How the Christine Ford Testimony Exposed the Democrat Smear Machine

While her story tried to appeal to sympathies Dr. Ford revealed the craven plotting of Democrats.

 

The setting yesterday of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford sitting before the Senate Judiciary committee to testify that she had been attacked by Brett Kavanaugh was the kind of dark politics that justifies any acidic language used to describe the D.C. fever swamp. The disgust and outrage at this fiasco of character assassination should not be targeted at Dr. Ford. She is only a tool in this, wielded by a venal and corrupt body within the Democratic party.

In detailing (or, vague-ing) her story there were unintended breaks in the curtain, and we got the chance to see the evil lever-pulling going on behind the scenes. The Democrats wished only to generate a narrative with the intended goal of derailing the nomination. Destroying a man’s reputation and rendering his family were mere stepping stones en route. One need only to see the lawyers attached to the Ford story to see the framework.

Dr. Ford has said that it was Sen. Diane Feinstein who connected her with lawyer Debora Katz, who has been connected with the Women’s March, and has been a fixture with Democrats back since the Clinton Presidency (when she dismissed women claiming assault by the President with far better testimony than Dr. Ford.) She was joined by lawyer Michael Bromwich, another fixture among Democrats. He had argued the Iran-Contra case, worked directly at the behest of President Obama, and recently represented former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, even coordinating his famed GoFundMe effort.

So with their legal pit bulls in place the Democrats acted. They want nothing less than Kavanaugh being removed, but Ford managed to expose the machinery behind her appearance. Here are the tells:

 

FORD’S LETTER TO FEINSTEIN

Early in the cross examination Dr. Ford was asked if the letter she had submitted to the committee was accurate. Before she answered she asked to see the letter, so she could read it and verify its accuracy. This is a letter she ostensibly wrote. She should have been confident she had delivered a heartfelt plea based on facts.

Her desire to look over the letter once again to determine it was accurate enough to be entered into the record is revealing. This indicates it likely was crafted, or created with with a committee of some sort, and she wanted to be sure elements would not be pulled out as possibly leading to a perjury charge. A victim detailing her honest account should have no need to clarify her writing.

 

THE THERAPIST’S NOTES

The only thing approaching tangible evidence to Ford’s claim of a party attack is a collection of notes said to be from her therapist during sessions in 2012. She mentioned the attack to her doctor, but Kavanaugh’s name was never mentioned, and the attack was attributed to a group of four boys, not the Kavanaugh/Judge duo she testifies to today. Dr. Ford has said the therapist was mistaken and took down the information inaccurately. So she has offered up as proof evidence which she essentially invalidates.

But how did she obtain these notes? If a therapist will turn over notes of this nature they are given directly to investigators in chain-of-document fashion. Otherwise what assurance can be given that Ford or others had not altered, or delivered incomplete and out of context notes? This is where the convenient refrain of “It’s not a trial, it’s a job interview” helps them, as the evidence does not need to be vetted in usual legal standards.

 

COLLUSION WITH THE WASHINGTON POST

It has been a telling aspect of this accusation that in all the calls for an FBI investigation at no point in time has Dr. Ford gone to authorities with an official charge of a crime. She did however first reach out to The Washington Post, back in July. This is not the usual actions of an assault victim.

Though WaPo kept the story at the request of Dr. Ford eventually the story came out. Ronan Farrow at the New Yorker detailed elements of the letter, and then The Intercept obtained the leaked letter, making Dr. Ford a public figure. It was then that the WaPo version came out. It challenges common sense that Ford would not want her story going public but she approached one of the largest national newspapers with her accusation. To what end? Did she expect it to be reported anonymously and held as proof?

This accusation did not go through the committee and FBI, as everyone claims to desire. Not only would this get the investigation they declare wanting, but her privacy would have been assured. Instead Ford’s story broke in numerous news outlets in time to stall the nomination vote. During her testimony, when asked of the Post and her notes Dr. Ford was evasive in remembering how the information was granted. The paper states they had been given the notes, while Ford says she only spoke of the notes to the reporter, Emma Brown.

The story got out, but the details as to how are curiously evasive to the central player in this affair.

 

THE FLEETING FEAR OF FLYING

It was a comedy of delayed errors from the Ford camp when it came to the Senate committee attempting to get the accuser to sit with them. Once Ford’s name was exposed Debora Katz announced, rather definitively, that her client was ready to testify. Senate leaders then relented and agreed to delay the confirmation vote, scheduling a supplemental hearing for Ford to come and testify. And suddenly Dr. Ford was no longer prepared to come in. Katz & Co. provided a number a stalling tactics to prevent her from making the Sept. 24 hearing.

One of the more infamous excuses was the claim that Dr. Ford could not fly out to D.C. due to a fear of confined spaces (said to be provoked by the Kavanaugh attack). During her testimony however Ford revealed she is a rather avid flyer. She takes frequent trips for vacations, and she had flown to the Maryland area to meet with her lawyers, including a very recent date when she had her polygraph test administered.

As she tried to explain in wan fashion, her vacation trips are not as stressful and so the PTSD is a fleeting anxiety. Her business and legal trips are to be classified this way as well, we presume. It is rather clear her airborne phobia was a time-delay creation by her representation, as her personal history defies the claim they concocted.

 

THE MURKINESS OF THE POLYGRAPH

There is a calculation behind the fact Dr. Ford and the handlers went forward with their own polygraph test. The existence of this was crowed as some kind of evidence. Once the details of the actual test were known it became clear this was entirely done to become a talking-point and not proof. There were only two questions asked regarding the accusation. They were very broad in generalities, and Kavanaugh is never mentioned by name. It is very clear this was posed as a formality to be able to say “she passed a lie detector”.

To further buttress the impression of a woman who is being led and told what to say, and when, as she was questioned in her testimony about who commissioned the test Ford was unable to answer. Her legal team has already stated they are working pro bono, so Dr. Ford did not pay for it. When asked who did in fact pay for the test she said she had no idea. Therefore some outside entity was supporting her in setting up her legal foundation.

 

THE OBLIVIOUSNESS TO THE TESTIMONY OFFER

One other aspect given to justify Dr. Ford’s delay in coming to D.C. was a concern for her personal safety. However this, and her fear of flying, would be assuaged by an offer from the committee to have staff fly out to California and take her testimony. This would have solved most objections and — most telling here — it would have saved time.

During her testimony Dr. Ford was asked about this specific offer of having staff fly out to greet her and take her testimony, and the accuser was completely befuddled by the question. She stated she had never been made aware of this option — one that had been delivered by Sen. Grassley to her lawyers, and was reported on in the press. But Ford was completely taken by surprise with this question.

Just as the question was asked Bromwich immediately bent over and grabbed her microphone. “I’m going to object, Mr. Chairman, to any call for privileged conversations between counsel and Dr. Ford.” Eventually Ford declared she would have been happy to host members, and that the offer had never been made clear to her. The oddity of objecting with privilege to a question involving the committee itself says plenty.

What is revealed by this is when the committee reached out to Ford’s counsel with this offer they had never so much as entertained the idea. Clearly they never even came to her with this possibility. That Dr. Ford was surprised to hear of this speaks volumes — she was kept in the dark about an option intended to help her out directly. The lawyers were operating on another agenda.

 

It is obvious that Christine Ford is being pawned about for this confirmation. This is a woman who has clearly been handled. Her emergence, her ushering, and her testimony all bear marks of controlled presentation, and the cracks in her testimony expose this.

She wanted to sell the concept that her memory was above reproach, yet she struggled with basic facts from events that transpired just weeks ago. Kavanaugh’s integrity has been called into question due to inaccuracies in his answers from over three decades back, however Ford has shown to have fluid phobias involving planes this same month.

Her story and her evidence have the marks of just enough gravity to possibly warrant looking into. She gives few specifics, which gives Kavanaugh few options of defense. No homeowner known means no denial of knowledge can be given.  No firm date of the crime means no alibi can be established. Vague charges meant as Kavanaugh struggled to give solid answers it was displayed as subterfuge, and then implied guilt.

This is all supposedly based on the memory of her trauma. Except as Ford spoke she revealed the artifice of her presentation. Her Democrat handlers came close in selling the facade they had crafted, but the tells are apparent in Ford’s testimony. Instead on making her case she actually revealed much of it was made up.  

 

for more political coverage, and imbalanced cultural commentary follow me at @MartiniShark