This is a post by nationally syndicated columnist Eric Ericson, who is no fan of Trump.
by
Erick Erickson
8 hrs
I think there was a way for legitimate accusations to come forward. But his accusers instead decided to help Democrats.
Several people I very much respect have asked me for an explanation of why I am willing to assert the accusations against Brett Kavanaugh are false instead of keeping an open mind. Given my respect for those people, I will lay out my thinking and your mileage may vary.
First, let me set three parameters specifically with regard to Christine Blasey Ford. I do not dispute that she could have been sexually assaulted, but I do not believe it was by Brett Kavanaugh. Additionally, I believe it is entirely plausible that a woman could wait over thirty years to come forward against her accuser. Lastly, I think Senators should be keeping an open mind on both sides of the aisle and should deal with her respectfully. But I am not the Senate and I think she is lying.
With regard to Deborah Ramirez, the woman gave an exclusive to the New Yorker. I have a hard time believing a victim would give an exclusive. A victim would want to make sure the world knew, not that Ronan Farrow was the stenographer. She spent six days talking with her attorney before she claimed to be sure. The New York Times spoke to several dozen people who Ramirez had been in touch with and none could verify her story. This is not a credible story and Ramirez does not strike me as a credible person. Additionally, Jane Mayer's overreaction to the pushback of the story has been to find anyone with even third degree ties to Kavanaugh to claim he drank at college. That suggests she realizes just how shoddy her story is. As Ramirez has told the Senate she will not cooperate with them, I think we can move on to Christine Blasey Ford.
Here is why I do not believe her.
Ford claims that she told her therapist about Kavanaugh in 2012. Her therapist took detailed notes, but did not write down Kavanaugh's name. Additionally, it happened after several media outlets had touted Kavanaugh as a top Supreme Court pick for Mitt Romney. Ford then claims she began to fret about Kavanaugh again in 2017 after his name came up as a possible Trump pick. Except in 2017, Trump was working off a published list of potential picks and Kavanaugh's name was not on it. The initial inconsistencies here are troubling, including blaming her therapist for writing down that there were four assailants when she swears she only said two.
Ford claims to want privacy, but called the Washington Post herself. Shortly thereafter, one of Ford's advisors told the leftwing American Constitution Society that a strategy would emerge to defeat Kavanaugh or at least highlight why it was so important to v**e.
At the end of July, Ford notified Dianne Feinstein of her accusation and said she could meet in D.C. through August 7 and then August 10 or thereafter in California. Note that the two day gap of August 8 and 9 is not enough time to drive from Washington to California, but Ford told Senator Grassley last week she did not like confined spaces and would have to drive between California and DC.
During this time in DC where she could meet with Feinstein, she just so happened to hire a lawyer affiliated with the Resistance and get a polygraph she won't now disclose, but insisted she planned to not speak about the allegations and wanted her privacy. She then collaborated with several reporters on her story.
Once her name came forward and Republicans decided to hold a hearing, multiple leftwing activists, pundits, politicians, and Ford's own legal team decried the "old white men" on the Judiciary Committee and insisted that the Republican men on the Judiciary Committee could not be fair and could not ask her questions. They insisted on a third party.
Republicans offered to send investigators to interview Ford, but parroting the Democrats, Ford insisted on an FBI investigation. When Republicans refused, Ford balked at testifying, against parroting Democrats.
Once it became clear her decision not to testify was hurting her own side, Ford agreed to do so, but insisted she had to drive cross country so she could not do it Monday. We've already established this is not true as she was able to travel from DC to California in less than 48 hours in August. It takes 40 hours non-stop without getting gas, food, or sleep, to drive from DC to California.
In fact, it now appears most likely that Ford knew the Ramirez accusation was coming and wanted to delay so it had time to soak in. She had plenty of time to get to Washington, even if driving, but refused to. Concurrently, we know from the New Yorker itself that the Democrats had advanced knowledge of the Ramirez accusations and that they would be forthcoming.
After Chuck Grassley agreed to put off the hearing until Thursday, Ford reversed course. Instead of claiming it would be unfair for the old white men of the GOP to question her, she insisted only they ask her questions. She strenuously objected to the idea of a qualified third party asking her questions, which was her original demand. This, again, parroted the shift from the Democrats.
Beyond clearly plotting with and parroting the Democrats, there are other problems with Ford. Like with Ramirez, all her eyewitnesses reject her account. Ford posited that there were five people who would know about what happened to her: Herself, her lifelong friend Leland Keyser, Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh, and Patrick Smyth.
While she gave us no location and no year, she gave us these names. Each of these people, including her lifelong friend, have submitted statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee that, if lying, would have them go to jail. Each of them deny Ford's allegations.
Thus far, only Ford has refused to be put under oath about her allegations, just like Ramirez.
On top of that, we are told that traumatic memories can cause a person to forget key details. But Ford is insistent on it being Kavanaugh. How do we know that memory is consistent? And still, she cannot name the year or even whose house the attack took place in.
The only consistency we have is that Christine Blasey Ford has hired Resistance activists to help her pursue allegations against a Supreme Court nominee over thirty-five years after the fact without any evidence, no witnesses, but a consistent pattern of parroting Democrat tactics, talking points, and delay attempts.
Let me make one closing point. I think it is very possible that a victim of rape or attempted rape may take years to come forward and tell their story. What I also think is that if the person is t***hful, they're going to go to their local media or go quietly to elected officials. They are not going to call the Washington Post tip line, hire the Resistance, notify Dianne Feinstein, and then lawyer and polygraph up while curiously not releasing said polygraph.
There were real ways Christine Blasey Ford could have done this to give her accusation credibility. Instead, she chose all the ways to give Democrats ammunition. I do not believe her.
When one person accuses someone of sexual misbehavior, it is their word against another. Two accusations, the defendent has a little less credability. At three, the defendent really looks guilty.
I have been a victim of this. I remember the year, the place, but not the date. Belive me, the rest of it is burned into my memory. And she did contact Sen Feinstein, who sat on it. Then Ms Ford went to the press.
It is apparent that Mr. Kavanaugh ran with a particularly boozy crowd when he was in his teens. I would like to know what happened next. Did he go to AA meetings? Does he still get blotto on ocasions, never or a lot? Is there even more victims?
We need to hear more.That will take a bit of time to do right.
Smedley_buzk**l wrote:
This is a post by nationally syndicated columnist Eric Ericson, who is no fan of Trump.
by
Erick Erickson
8 hrs
I think there was a way for legitimate accusations to come forward. But his accusers instead decided to help Democrats.
Several people I very much respect have asked me for an explanation of why I am willing to assert the accusations against Brett Kavanaugh are false instead of keeping an open mind. Given my respect for those people, I will lay out my thinking and your mileage may vary.
First, let me set three parameters specifically with regard to Christine Blasey Ford. I do not dispute that she could have been sexually assaulted, but I do not believe it was by Brett Kavanaugh. Additionally, I believe it is entirely plausible that a woman could wait over thirty years to come forward against her accuser. Lastly, I think Senators should be keeping an open mind on both sides of the aisle and should deal with her respectfully. But I am not the Senate and I think she is lying.
With regard to Deborah Ramirez, the woman gave an exclusive to the New Yorker. I have a hard time believing a victim would give an exclusive. A victim would want to make sure the world knew, not that Ronan Farrow was the stenographer. She spent six days talking with her attorney before she claimed to be sure. The New York Times spoke to several dozen people who Ramirez had been in touch with and none could verify her story. This is not a credible story and Ramirez does not strike me as a credible person. Additionally, Jane Mayer's overreaction to the pushback of the story has been to find anyone with even third degree ties to Kavanaugh to claim he drank at college. That suggests she realizes just how shoddy her story is. As Ramirez has told the Senate she will not cooperate with them, I think we can move on to Christine Blasey Ford.
Here is why I do not believe her.
Ford claims that she told her therapist about Kavanaugh in 2012. Her therapist took detailed notes, but did not write down Kavanaugh's name. Additionally, it happened after several media outlets had touted Kavanaugh as a top Supreme Court pick for Mitt Romney. Ford then claims she began to fret about Kavanaugh again in 2017 after his name came up as a possible Trump pick. Except in 2017, Trump was working off a published list of potential picks and Kavanaugh's name was not on it. The initial inconsistencies here are troubling, including blaming her therapist for writing down that there were four assailants when she swears she only said two.
Ford claims to want privacy, but called the Washington Post herself. Shortly thereafter, one of Ford's advisors told the leftwing American Constitution Society that a strategy would emerge to defeat Kavanaugh or at least highlight why it was so important to v**e.
At the end of July, Ford notified Dianne Feinstein of her accusation and said she could meet in D.C. through August 7 and then August 10 or thereafter in California. Note that the two day gap of August 8 and 9 is not enough time to drive from Washington to California, but Ford told Senator Grassley last week she did not like confined spaces and would have to drive between California and DC.
During this time in DC where she could meet with Feinstein, she just so happened to hire a lawyer affiliated with the Resistance and get a polygraph she won't now disclose, but insisted she planned to not speak about the allegations and wanted her privacy. She then collaborated with several reporters on her story.
Once her name came forward and Republicans decided to hold a hearing, multiple leftwing activists, pundits, politicians, and Ford's own legal team decried the "old white men" on the Judiciary Committee and insisted that the Republican men on the Judiciary Committee could not be fair and could not ask her questions. They insisted on a third party.
Republicans offered to send investigators to interview Ford, but parroting the Democrats, Ford insisted on an FBI investigation. When Republicans refused, Ford balked at testifying, against parroting Democrats.
Once it became clear her decision not to testify was hurting her own side, Ford agreed to do so, but insisted she had to drive cross country so she could not do it Monday. We've already established this is not true as she was able to travel from DC to California in less than 48 hours in August. It takes 40 hours non-stop without getting gas, food, or sleep, to drive from DC to California.
In fact, it now appears most likely that Ford knew the Ramirez accusation was coming and wanted to delay so it had time to soak in. She had plenty of time to get to Washington, even if driving, but refused to. Concurrently, we know from the New Yorker itself that the Democrats had advanced knowledge of the Ramirez accusations and that they would be forthcoming.
After Chuck Grassley agreed to put off the hearing until Thursday, Ford reversed course. Instead of claiming it would be unfair for the old white men of the GOP to question her, she insisted only they ask her questions. She strenuously objected to the idea of a qualified third party asking her questions, which was her original demand. This, again, parroted the shift from the Democrats.
Beyond clearly plotting with and parroting the Democrats, there are other problems with Ford. Like with Ramirez, all her eyewitnesses reject her account. Ford posited that there were five people who would know about what happened to her: Herself, her lifelong friend Leland Keyser, Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh, and Patrick Smyth.
While she gave us no location and no year, she gave us these names. Each of these people, including her lifelong friend, have submitted statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee that, if lying, would have them go to jail. Each of them deny Ford's allegations.
Thus far, only Ford has refused to be put under oath about her allegations, just like Ramirez.
On top of that, we are told that traumatic memories can cause a person to forget key details. But Ford is insistent on it being Kavanaugh. How do we know that memory is consistent? And still, she cannot name the year or even whose house the attack took place in.
The only consistency we have is that Christine Blasey Ford has hired Resistance activists to help her pursue allegations against a Supreme Court nominee over thirty-five years after the fact without any evidence, no witnesses, but a consistent pattern of parroting Democrat tactics, talking points, and delay attempts.
Let me make one closing point. I think it is very possible that a victim of rape or attempted rape may take years to come forward and tell their story. What I also think is that if the person is t***hful, they're going to go to their local media or go quietly to elected officials. They are not going to call the Washington Post tip line, hire the Resistance, notify Dianne Feinstein, and then lawyer and polygraph up while curiously not releasing said polygraph.
There were real ways Christine Blasey Ford could have done this to give her accusation credibility. Instead, she chose all the ways to give Democrats ammunition. I do not believe her.
This is a post by nationally syndicated columnist ... (
show quote)
Well, there you have it in a few paragraphs well phrased and enough to send her packing and get on with the v**e. Thank you for putting it so succinctly.
peg w wrote:
When one person accuses someone of sexual misbehavior, it is their word against another. Two accusations, the defendent has a little less credability. At three, the defendent really looks guilty.
I have been a victim of this. I remember the year, the place, but not the date. Belive me, the rest of it is burned into my memory. And she did contact Sen Feinstein, who sat on it. Then Ms Ford went to the press.
It is apparent that Mr. Kavanaugh ran with a particularly boozy crowd when he was in his teens. I would like to know what happened next. Did he go to AA meetings? Does he still get blotto on ocasions, never or a lot? Is there even more victims?
We need to hear more.That will take a bit of time to do right.
When one person accuses someone of sexual misbehav... (
show quote)
Who ever made it apparent that Kavanaugh ran with a “particularly boozy crowd” in his teens. I have heard nothing of that and I’m following it very closely. However, Blasey-
Ford ran with a group that practiced drinking til they passed out. Just maybe she also hallucinated.
peg w wrote:
When one person accuses someone of sexual misbehavior, it is their word against another. Two accusations, the defendent has a little less credability. At three, the defendent really looks guilty.
I have been a victim of this. I remember the year, the place, but not the date. Belive me, the rest of it is burned into my memory. And she did contact Sen Feinstein, who sat on it. Then Ms Ford went to the press.
It is apparent that Mr. Kavanaugh ran with a particularly boozy crowd when he was in his teens. I would like to know what happened next. Did he go to AA meetings? Does he still get blotto on ocasions, never or a lot? Is there even more victims?
We need to hear more.That will take a bit of time to do right.
When one person accuses someone of sexual misbehav... (
show quote)
peg: it appears to me that U have no credibility at all because of your bias. DUMOCRAP!
Carol Kelly wrote:
Who ever made it apparent that Kavanaugh ran with a “particularly boozy crowd” in his teens. I have heard nothing of that and I’m following it very closely. However, Blasey-
Ford ran with a group that practiced drinking til they passed out. Just maybe she also hallucinated.
Where did you get that she ran boozy crowd? More of the right bs your being fed. I guess you are one that doesnt believe all these priest didnt sexual abuse all these boys and girls right.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.