a good mans reputation – which is right out of the leftists playbook.

    • Frances says:

      This whole past history scenario reminds me more of an elementary school/ Jr. High School association viewpoint in the ‘eyes of the beholder’. Opens the question of why would a teenager be in a private home where alcohol was available in abundance/ party?

      I agree that her story is not credible and politics remain in play.