Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow, here’s a partial transcript of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s opening statement:
I also clerked for Justice Scalia, and like many law students, I felt like I knew the justice before I ever met him, because I had read so many of his colorful, accessible opinions. More than the style of his writing, though, it was the content of Justice Scalia’s reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward: A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were. Sometimes that approach meant reaching results that he did not like. But as he put it in one of his best known opinions, that is what it means to say we have a government of laws, not of men.Amy Coney Barrett
I suspect that the allegation of sexual assault described by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is a complete fabrication.
Rather, it is a coordinated attack on President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
Despite concerns expressed that such an appointment may lead to a reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision – as it certainly should – the reality is that this particular opening on the bench represents the most important judicial vacancy in modern history, previously held by Justice Kennedy – that is, the swing vote.
A known, far-left activist in the San Francisco Bay Area, Dr. Ford spent time scrubbing her social media accounts of related leftist activities & statements prior to making her accusation from 36 years ago. Coincidence? No. She is knowingly permitting herself to be used as a tool by left-wing activists – a.k.a., her lawyers and a cadre of radical democrats – to thwart President Trump, while making money and bolstering her notoriety at the same time.
The reason that Dr. Ford never came forward with these allegations earlier is that the described event never happened.
A clinical psychology professor at Palo Alto University in California who has also taught and worked at Stanford University since 1988, her presentation before the Senate Judiciary Committee appeared more akin to role playing than honest testimony. Perhaps she’s adopted an alternate personality to present herself, speaking in a high-pitched voice with inflection to denote a sense of youthful innocence. This, combined with her rather clumsy physical gestures and mannerisms, provide a well-suited appearance in which her counsel may further their presentation – holding her chair when sitting, clarifying simple terms for her to understand, demonstrating instructions as if dealing with a child.
Do not equate emotional testimony with credibility.
A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them.
– Rachel Mitchell
The following conclusions reached by Rachel Mitchell (Nominations Investigative Counsel, United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary) provide a thorough analysis of Dr. Ford’s testimony:
- Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.
- Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.
- When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific.
- Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question – details that could help corroborate her account.
- Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended – including her lifelong friend.
- Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.
- Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.
- Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.
- The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account.
The reason that Dr. Ford’s allegations weren’t presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley in a timely manner is in all likelihood because Senator Diane Feinstein and the democrats needed time to develop their contrived narrative in greater detail, not to mention selecting specific left-wing radical attorneys as representation for Dr. Ford. Had this information been presented earlier, it would have been resolved and no longer useful as a tactic by which to delay the process.
A few other points of interest in my opinion include an inability of either Dr. Ford’s parents or siblings to corroborate her story. Also, that she couldn’t remember whether or not she took a polygraph test on the same day as her grandmother’s funeral. Last, that her therapist’s notes from 2012 – which were cited as corroborating evidence – are suddenly declared privileged. Convenient, indeed.
Hopefully, once the FBI concludes it’s 7th investigation without any additional substantive facts, attention may be turned to address how specifically Dr. Ford’s letter was leaked to the press, a task to which Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Tom Cotton have announced an interest.
Though many people have suggested that she may have been sexually assaulted by some person, in some place and at some time – not Judge Brett Kavanaugh – I suspect that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is lying.
What is Christine Braley Ford trying to hide? – American Thinker
Rachel Mitchell’s Analysis – United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Is Crowdfunding the New Democrat Money Laundering? – The Rush Limbaugh Show
GOP senators demand probe of Feinstein’s office after Kavanaugh accusations – The Sacramento Bee
Nominations Investigative Counsel
United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
See Analysis of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s Allegations – September 30, 2018