UPDATED: Christine Blasey Ford: Liar or Victim? The stench of "end justifies the means" Democrat partisanship permeates this despicable episode in Senate history.
The disgraceful charade playing out in Washington, DC, festooned with the appearance of legitimacy is, in fact, a deceitful, disgraceful, dishonest attempt to derail one of the finest nominees for the Supreme Court in our nation's history.
Is Christine Blasey Ford a liar or a victim?
You be the judge.
The facts as they have been alleged (Ms. Ford has yet to release any credible corroborating evidence):
In a despicable act that warrants censure by the Senate, at the eleventh hour of Senate confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to sit on the US Supreme Court, Leftist Senator Dianne Feinstein made public a letter from Christine Blasey Ford alleging sexual misconduct by Brett Kavanaugh when he was a minor teenager.
Sen. Feinstein received the letter from Ford's Representative (to Congress) in July, but did not share it with Sen. Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Ford says she did not want the letter to be made public.
Putting partisan resistance ahead of integrity, at the eleventh hour of Judiciary Committee hearings and just before the Committee was to vote the nomination out to the full Senate, and against the wishes of Ms. Ford, Sen. Feinstein's office released the letter anyway.
The letter alleges an incident when Ford and Kavanaugh were minors (mid-teens) and attending separate (male, female) prep schools, claiming:
She was driven to a keg party, but she doesn't remember who drove her, the date, or whose home where the party was held.
She does recall that at some time she was pushed into a bedroom with at least two of the students from the all-male prep school.
She does recall that one of those students was Brett Kavanaugh and one was Mark Judge.
She has named three other students who she claims were at the party, one being, Leland Keyser, a girlfriend of hers, at which the alleged assault occurred:
Mark Judge. Under penalty of perjury, Judge denied he has any knowledge of the party or assault.
Brett Kavanaugh. Under penalty of perjury, Kavanaugh denied he has any knowledge of the party or assault.
Leland Keyser. Under penalty of perjury, Keyser denied she has any knowledge of the party or assault.
Patrick Smyth. Under penalty of perjury, Smyth denied he has any knowledge of the party or assault.
She is the only identified person at the alleged party who remembers any of her story. She has to date refused to make her allegation against Kavanaugh under penalty of perjury to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
She does recall being held down by Kavanaugh, while she was clothed, implying there was an intent to rape her by at least one of those present.
She recalls that while being held down she was inappropriately "touched" on her clothing by Kavanaugh.
She hasn't claimed she was actually raped by anyone, nor even undressed.
She doesn't recall how she got home.
She never reported the incident to anyone until more than 30 years had elapsed, and then she allegedly told something relevant to her psychiatrist without mentioning Kavanaugh by name.
She did not come forth with this story during any prior confirmation hearing for Kavanaugh.
She did not come forth to the full Senate Judiciary Committee during the confirmation hearings (which have concluded prior to the Committee vote), though she had ample time to do so.
What should we conclude about Ford's story?
Of all the details that would be relevant (date, place, how she got there, how she got home) and might help corroborate her story, Ford can only remember one detail, that being four other people she claims attended the party, in particular that one of them was Brett Kavanaugh, who is alleged to have touched her clothing in an inappropriate place. Under penalty of perjury, all four have denied any knowledge of the party or the alleged assault.
There appears to be no corroborating evidence supporting Ms. Ford's story.
What else do we know about this alleged incident?
Brett Kavanaugh has emphatically denied (1) being at the alleged party, (2) conducting himself at any time in his life in the manner described by Ford.
Every former student who knew Kavanaugh at that time and has come forward has stated unequivocally that the story must be a fraud because Kavanaugh was not that kind of teen while at prep school nor at any other time during which they've known him.
Ford is an actively progressive Democrat, favors abortion, and has strong political reasons for opposing the Trump administration and any efforts to put constitutionalist justices on the Supreme Court.
Kavanaugh believes Supreme Court justices should strictly rely on the intent of our Constitution when deliberating an issue. To do otherwise is to allow public opinion or partisan agenda to replace our Constitution as the determinant for Supreme Court actions. The former approach is constitutional and ensures the People are governed by constitutional principles and the laws built on those principles. The latter approach is unconstitutional and subjects the People to government of men guided only by the contemporary whims of society and their own lust for political power ("take from the 'rich' to secure the votes of the 'poor'").
Bottom line, the only "evidence" anyone has to go on is the singular uncorroborated questionable recollection of an alleged act committed nearly four decades ago while the principals were mid-teenagers!
The actions by Ms. Ford, Sen. Feinstein, and the cabal of "me too" despicable Senate Democrats who piously surrender their rationality by affirming Ford's incredible story without having the decency to hear from Kavanaugh, are so blatantly political in timing and nature that it requires an enormous dose of either naïveté or gross partisanship to take Ms. Ford's and her fellow Democrats' story seriously.
We are expected to turn our judicial processes upside down and now believe that any woman who merely alleges sexual misconduct of any kind is to be believed without hesitation, just because she's made an accusation?
Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence?
That the Senate Judiciary Committee has given in to the legal bullying by Ford's legal team and agreed to delay the hearing process to Thursday (a date calculated to prevent Kavanaugh from being present when the Supreme Court opens its new session in October) is, quite frankly, a disgrace. Ford and her "legal" team have had nearly four decades to come forth and certainly many months since Kavanaugh's nomination. There is no rational reason nor useful purpose served by extending the Judiciary Committee confirmation process beyond Monday (September 24) to accommodate someone who, by any rational review of the evidence, is being less than fully honest with the Senate and the American People.
How do you see the evidence? On the basis of its credibility? Or on the basis of a partisan agenda that will resist any constitutionalist nomination by President Trump?
This entire sorry episode reeks of the stench of partisan delay and obstruction and has far more to do with Senatorial misconduct by Feinstein and other Senate Democrats than it has to do with a tenuous and impossible to corroborate allegation of sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh as a minor teenager, an allegation contrary to Kavanaugh's lifetime of service to family, community, and nation.
Of one thing we can be certain: The shameless conduct of Senate Democrats who are willing to sacrifice the reputation of anyone to their own lust for political power appears to have no bounds.
There is only one victim in this sordid episode in Senate confirmation history, and that is Brett Kavanaugh.
Christine Blasey Ford isn't the victim, she is a member of the perpetrators of this charade. Any rational view of the lack of evidence suggests Christine Blasey Ford is either a liar or a seriously confused, ethically-challenged partisan Democrat.
Bob Webster, a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.