The Three Lies of Christine Blasey Ford
The great solon Richard Blumenthal, hero of An Loc, Ia Drang, Khe Sanh, Hue, and Tet, has explained to us that “Who lies in one instance, lies in all.”
Blumenthal was referring to Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who hasn’t lied about anything, as far as anyone has been able to tell.
But we can turn it around to focus on the party that Sen. Blumenthal was speaking out for. In how many instances has Christine Blasey Ford lied?
Fear of Flying:
Fear of flying is a commonplace among many travelers (so much so that Brian Eno in the 1970s recorded several hours of soothing music expressly designed to ease such fears). But in Blasey Ford’s case, it was presented as a terror so overwhelming, so uncontrollable, as to prevent her from traveling by air under any circumstances. No – Professordoktor Ford, we were led to believe, would need to drive from Palo Alto to Washington to testify before the Senate Judicial Committee.
This claim fell apart in short order after it was revealed that Ford had lived for a year in Honolulu, a city effectively unreachable except by air, had vacationed in Tahiti and other areas of the Pacific, and regularly flew from California to the east coast to visit family. In light of all this, the “driving” claim became a running social media joke, with bogus reports of which was the last town she had driven through.
The claim collapsed completely when it was revealed that she had flown out to D.C. to testify before the committee, evidently without aid of hypnotism, sedatives, oxygen tanks in case of hyperventilation, or a trained service animal. No one at the hearing bothered to question her about this discrepancy. They should have.
The claim of a connection between Blasey Ford’s aviation phobia and Judge Kavanaugh is something of a mystery. Did he fly in to the infamous party in a Marine Corps Harrier VTOL jet? Or was he making jet plane noises as he was molesting young Christine? These questions, along with a multitude of others, remain open.
Christine is a Psychologist:
Blasey Ford allowed the public and the committee to believe that she was a psychologist in the full meaning of the term. She specifically told the committee that she was a “research psychologist”. She also made the claim on her university web site page, and in several other cases. The legacy media (for instance, the Washington Post and the Atlantic) dropped the “research’ part and repeatedly asserted that she was a licensed psychologist, with no request for a correction from the Blasey Ford camp.
In fact, she is no such thing. While she has done the course work, and was awarded a doctorate in the field, she still lacks certification. To qualify as a “psychologist” in the state of California (and every other state in the union), an individual must serve a one-year residency and pass several rigorous examinations. Blasey Ford has not done so. She is, ipso facto, not a psychologist.
Furthermore, she knows this. Her faculty page, which originally stated that she was a “research psychologist” has been scrubbed, and no longer makes that claim.
Christine’s front door:
Now we must deal with the comedy of the door. The door is a critical element in the Blasey Ford saga, acting as it did to disperse the fog of forgetfulness and enable her to confront the full truth of her ordeal in 1982… or maybe 1983. Simply put, her insistence in 2012 on a second front door led to friction in her marriage, which brought the Blasey Fords before a marriage counselor, at which point the professordoktor either did or did not first tell the tale of her suffering at the hands of Judge Kavanaugh.
“In explaining why I wanted a second front door, I began to describe the assault in detail. I recall saying that the boy who assaulted me could someday be on the U.S. Supreme Court, and spoke a bit about his background at an elitist all-boys school in Bethesda, Maryland. My husband recalls that I named my attacker as Brett Kavanaugh.”
(As is true of just about everything else in this story, the reasoning behind the second door remains a mystery. Evidently, its purpose was to allow Blasey Ford a means of escape if Kavanaugh landed his Harrier in front of her home and attempted to once again lay hands on her. The fact that a back or side door would serve this purpose much better has never, to my knowledge, entered the discussion.)
Well, Christine got her door. But she didn’t get in 2012, and no marriage counselor was involved. It happens that the permit for remodeling her home – including adding the door -- was obtained in 2008. If Palo Alto is like other municipalities, the permit would be good for six months, with an option for a six-month extension. So the door must have been added at that time. And in fact, photographic evidence exists showing the new door in place in 2011, a year before Blasey Ford claims that it nearly destroyed her marriage.
Furthermore, there is evidence suggesting that the house in question was rented out by Blasey Ford to “Google interns” and that no one in her family lived there. In addition, somebody was running a business there (a “couples therapy” clinic, ironically enough – the “Couples Research Center.” There’s that word “research” again.), and that the door was added as an entrance to the business, rather than as a Kavanaugh-evasion device.
While these claims might appear minor in isolation, together they form a pattern recognizable and undeniable. There will no doubt be others coming, but three is all we need, according to the wisdom of Auric Goldfinger: “Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.”
A lot of print and commentary, both online and otherwise, has argued that Blasey Ford is credible, convincing, and sympathetic. Even her opponents hold that “something must have happened” to explain her behavior. But to believe this, we have to toss all standards of truth out the window. We have to postulate that a lie is not a lie, a liar is not a liar. We have to slip into a pure postmodern, nothing-is-certain, all-truth-is-relative mode. Without that, Blasey Ford is approximately as convincing as Julie Swetnick.
She is not a sympathetic figure. She is not a confused, traumatized victim attempting to grapple with the fragmented memories of a past incident. The record clearly reveals that this to be nonsense. She is a malicious liar who has put herself at the service of malignant political clique for the purpose of undercutting the stated will and intentions of the people of this country.
It is a simple fact that Kavanaugh’s accusers on the committee are proven liars – Feinstein in withholding the letter in the first place (not to mention denying how it became public), Booker concerning his good friend T-Bone, along with his “Spartacus moment”, Blumenthal concerning his heroism in Vietnam. The stunning irony here is that Judge Kavanaugh is demonstrably more honest than any of his accusers.
This is the central truth of the Kavanaugh case. It must be hammered relentlessly, to the point where it can no longer be evaded. It must be repeated every time we’re told that “women don’t lie”. Every time someone flaunts a t-shirt reading “I Believe Her”. Every time we hear another obtuse blurt from Pelosi or Hirono. I must be repeated until it becomes the default, the meme that crowds everything else out: that the truth is not in Christine Blasey Ford, and that she is condemned by her own words.