DimWit Politics

Could the Kavanaugh Accuser be Lying?

 Breaking News
  • New Cali Gov to Strip Border Defenses The 2018 United States midterm election dust has barely settled, but California’s Governor-elect Gavin Newsom is already rolling out his proposed post-inauguration agenda. At the top of his list is...
  • France Ablaze from Gas Tax Riots The citizens of France have a long history of public protest, worker strikes, and rioting. The country won its independence after a violent revolution with the ruling monarchy, after all....
  • SCOTUS Declines Environmental Challenge to Trump Wall The U.S. Supreme Court has rebuked a challenge to the construction of President Trump’s famous border wall made by three environmental groups. According to Reuters, the three groups – the...
  • Hillary is Back! She’s baaaaaaaaack!  Or is she? Hillary Clinton is back on the campaign trail.  Yes, the campaign trail.  She is at what is known as the “exploratory phase” of a presidential...
  • The Russian Deal … No Big Deal If you watch the #NeverTrump media, you would have gotten “breaking news” alerts – even bigger “BLOCKBUSTER” news. For the first time, President Trump was named … implicated … culpable...

Could the Kavanaugh Accuser be Lying?

Could the Kavanaugh Accuser be Lying?
October 04
17:30 2018

I recently penned a commentary on DimWitPolitics hypothesizing what it might mean if Judge Brett Kavanaugh actually did assault Christine Blasey Ford. In all fairness, it seems reasonable to consider the possibility that Ford is making a totally false accusation. I am not looking at it as if she misidentified Kavanaugh, but actually that nothing of that sort ever happened.

In that case, there are two possibilities: that for some reason she has come to believe in an event that never happened, or she is knowingly lying. While it is not politically correct to ever suggest a woman is lying, it happens enough that it is reasonable to consider that possibility.

If she is imagining something that never happened, she is suffering from some level of mental illness. In that regard, it is what we do not know that makes it difficult to draw a conclusion. We do know that she has suffered degrees of mental illness throughout her life. She has testified to that and sought therapy from time to time. She said it was the result of the sexual assault. What we do not know is if she suffered any problems before the alleged assault.

Whether she, herself, has come to believe what she says, or she is lying, one has to look at her statements and any evidence to try to determine if there is validity to her accusations.

First, of course, is motive. Her defenders claim she could only have one motive. That would be to tell her story as a civic duty. They argue that she did not want to come out in public and therefore she is a woman of great courage for doing so. That is knitting together two unsubstantiated assumptions.

On the other hand, she is a hardline liberal Democrat who has participated in protests against Trump. It is beyond refutation that her letter was intended to block the Kavanaugh confirmation. Her desire to make such a serious accusation anonymously is not the mark of a courageous person. Quite the contrary.

It is also questionable that a woman of her intelligence and political savvy would really expect that such a bombshell accusation put in writing and given to two members of Congress would remain private. If she did not intend the letter to be used, why write it?

The motivation issue cannot be empirically resolved, so to make the case that she has testified falsely – either by self-deception or willful fabrication — it is necessary to examine the strength of other evidence in support of her claims. Therein lies some problems for Ford.

Much has already been said about the fact that she cannot recall even the approximate date. In various written documents, Ford has suggested the event happened in the early 1980s, the mid-1980s and the late 1980s. That means any time within a ten-year range.

At one time, she said it occurred in her “late teens” and at another time when she was 15. But as her testimony developed – and after getting strategy advice from hardline anti-Trump operatives and attorneys – her recollections seemed to improve, at least to the season and the year.

She was unable to locate the house and how she arrived and departed. She recalled every detail following the event – including hiding in the bathroom, hearing the boys stumble down the stairs, her escape to the lower lever of the house, her exiting the house – and then suddenly nothing. This is not only suspicious but can be a strategy to avoid getting caught in a lie. The location of the house and the identity of her chauffeur would provide specific factual evidence. But, if one is lying, it would be a roadmap to refutation because it could be checked out.

Imagine being accused of doing something at some time at some place. Specific details could lead to evidence that it was not possible for the accused to be at that place at that time. This is exactly what led Ford and her attorneys to shop Kavanaugh’s calendar for an entry that COULD have been the occasion. And if not that one, then another on the calendar might have been selected.

When Ford did get specific, she undermined her own case. None of those said to be in attendance had any recollection of the event. Ford’s defenders make a specious distinction between not recalling and actually refuting. It is a distinction without a difference. They did not corroborate her story – essentially refuting it.

Mostly she said Mark Judge was a witness, but also testified that he had jumped in, literally – at which time they all rolled onto the floor and she escaped.

In the court-of-public-opinion, it was argued by Democrats and the media that she had told any number of people about the assault long before the Kavanaugh nomination. But they fail to mention that in those alleged conversations, she never mentioned Kavanaugh’s name – even as he gained prominence in the White House and the federal courts. She claimed to have been terrified by his rise to power. It was alleged that she left Washington to get away from Kavanaugh and recently told her husband that she would have to leave the country if he was seated on the Supreme Court.

Ford said she had told her therapist of the attack, but never mentioned the name Kavanaugh. Her story to her therapist differs from the story she now tells as to the number of witnesses to the attack — and she blames that on the therapist’s mistaken notes. In addition, she refuses to allow the more detailed notes by the therapist to be released.
Then there is the polygraph test. On the surface, this contradicts her reluctance to remain anonymous. Also, any prosecutor will tell you of the weakness of polygraph evidence – and especially when paid-for by a client of the person administering the test – although she could not recall who actually paid for the polygraph test. It is significant that she, on the advice of counsel, will not reveal the actual test information and the procedures – only a superficial report.

In the hearing, Ford stated that she was unfamiliar with polygraphs and that it was a very stressful experience. A six-year boyfriend of Ford submitted a letter that Ford had coached a mutual friend on how to take the polygraph test. According to the boyfriend’s letter, Ford was very familiar with the procedures.

Ford’s credibility was also hurt by her claim that the hearing had to be delayed because of her fear of flying further – a claim that tied her directly to the Democrat political strategy. In fact, it was shown that she is a frequent flyer and ultimately did fly to D.C.

She claimed that she was unaware of the offer made to her attorneys to interview her in California despite the fact that the offer had been broadcast by the news media for days ahead of time. And it seems unlikely that a competent attorney would have not told her.

She alleged that the peculiarity of having two front doors was because of Kavanaugh. That claim made no sense on the surface and was demolished by later evidence that the second door had nothing to do with the alleged incident. It accommodated room renters.

The fact that she received and took the recommendation from Senator Diane Feinstein in selecting legal advice is extremely suspicious. It means that Ford and Feinstein were conspiring to support the accusation. Ford was actively working with those opposing the confirmation. Ford was vague on who was paying for various elements of her defense – or about her GoFundMe page. The fact that she had assembled very partisan advisors and funders – and took days to prepare — casts doubt on her portrayed naiveté.

There was also an apparently unrecognized inconsistency in her testimony – an inconsistency that seemed to suggest an effort to make her case more emotionally horrifying that it was. We can recall that when Senator Patrick Leahy asked of her most memorable moment, she referred to the laughter – creating a chilling image of contemptible behavior by her alleged assailants. But earlier in her same-day testimony, she said the most terrifying moment was when the perpetrator pressed his hand on her mouth and prevented her from breathing. It was at that moment, she testified, that she feared she would be killed. The fact that her most terrifying moment became transactional to the different questions creates doubt in her veracity.

It was said that her performance at the hearing was powerful and convincing – credible – mostly by those in support of her allegation. That is only a matter of opinion. It is just as easy to see her anxiety as a result of worrying about being caught in a lie that would collapse her entire claim. She seemed to be “playing” for sympathy with a confession of being terrified.

She is an accomplished public speaker and lecturer. She is comfortable in front of audiences – on the platform or in the classroom. And yet, she came across as a scared, tight-throated little girl. Yes, it is true that there was a much bigger deal, but I found both her and Kavanaugh to be a bit concocted in their self-portrayals and mannerisms.
In posing this brief, as I did conversely with Kavanaugh previously, I readily admit that the evidence is inconclusive because neither Ford nor Kavanaugh have provided conclusive arguments and none of the evidence – condemnatory or exculpatory — is totally convincing.

Just as many wanted the FBI to answer more questions regarding corroboration of the accusations, I would have liked to have seen the FBI dig deeper into Ford’s credibility. There was too much accepted without challenge. It may seem unseemly to aggressively question the accuser – or “victim” as her supporters claim – but that is what I would expect from a competent and complete investigation. She should be grilled – at least in private by law enforcement — just as someone accusing another of robbery or vandalism.

More and more, it is obvious that the Kavanaugh vote will not be on factual history, other than his established record on the Appellate Court. Rather it will be decided on political parameters divined from narratives of dubious value and accuracy. The outcome of the vote will establish whether our politicians believe in innocent until proven guilty or guilt by accusation alone.

About Author

Larry Horist

Larry Horist

Larry Horist is a conservative activist with an extensive background in economics, public policy and politics. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman, as well as the White House. He has testified as an expert witness before legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress, and lectured at major colleges and universities. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He can be reached at lph@thomasandjoyce.com.

Related Articles

6 Comments

  1. Emery T.
    Emery T. October 05, 21:44

    Larry’s view on this paramount subject cannot be ignored. He brings up some excellent points that make a great deal of sense. In my opinion, his rationales and analyses of the characters and allegations seem fair and accurate on face value, based on the incomplete set of facts and circumstances we now have. It also appears to me that Larry’s summations would withstand any fair and reasonable scrutiny… Unless of course one’s motives are politically driven, or are unfairly or dishonestly fueled. But I also believe that any partisan on either side of the aisle with “tunnel vision” is inclined to swallow the hook, line and sinker of either side if they are driven to achieve a desired end by any means.

    Larry’s profile states that he is a conservative activist. In all fairness, I need to reveal that I am as conservative as they come, with all the trimmings of a right-wing advocate. That being said, I do not wear blinders, and I do not worship Trump. Just as much as I wholly believe in “Innocenct UNTIL PROVEN guilty,” I also whole heartedly believe that it is wrong to assume complete innocence based solely on strong, guttural objections, hand waving, and scholastic and professional achievements. My first impressions of Brett Kavanaugh last week during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings were: (1) he was overly addictive to compulsive water drinking, (2) he overly used the tongue-n-cheek expression (indicative of hiding and guilty nervousness), and (3) gave a sniveling, whining testimony filled with deflection and answering questions with questions (also indicative of hiding and guilty nervousness). Yes that seems harsh of me but honestly, that was my first impression of Brett Kavanaugh. My first impressions came late last week because I have not been following the Supreme Court nomination much until that time. But also I felt that Christine Ford was much too able to turn off and turn on her emotional bewilderment in spurts “as needed” to embellish her own testimony and garner sympathy. This came across to me as contrived, even though in today’s established etiquette of accepted behavior, it is a sin for me to suggest such a thing because women never lie about these things. After all, they are heroes for coming forward and taking all the mud-slinging that is sure to follow. That pendulum has swung way too far in the other direction from where it was 40 years ago in my opinion…

    So now you know my sentiments, and I have probably managed to alienate both conservatives and liberals. Good, because I am not proud of the Dems or the GOPs in all of this recent chicanery. But at the end of the day, my desire is NOT to approve Brett Kavanaugh for the vacant Supreme Court Justice seat. And the reason is simple: It does not matter as much to me what he did 35 years ago, but how is he conducting himself today. Many conservatives associate themselves with Christianity. The entire basis of Christianity is the concept of being “born-again,” and being forgiven for one’s past when one confesses their sins before God and man. “Therefore if anyone be in Christ, they are a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” This is what the Bible declares in 1 Cor 5:17. I myself and every other reader out there reading this has a past of which we are probably not particularly proud of. But people change and if you are a Christian, you know that radical changes occur supernaturally. However, here today, now, in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Brett Kavanaugh has been a bold face liar; he even did what God forbids when he said, “I swear to God!” But why does God forbid that? Because out of great love and concern, God knows that everyone of us will eventually incriminate ourselves by using His name to swear an untruth as truth out of fear or when pushed against the wall. So God therefore says, “just let your yeas be yea, and your noes be no.”
    Kavanaugh’s testimony about his drinking habits were less than the whole truth at best, and bold-face lies at worst. His testimony about the “six or seven Fs” were a bold-face lie. His testimony about the “devil’s triangle” were most likely a lie, and his testimony about “boofing” was clearly a bold-face lie.

    Now conservatives with tunnel vision would argue, “Kavanaugh was forced into those lies because of these particular “red herring” questions that were only meant to smear his good name and drag his character through the mud.” My response? “Yes, but he still lied here today. Have we reduced the qualifications of a Supreme Court justice to include, ‘occasional, justifiable lying’?” Maybe I am too naive. Maybe that is an assumed qualification for the entire political staff of this country. God help us.

    Reply to this comment
  2. Doug
    Doug October 06, 03:05

    Thanks for your courage to doubt Ms Ford. Not many have publically. There is no up side and nobody will ever know the facts. Only Ms Ford knows if she is lying and I believe 100% she is not telling us all she knows or remembers! A squeaky little 15 year old shy girl voice she had. Has anyone ever recorded one of her lectures? Is this her real voice or is she pulling our leg on this too? And the hair in her face. Is this her go to Sunday meeting grooming style? Not a believer in Ms. Ford

    Reply to this comment
  3. Truth be told
    Truth be told October 06, 07:13

    A vary truthful artic I wholeheartedly agree.
    I think it was all a lie. Maybe something did happen to her. But not by Kavanaugh. Here were too many questions not asked of her. She would haven totally discredited.

    Reply to this comment
  4. Emery T.
    Emery T. October 07, 14:13

    Okay, I get it now. You declined to approve my comment because it doesn’t tottally fit your agenda. This blog is just as bad as the liberal democratic left, and just a polar opposite, and just as wrong. If this country is ever going to heal, recover, and change for the good, polar opposites like you Larry H. are going to have to stop doing what you are doing. Dems too. I know this won’t get approved either but you don’t care so there you have it.

    Reply to this comment
  5. egm11
    egm11 October 07, 15:39

    had ford and her attorneys gone to the Montgomery county md, police and filed a report, that would have made it more probable than not, she was attacked. as with the offer to come to her for testimony, the MCP stated they would investigate her claims if she files a report. she still didnt, ask why? once investigated and found false, the charge of filing a false police report ensues. then the entire political narrative falls apart.

    Reply to this comment
  6. egm11
    egm11 October 07, 15:43

    ford could have, at anytime in the last 36 yrs gone to the Montgomery county police and filed a report. they offered to investigate if done. why didnt she, especially after being “forced” into the public eye. my suspicion, had she filed it and found untrue, the charge of filing a false report would have ensued. the political ramifications would not have been good for her claims, the democrats pushing it and the lawyers involved.

    Reply to this comment

Write a Comment

Special Offer

Latest Comments

This goes back to the Bible - "He without sin cast the first stone!"...

DG

We must be watching different presidents. The only interests Trump has ever had is...

It is quite clear to me that the dubious Democrats are in the process of...

Take a Look!

12174 - DimWit Politics - Display - 300x250 B - [WEB].txt Displaying 12174 - DimWit Politics - Display - 300x250 B - [WEB].txt.

Don’t Miss This!

12174 - DimWit Politics - Display - 300x250 B - [WEB].txt Displaying 12174 - DimWit Politics - Display - 300x250 B - [WEB].txt.