As Dems Renew Calls For Kavanaugh’s Impeachment, GOP Should Investigate These 6 Glaring Inconsistencies In Blasey-Ford’s Story

Christine Blasey Ford testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 27, 2018. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, Pool)

Three recent books about the confirmation hearings of Justice Brett Kavanaugh have brought the case back into the spotlight. Sen. Kamala Harris has become the latest Democrat to call for Kavanaugh to be impeached. Just as it was last fall, there is no evidence to support this action. It’s all political theatre.

I think it’s time to put the focus back on his accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford. She made a very serious accusation against Kavanaugh with zero evidence. On top of that, there were glaring inconsistencies in her testimony. She was never asked to account for any of them.

After Kavanaugh was confirmed, some lawmakers said they would investigate Ford, but to my knowledge, no one ever has. I think it’s time they do.

I sat through those hearings. Brett Kavanaugh lied to the U.S. Senate and most importantly to the American people. He was put on the Court through a sham process and his place on the Court is an insult to the pursuit of truth and justice.

He must be impeached.

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) September 15, 2019

I never believed Christine Blasey Ford (CBF). Nothing about her story ever rang true. Similar to the tales contained in Christopher Steele’s dossier, CBF spun an unverifiable story. She could not recall whose home she was at, how she had arrived or how she’d gotten home. She wasn’t even sure what year it was. Maybe 1982, she said during testimony. But she was very certain she had been sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh in the early 1980s. I believe she was deliberately vague because then her story could not be proven false.

Most of all, this type of crime is so inconsistent with the life that Brett Kavanaugh has lived that it is impossible to believe. Kavanaugh has shown no hint of disrespect toward women at any time in his life. He has undergone seven FBI background checks, including an extremely rigorous one prior to his position in the Bush White House, and no wrongdoing has been revealed.

Here are six areas that need to be examined:

1. It was said that CBF was a political animal, however, she scrubbed her social media history before she came forward with her allegations. Interestingly, the attorney who represented her in the case against Kavanaugh, Debra Katz, was recorded telling a group that part of her motivation was political. Katz said:

In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court. He will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important; it is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.

Could it be that this fragile, childlike, 51 year old woman was acting? She is certainly a political animal. Is it possible that, once CBF told her liberal friends she knew Kavanaugh from her high school days, the idea that she accuse him “anonymously” of sexual assault was conceived? Might she have been persuaded to write a letter to her congresswoman or to submit a “tip” to the Washington Post just to put the allegation out there, never dreaming that it would all culminate in a senate hearing aired on national television? It is certainly within the realm of possibility.

We need to find out more about CBF’s political history.

2.  While researching their recent book entitled “Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court, journalists Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino interviewed several of CBF’s acquaintances. These women threw a little cold water on the poor little wounded victim image that CBD worked so hard to portray during her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It didn’t appear to her University of North Carolina classmate that CBF’s alleged 1982(ish) sexual assault affected her social life at all. According to the book:

Classmates were surprised by the media’s portrayal of her as an ingenue, which was very different from how they remembered her in junior high and high school. Female classmates and friends at area schools recalled a heavy drinker who was much more aggressive with boys than they were.

‘If she only had one beer’ on the night of the alleged assault, a high school friend said, ‘then it must have been early in the evening.’ Her contemporaries all reported the same nickname for Ford, a riff on her maiden name and a sexual act.

They also debated whether her behavior in high school could be attributed to the trauma of a sexual assault. ‘If it could, one of them said, then the assault must have happened in seventh grade.’

These women should be asked to testify. CBF needs to respond under oath.

3.  A sworn letter from CBF’s ex-boyfriend of six years to the Senate Judiciary Committee claims:

• She never mentioned her fear of flying. They had flown many times together including on a small prop plane.
• Nor did she ever mention her fear of small spaces. She even lived in a 500 square foot apartment with a single exit at one time during their relationship.
• As a psychologist, she had some knowledge of how polygraph tests worked and he witnessed CBF coaching her close friend, who was applying to the FBI, on how to prepare for it. She was questioned by prosecutor Rachel Mitchell about this during her hearing and said she had no knowledge of polygraph tests, nor had she ever given anyone “tips” on how to take a test.
• He ended the relationship because CBF had been unfaithful.
• After they broke up, he removed her from a credit card they had shared, but she charged $600 worth of merchandise. He asked her about the charges and she denied them until he said he was going to contact the Fraud Prevention Department.

We need to research her travel history. This man’s references to her unfaithfulness and her use of his credit card after they had broken up speaks to her character. He needs to be questioned. Then she needs to be questioned.

4.  The relationship between CBF and her life long friend, former FBI special agent Monica L. McLean, a liberal activist, must be investigated. I posted about this during the hearings. I wrote:

“This is the same Monica McLean who CBF once allegedly coached prior to an FBI preemployment polygraph test. McLean passed her test and remained with the FBI for 24 years, retiring in 2016.

The Conservative Tree House’s“Sundance,” believes that this woman orchestrated CBF’s case against Judge Kavanaugh. And his story is very convincing.

He reported that in (or around) 2003, McLean transferred to the Southern District of New York (SDNY), FBI New York Field Office. She worked as a Public Information Officer (PIO), side-by-side with SDNY Attorney General Preet Bharara.

Sundance points out that McLean’s PIO partner in New York, Jim Margolin, is still employed there and is coincidentally attached to the case against President Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen.

McLean, now currently retired, lists Rehoboth Beach, DE as her home address.

During her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, CBF stated that she had prepared her letter to Dianne Feinstein by herself in Rehoboth Beach, DE.

[Transcript]

MITCHELL: The second is the letter that you wrote to Senator Feinstein, dated the — July 30th of this year.

MITCHELL: Did you write the letter yourself?

FORD: I did.

MITCHELL: And I — since it’s dated July 30th, did you write it on that date?

FORD: I believe so. I — it sounds right. I was in Rehoboth, Delaware, at the time. I could look into my calendar and try to figure that out. It seemed…

MITCHELL: Was it written on or about that date?

FORD: Yes, yes. I traveled, I think, the 26th of July to Rehoboth, Delaware. So that makes sense, because I wrote it from there.

MITCHELL: Is the letter accurate?

FORD: I’ll take a minute to read it.

Sure looks like CBF had spent the four days leading up to the July 30^th letter to Feinstein visiting Monica McLean. Are we really to believe that McLean had no involvement? Sundance writes:

That would certainly begin to explain quite a bit about who exactly was handling Ms. Ford; and how there would be an intentional effort, from a subject matter expert, on how to best position the attack against Brett Kavanaugh.

Who better to help scrub the internet history, and know what processes and people to enlist in such preparatory work, than a retired lawyer who worked deeply inside the FBI?

Not only did Ms. McLean possesses a particular set of skills to assist Ms. Ford, but Ms. McLean would also have a network of DOJ and FBI resources to assist in the endeavor. A former friendly FBI agent to do the polygraph; a network of politically motivated allies?

Does the appearance of FBI insider and Deputy FBI Director to Andrew McCabe, Michael Bromwich, begin to make more sense?

Do the loud and overwhelming requests by political allies for FBI intervention, take on a different meaning or make more sense, now?

Standing back and taking a look at the bigger, BIG PICTURE…could it be that Ms. McLean and her team of ideological compatriots within the DOJ and FBI, who have massive axes to grind against the current Trump administration, are behind this entire endeavor?

Considering all of the embattled, angry, institutional officials (former and current); and considering the recently fired DOJ and FBI officials; and considering the officials currently under investigation; and considering the declassification requests which will likely lead to the exposure of even more corruption…Could it be that these elements wanted to do something, anything to get back at the executive branch; and possibly change the tide?

If so, and I think the likelihood is pretty good, doesn’t everything known just easily reconcile if you think of Ms. Blasey-Ford as a tool for those ideologues?

If Ms. Monica Lee McLean and her allies wanted to strike, she couldn’t be the visible face of the confrontation because she was retired FBI. It would be too obvious. She would need a patsy; a friend who could deploy the hit on her/their behalf.  It would need to be someone she could shape, easily manage and guide etc. Someone who could be trusted, and at the same time would be trusting of them.

It is quite likely Ms. McLean selected/recruited her life-long best friend, Ms. Blasey-Ford.

It’s a very plausible theory and one that actually explains a lot of the peculiarities in the case. It explains why none of the four named witnesses have any recollection of the evening. And because CBF makes no definitive statements about time, place, how she got there and home, the incident is impossible to prove or disprove.”

5. There is not one shred of corroborative evidence. None of the four witnesses she named as having been at the party have any memory whatsoever of it. I won’t repeat the long list of questions she can’t answer about the alleged assault.

But, please think back to your own high school years. I have some recollection of every party I went to in high school (and it was a long time ago!). Especially if my memory is jogged by a friend. Do you remember such and such a party? Oh, come on, you do. Remember when so and so did that? Somewhere in the recesses of my aging brain, the memory exists.

And, if CBF had experienced a sexual assault and run past a group of four others down the stairs and out the door, someone would have noticed. Even if they had not, surely after a while, someone would say, where’s Christine?

Her memory is faulty. She says she heard Kavanaugh and Judge talking and laughing as they bounced off the walls on the way down the staircase, but when questioned further, she said she hadn’t actually heard them, but she assumed they had been talking.

CBF named former Holton-Arms classmate and “lifelong friend” Leland Ingham Keyser as the other young woman who was present at the party where she was sexually assaulted. Keyser then denied, in a sworn statement through her attorney, any recollection of this party. When questioned about Keyser’s denial, CBF said her friend probably didn’t recall being there because of her “poor health.”

Keyser has since spoken out publicly to say that although she suffers from a physical malady, which has required 14 surgeries to date, this has not affected her memory. A close family member of Keyser’s spoke to Laura Collins of the Daily Mail and made the following points:

• She doubled down on the statements Keyser has already given to the Senate Committee in which she has denied all knowledge of the supposed party, the alleged assault or of Kavanaugh.
• The former pro golfer confirmed she couldn’t corroborate Ford’s story when she was interviewed by the FBI last Saturday.
• Her physical problems have had no effect on her memory.
• Contrary to CBF’s claims, the women are not close, they have been out of touch for years.

6.  Falso in uno, falso in omnibus: There were many inconsistencies.

Her lawyers told us that she could not get to Washington in time for the original Monday hearing that Grassley had scheduled, explaining that due to her fear of flying and being in tight spaces without an immediate exit, a result of the sexual assault, she would be driving from California. Yet, she often flew to places like Hawaii, Costa Rica and the South Pacific for surfing vacations.

Investigative journalist Paul Sperry points out, “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.”

CBF’s lawyers refused to turn over many key documents that Republicans had requested during the hearings, the most important being her therapy notes. If any of them had provided corroborating information, they would have been presented as “Exhibit A” by the Ford team. We can assume the documents were either damaging to Ford’s credibility (likely) or neutral (possible).

Let’s take a look at some of those documents.

Just for fun:

Below is the analysis of a body language expert that went viral during the hearings. The analyst indicates that CBF was “acting” during her testimony and says the only genuine emotion she displayed was “fear.” Who wouldn’t be afraid to perjure themselves in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on national television? Another interesting point made by the analyst was that CBF had no mucus or no tears.

If anyone who is interested, here is the video:

The post As Dems Renew Calls For Kavanaugh’s Impeachment, GOP Should Investigate These 6 Glaring Inconsistencies In Blasey-Ford’s Story appeared first on RedState.