Blasey Ford Must Be Acknowledged and Then Dismissed
In a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein and an article in the Washington Post, Christine Blasey Ford has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Georgetown Prep classmate Mark Judge of sexually assaulting her. She claims that this happened somewhere around 1982 when she was 15 years old and consisted of Kavanaugh groping her while holding her down with his hand over her mouth so she couldn't scream while both 17-year-olds laughed maniacally. As corroborating evidence of the assault, she provided partial notes from couples' therapy she attended with her husband in 2012.
She released only selected portions of her therapist's notes – what would Democrats call that? Oh yeah, "cherry-picking," just as many Democrats have described what Trump is choosing to declassify with respect to the Carter Page FISA Court applications.
Her therapist's notes describe an attempted sexual assault, but neither Kavanaugh nor Judge is mentioned. In addition, her therapist's notes say there were four boys present "from an elitist boys' school," whereas in the Feinstein letter, she claims only two assailants (Kavanaugh and Judge). Both have categorically denied the allegations, with Judge calling the accusation "absolutely nuts."
Blasey Ford says the therapist made a mistake in his notes. Her claim is that a therapist, who by definition and job description must rely heavily on his notes to delineate and document needed therapy, made a mistake. Yet, though he was incompetent enough to make an error of fact, he was still sufficiently competent to save his notes for six years.
In addition to the discrepancy, also note the term "elitist," a word that was not commonly used in 1982 to describe a private school, especially by a private school girl. In the hyper-class-conscious world of 2012, however, it was in broad usage. To me, this shows that her memory had at least to some extent been adjusted by her later political indoctrination.
The corroborating (at least, to her, her lawyer, and the media) therapist's notes, apart from being incomplete and listing the wrong number of assailants, also do not mention Kavanaugh, whose name came up only in discussions she had with her husband in 2012. In the Washington Post article, her husband told the author, "he recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh's last name and voiced concern that Kavanaugh – then a federal judge – might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court."
This is another political aspect of her accusation; she sees her alleged assault through the prism of Kavanaugh's politics and potential Supreme Court nomination.
In the letter to Feinstein, she calls the get-together a "gathering," and it has been described elsewhere as a "party." This is easy to understand since either one sounds a lot better than saying she went to a house to hang out with four boys to drink and smoke pot.
Her attorney's later addition of another female to the group should be taken the same way. It sounds better that she went with another girl than alone to a "party," "gathering," or "hangout." I would also note that while it's possible to forget the names of the male attendees, the location of the party, and the year of the hangout, were there another girl present, I would think she not only would remember that girl's name, but probably would have told her what happened as well.
Another "elitist" classmate, Patrick J. Smyth, had this to say: "I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as 'PJ' who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post[.]" Smyth has also said (in a letter to the Judiciary Committee), "I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh."
She claims that she never told anyone contemporaneously, and for 30 years, she repressed the memory, recovering it only during her 2012 therapy. Weren't there a whole bunch of people who went to prison as the result of repressed and recovered memories, only to be later exonerated? No matter; they can be trusted this time as reason enough to ruin a man's life, reputation, and career.
Were one to accept her story as true, it would be understandable why she would not tell the authorities or her parents. It would be embarrassing to admit she went with four boys to hang out, drink, and smoke pot. In addition, being roughly fondled, however wrongly, probably would not have been considered a sexual assault in 1982.
It is also understandable how she wouldn't know the location of the house or its owner. Presumably, she was with people she trusted (or she wouldn't have gone) and didn't require it. At 15 years old, she would have been driven there and probably was not paying attention, perhaps because she was conversing with those in the car. One would think, though, she would remember those in the car. But it's still somewhat believable that she might not remember getting there or where it was.
How did she get home? According to her story, she had been so traumatized that she claimed in the Feinstein letter she "received medical treatment." She provided no evidence of this because hospitals in 1982 presumably didn't keep records, or perhaps she was referring to her therapy, or merely being hyperbolic. In any case, after a traumatizing assault, she would surely be terrified and looking to get out of there as soon as possible.
Who took her home?
Whoever did take her home would have been her savior and thus at the very least someone she would remember vividly, or at the minimum, his name. This, to me, is most damning. Everyone remembers his savior.
Kavanaugh denies it, no one corroborates it, no illegality is alleged, no subsequent claimants of like behavior have come forward, and scores of women who have known the judge for decades have attested to his irreproachable behavior and character.
This has all the hallmarks of a set-up. If the Democrats had raised the allegation in a timely manner, its weakness would have been palpable, it would have been used for what little it's worth in examining Kavanagh [sic] during his days of testimony, it would be put to rest as unverifiable, and we'd be on to a confirmation vote. Instead, we're on to a delay – precisely the Democrats' objective. They want to slow-walk Kavanaugh's confirmation vote until after the midterms, in the hopes that they swing the Senate in their favor and have the numbers to defeat the nomination.
Also from McCarthy:
I don't know if something awful really happened to Ford when she was 15. None of us will ever know. Apparently, Ford herself does not know basic facts either, since she cannot tell us where and when the alleged assault happened, and what she did in the aftermath. Giving her the benefit of the doubt that it happened as she claims it happened, she hasn't come close to establishing that Brett Kavanaugh, as opposed to some other kid she has forgotten, was her assailant; that is, she has not established that her memory of the assailant can be trusted when she cannot recall other rudimentary details. We can feel sympathy for her while nevertheless inferring that she does not want to testify because she cannot explain the oddities of her account. Or we can justifiably suspect that the whole thing is a partisan stunt.
In my opinion, she should have stayed "anonymous." We know how much the left likes "anonymous" allegations.