Posted on by RichWL

Senator Jeff Flake and Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony and Senator Feinstein. Barrel & Pork.

I watched the Judge Brett Kavanaugh Dr. Christine Blasey Ford hearings with great interest and have several observations which some no doubt will criticize as being partisan, BARREL. The following is not partisan. It is a note to Senator Flake, Senator Grassley, Senator McConnell, and POTUS Trump. Democrats may read this if they have interest because I suspect they will be sorry they ever asked for an FBI probe. Having seen both accuser and then accused in living color, I ask these most basic questions regarding the Judge Kavanaugh Dr. Ford Senate hearing. The questions are:

Have 85 year old Senator Dianne Feinstein and her office and Dr. Ford and other Democrats links to the CIA so-called deep state including the Clintons, who Judge Kavanaugh called out during his impassioned defense, have these people orchestrated the Ford testimony in order to pull off the greatest felony fraud on the United States Senate and the American people in Senate history? It looks like it, BARREL, and before I get into the detail, is the following list of questions and answers some concocted conspiracy theory? No it is not. Something is totally rotten in the State of Denmark, Shakespeare’s Hamlet Act I, Scene IV, which is to say there is overwhelming political corruption on the part of some of the nation’s democrat political leaders.

PORK, I’m on the same page with you. So what are your questions.

BARREL, we know the answers to many of the following questions. A few of the questions still need answers. So think about the following, BARREL. Sounds like the FBI investigation is something the Democrats may not enjoy if the FBI investigation is carried out with integrity. Anyway, here are some serious questions and answers I ask and answer after watching the recent Ford-Kavanaugh testimonies.

  1. Did Dr. Ford tell us the year the alleged assault took place? No.
  2. Did Dr. Ford tell us the address? No.
  3. Did Dr. Ford show us the house? No.
  4. Did Dr. Ford tell anyone at the time of the alleged event? No.
  5. Does Dr. Ford head up the Stanford University’s Undergraduate Intern Recruitment Program, for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency or is this fake news? [Question for the FBI.] https://the-fringe.com/thread-this_poor_victimized_woman_heads_the_undergraduate_intern_recruitment_program_for_the_cia_at_stanford_u
  1. Is there a single witness corroborating Dr. Ford’s story? No.
  2. Did Dr. Ford tell us the month? No.
  3. Did Dr. Ford tell us the day? No.
  4. Did Dr. Ford tell us how old she was at the time? No. She said 17 and then 15.
  5. Did Dr. Ford tell us the grade she was in? No.
  6. Did Dr. Ford tell us who took her to the party? No.
  7. Was Dr. Ford drinking? Yes. She remembers specifically that she had just “one beer” at the party – no more.
  8. With her “one beer” answer in mind, is the following true or is this fake news? “Christine Blasey Ford admitted she was an alcoholic back then, & regretted being so easy. She told her best friend she had 64 sexual partners between 11th grade thru college. She is also liberal activist who wrote on her FB [Facebook] in ’16 [2016], “Scalia-types must be banned from law!” or is this fake news? BOMBSHELL: Blasey-Ford’s HS Yearbooks Brag of Drunken Promiscuity, ’54 Sex Partners Before College’ [Continuing:]
    September 20, 2018 They didn’t quite get it all scrubbed from cyberspace quickly enough. High School yearbooks from Holton Arms preparatory school (Bethesda, Maryland, 1982-1985) purportedly show Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey-Ford as a wild party girl in a wild party era, with yearbook passages by classmates bragging of spending the night with adult men during “Beach Week” and enjoying male strippers in G-strings for “Sweet 16” birthday parties. … As Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s rape accuser today pulls back from an invited offer for Senate testimony, (saying through her attorney that a Friday deadline set by Republicans is quote, “arbitrary,”) the inevitable lev[ee] break of background information allegedly reveals Christine Blasey-Ford as a prolific high school party girl who is alleged to have bragged to a friend of having 54 sexual partners prior to college. If true, the emergence of five high school yearbooks from exclusive college preparatory school, Holton Arms (Bethesda, Maryland) destroys Blasey-Ford’s self portrayal as an innocent coed [tiny child voice during the hearing] “church mouse” taken advantage of by an aggressive sexual predator. Even summarizing the totality of what the yearbooks contain is difficult, given that it paints a picture of hedonistic, debauched teenage behavior in which Christine Blasey-Ford is alleged to have not only indulged but promoted and led as an acknowledged focal point of American Pie, or Animal House-style fraternizing with eager young men, often in (by Holton Arms classmates’ descriptions) alcohol-saturated social settings that left participants unable to recall exactly what had taken place. One excerpt from a yearbook entry detailed the philosophy of binge drinking to memory loss as a necessity of the Holton Arms party scene: “Although these parties are unforgettable, they are only a memory lapse for most, since loss of consciousness is often an integral part of the party scene. Nothing emerges but a vague feeling of intense enjoyment when one tries to recall them. We were probably, you know, really tired and all.”
  9. One friend, (identified briefly on social media) alleges Blasey-Ford (Holton Arms, Class of 1984) suffered no memory loss whatsoever in describing and bragging about her sexual conquests and paramours, identifying 54 sexual partners between her junior year of high school and enrollment in college. The social media post (below) claims Blasey-Ford previously allegedly admitted to being an alcoholic in high school and regretted, “being so easy,” in high school. She is alleged to have told the best friend that she had 54 sexual partners between 11th grade and enrollment in college. The post also identified Blasey-Ford as a liberal activist with an obvious sensitivity to Supreme Court ideology, once writing on social media, “Scalia-types must be banned from law!” [Is this fake news?]

“[A]s quickly as the images began to emerge on social media Monday, Blasey-Ford’s supporters worked this week to scrub them or have them taken down from various outlets. The entries describe wild drunken romps with boys, binge drinking blackouts, birthday parties with male strippers and the benefits of passing out drunk to avoid guilt and shame of alleged sexual activity. On one yearbook page, a passage is dedicated to artful description of a “Sweet 16” birthday party for one Blasey-Ford, Holton Arms classmate, complete with a male stripper wearing a gold G-string and dancing to the delight of the obviously underage attendees:

“The tenth grade taught us how to party also and Martha (redacted) [has the FBI interviewed Martha?] usually provided the circumstances in which to do so. Celebrating her sweet sixteen or just the weekend. Martha managed to entertain her guests with her hospitality, her pool …, and her erotic male dancer, the latter in his gold G-string, being by far the most effective.”

“Martha managed to entertain her guests with her hospitality…and her erotic male dancer, the latter, in his gold G-string being by far the most effective.”

“While dancing in the middle of coastal Highway, Ann [redacted last name and friends ][Has the FBI interviewed Ann and friends?]picked up some men who passed out in their apartment…” [Two men said they “assaulted Dr. Ford” not Judge Kavanaugh. Have they been interviewed by the FBI?]

Multiple Holton Arms yearbook entries show racy images purported to be Blasey-Ford in evocative clothing and sensuous repose, including photos of three minors dressed provocatively in Playboy Bunny and French maid costumes. (Redacted photos are allegedly much racier.) The caption describes underage high school girls dancing seductively in the middle of a highway during “Beach Week,” and then enticing some (adult?) men to come back to their apartment for binge drinking and a night of whatever libidinous fun might have transpired:

“Beach week culminated the year for those of us lucky enough to go. With school and our minds in temporary recess, we were able to release all those troubling inhibitions of the past year. While dancing in the middle of coastal Highway, Ann [redacted last name] and friends picked up some men who passed out in their apartment…”

“Other passages hint at the dating habits and adventurous process of selecting boys for romantic interest and activity, indicating that some female members of the Holton Arms senior class preferred freshman and sophomore boys as their companions: “Other seniors preferred to expand their horizons and date younger men, usually sophomores, who could bring the vitality and freshness of innocence to a relationship.”

It’s not clear who began redacting the photos and entries and who spearheaded the scrubbing operation that became a race against independent outlets who snapped up the photos as soon as they became public knowledge. [Has the FBI figured this lead out?]

“What is known is that Blasey-Ford avoided public revelation of her accusations until the conclusion of Kavanaugh’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings and now, shows no interest in meeting a Friday deadline to testify under oath to her allegation of sexual assault against him, which in context, even if it were true, seems one of the tamer things that might ever happened in her high school career in what public yearbook accounts reveal as a WASP-ish, elitist East Coast, upper crust bacchanal scene in the 1980’s.

“Multiple reports Thursday (9/20/18) indicated that Blasey-Ford was demanding the meeting of undisclosed conditions to testifying before the U.S. Senate concerning her claims against Kavanaugh, and that her attorney had termed a Friday deadline for such testimony to be, “arbitrary.” [Was the delay to give the conspirators time to scrub the internet of the incriminating evidence? Again, one for the FBI.] And is this all fake news? http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/3689760/posts

  1. Did Dr. Ford tell us who took her to the alleged party [or should it read parties]? No.
  2. Did Dr. Ford tell us who took her home from the alleged party [or should it read parties]? No
  3. Did Dr. Ford tell us the names of her brothers? No.
  4. Was one of her brothers or both brothers complicit and or were they the drivers – taking Dr. Ford to the PARTIES? Bringing her home? [Another one for the FBI.] Or did her father or mother drive her to and from her parties?
  5. Did Dr. Ford tell one or both of her parents? She says not.
  6. Was Dr. Ford raped? No. She does not allege rape.
  7. Did Dr. Ford tell her best friend? No.
  8. Did Dr. Ford tell any other student? No.
  9. Dr. Ford says Leland Ingham Keyser, a lifelong friend, was at the party. Yes.
  10. Does Leland Ingham Keyser confirm that there was in fact such a party? No. Leland Ingham Keyser denies that there was such a party.
  11. Dr. Ford claims that Judge Kavanaugh talked to Keyser and Smyth right after he assaulted her. Do either confirm in any way Dr. Ford’s memory? No.
  12. Is there any witness who corroborates any part of Dr. Ford’s story? No.
  1. Are Dr. Ford’s immediate family members anywhere on record as backing her up? No. Isn’t it at all interesting to the FBI and Senate Republicans that there is not even a whiff of support from her immediate family? In fact, on her Wikipedia blurb, her parents and siblings are not listed. Why is that?
  2. Is her immediate personal family – mother, father, siblings — even present in the equation? No.
  3. Have we heard from her mother backing her up? No.
  4. Have we heard from her father backing her up? No.
  5. Have we heard from either of her brothers backing her up? No.
  6. Who are her brothers? And again, were they complicit in the “PARTIES” scene? Were they the party Uber drivers?
  7. Did Dr. Ford’s father Ralph Blasey II work and does he still work for the CIA. Was he vice president for the National Savings and Trust “black budget bank” known for funding CIA deep state operations?  Is there a deep state collusion regarding this effort to discredit Judge Kavanaugh? Looks like it. One for the FBI.  

https://thegodofrage.wordpress.com/2018/09/20/kavanaugh-accuser-christine-ford-donated-to-clinton-campaign-and-dnc-is-daughter-of-cia-operative-and-vp-of-security/

  1. Do either of her two siblings back her up? No.
  2. Did Dr. Ford’s brother Ralph III work for the International Law Firm of … Baker Hostetler; the firm that created FusionGPS, the company that wrote the infamous “Russia Dossier”? https://the-fringe.com/thread-this_poor_victimized_woman_heads_the_undergraduate_intern_recruitment_program_for_the_cia_at_stanford_Did Dr. Ford’s brother Ralph II drive her to and from the PARTIES?
  1. Is the following true about Dr. Ford?
    https://michaelsavage.com/is-dr-ford…y-tied-to-cia/

    “WHO IS DR BLASEY FORD?

    “WELL, BESIDES BEING A “PROFESSOR” AT THE OFF BRAND UNIVERSITY, SHE ALSO WORKS AT A MAJOR UNIVERSITY DOWN THE STREET FROM PALO ALTO. SHE JUST SO HAPPENS TO HEAD UP THE CIA UNDERGRADUATE INTERNSHIP PROGRAM AT STANFORD UNIVERSITY.

    CHRISTINE BLASEY’S BROTHER, RALPH THE THIRD, USED TO WORK FOR THE INTERNATIONAL LAW FIRM OF BAKER, HOSTETLER. THE FIRM CREATED FUSION GPS, THE COMPANY WHO WROTE THE RUSSIAN “DOSSIER”. THEY LATER ADMITTED IT WAS ONLY A COLLECTION OF FIELD INTERVIEWS.

    “BAKER HOSTETLER IS LOCATED IN THE SAME BUILDING WHERE THE CIA OPERATES THREE COMPANIES CALLED:
    RED COATS INC.
    ADMIRAL SECURITY     SERVICES AND
    DATAWATCH
    THEY ARE OPERATED BY RALPH BLASEY II. HE IS THE FATHER OF CHRISTINE AND RALPH III.

    “CHRISTINE AND RALPH III’S GRANDFATHER WAS NICHOLAS DEAK. FORMER CIA DIRECTOR WILLIAM CASEY ACKNOWLEDGED DEAK’S DECADES OF SERVICE TO THE CIA.

  2. https://www.smithandwessonforums.com/forum/news-links-forum/180755-dr-blasey-ford-cia-deep-state-ties-true-coincidence.html
  3. Is this the greatest con-job on the Senate since Roman times? Answer: Looks like it.
  1. It is my turn, PORK.
  2. Did Leland Ingham Keyser know Judge Kavanaugh? No.
  3. Did Leland Ingham Keyser’s lawyer tell the Senate Judiciary Committee that Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh, has no recollection of EVER being at a party or gathering where Judge Kavanaugh was present with or without Dr. Ford? Yes.
  4. Is there a letter of support from a dozen relatives, all on her husband’s side of the family? Yes.
  5. What does that letter do? It merely says they think she is honest. [But is she?]
  6. Again, did her parents and brothers sign the letter attesting to her honesty and integrity? NO. They are strangely absent from her Wikipedia bio.
  7. Did Dr. Ford try to reach old friends from school and college to “jog her memory?” Yes.
  8. Could any old friend from school or college “jog her memory?” No.
  9. Did Dr. Ford say and complain “I’ve been trying to forget this all my life, and now I’m supposed to remember every little detail?” Yes. [If even a small part of the bacchanal allegations against Dr. Ford is true, is it any wonder she is “trying to forget this all my life?”
  10. Is Dr. Ford a Democrat? Yes.
  11. Is Dr. Ford an anti-Trump marcher? Yes.
  12. Despite having not one corroborating witness, did Democrat Dr. Ford with help of Senator Feinstein and her cronies and staff push forward with her bombshell charge, contacting the Washington Post tip line and Democratic lawmakers, while hiring a Democratic activist lawyer recommended by Senator Feinstein and or her staff? Yes.
  1. Did Dr. Ford contend that her therapist took notes in 2012? Yes.
  2. Do those notes mention Judge Kavanaugh? No.
  3. Did Dr. Ford say there were “four boys” in the bedroom? Yes.
  4. Does Dr. Ford now say there were “two boys” in the bedroom? Yes.
  5. Do the therapist notes say Dr. Ford said she was in her “late teens?” Yes.
  6. Isn’t that a contradiction? Yes.
  7. Does Dr. Ford now say she may have been only 15? Yes.
  8. Does Dr. Ford shows up in the year book of Holton Arms, Class of 1984? Yes.
  9. Is there clear evidence that some if not many of the young women, Dr. Ford included, were far from saints during high school – that they in fact were over the top promiscuous? Yes.
  1. Did Dr. Ford tell the Washington Post she was upset when POTUS Trump won in 2016? Yes.
  2. Did Dr. Ford say she was upset with POTUS Trump because he mentioned Judge Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court pick? Yes.
  3. But wasn’t Judge Kavanaugh not added to POTUS Trump’s list of possible Supreme Court choices until November 2017, a full year later? Yes.
  4. Isn’t this another of Dr. Ford’s contradictions? Yes.
  5. After 36 years, has Dr. Ford remembered several very specific details? Yes. [Example – she says she only had “one drink.” Has any one of her “details” been corroborated? No.
  6. Did Dr. Ford claim Mark Judge was present? Yes.
  7. Did Mark Judge confirm that there was such a party? No. Mark Judge denies under penalty of perjury any recollection of attending such a party.
  8. Did Patrick “P.J.” Smyth deny any recollection of attending such a party under penalty of perjury? Yes.
  9. Did the Senate Committee take sworn statements “under penalty of perjury” from the persons Dr. Ford said attended the party and did those persons deny that there was such a party? Yes.
  10. Do all witnesses Dr. Ford “recalls” deny that there was such a party? Yes.
  11. Again, do the people Dr. Ford identified as attending the party, corroborate her story in any way? No.
  1. Is there even one corroborating witness who supports Dr. Ford’s story that there was such a party as she alleges? Answer. NO. Not one.
  2. Is Dr. Ford’s story a set of bare allegations with no corroborating witnesses? Yes.
  3. Does Dr. Ford list persons by name who were allegedly present at the party? Yes.
  4. Again, does any one of the persons she lists confirm that there even was such a party? Not one.
  5. Is it correct that even the woman alleged to be a friend denies that there was such a party? Yes.
  6. I repeat again, do the persons she lists deny that there was such a party? Yes. All of them.
  7. Again, has Dr. Ford told us who took her to the alleged party? No.
  8. Has Dr. Ford told us who took her home from the alleged party? No.
  9. Did her brothers serve as her party Uber drivers? A task for the FBI.
  10. Did Dr. Ford exhibit any emotion during her testimony? Little if any. She did lapse into her “little girl voice” and manifest strange behavioral mannerisms? Yes.
  11. Did Dr. Ford hold herself out to be a “psychologist” during her testimony? Yes.
  12. Did she use scientific jargon during her testimony as if to establish her credentials as a “psychologist” and her veracity? Yes.
  13. Is it true she is not a licensed “psychologist” and has no legal right in the state of California or any other state to call herself a psychologist? Yes.
  14. Is calling herself a psychologist a crime and the equivalent of a law student calling herself a lawyer when she has not passed the bar exam? Yes.
  15. Has anyone else said they assaulted Dr. Ford? Yes. Two men have said that they NOT BRETT KAVANAGH assaulted Dr. Ford. Have these threads been unraveled? We don’t know. Senators allegedly interviewed them. One for the FBI.
  1. Does Dr. Ford have a PhD? Yes.
  2. Is Dr. Ford a published science author? Yes.
  3. Is Dr. Ford a graduate of a major well respected university? Yes. Stanford.
  4. Does Dr. Ford teach at Stanford? Yes.
  5. Did Dr. Ford say she alone wrote the letter accusing Judge Kavanaugh? Yes.
  6. Did Dr. Ford use the phrase “1980’s” in her alleged letter? Yes.
  7. Is this a common grammatical error made by inexperienced or older writers? Yes.
  8. Why no apostrophe? Because it indicates possession.
  9. Does any PhD know that using “1980’s” makes no sense because to do so creates a possessive and 1980 cannot possess anything? Yes.
  10. Is the conclusion that the letter was not written by a PhD and was probably written by Senator Feinstein’s staffer or Senator Feinstein herself or a combination of staffer  or staffers and Senator Feinstein, with help from Dr. Ford perhaps? Yes.
  1. Did Dr. Ford capitalize the phrase “High School” in her letter? Yes.
  2. Why is high school not capitalized? Because high school is not a proper noun and so is not capitalized.
  3. Is it correct that the phrase “High School” is only capitalized when the full name of the high school is in question? Yes.
  4. So one conclusion again is that Dr. Ford did not write the letter? Yes.
  5. Who wrote it? Although Dr. Ford says she wrote the letter and was the only one who wrote the letter, something is amiss. This letter was not written by a PhD and was probably written by Senator Feinstein’s staffer(s) or Senator Feinstein or both. 
  1. Did Dr. Ford use the phrase “Both were 1-2 years older than me and other students at a local private school”? Yes.
  2. How should the sentence read? It should read: “Both were 1-2 years older than myself and other students at a local private school.”
  3. Again, who did write it? Answer: either Senator Feinstein or a poorly educated staff person with very little writing experience wrote this. A PhD did not write it.
  1. Did Dr. Ford use the phrase “I feared he may inadvertently kill me”? Yes.
  2. What is wrong with this construction? There is verb tense disagreement.
  3. How should it read? It should read “I feared he MIGHT inadvertently kill me.”
  4. Who wrote the letter? Again, the conclusion is the letter was written by someone other than Dr. Ford who claims status as a PhD, published science author, and has a graduate degree from Stanford, as well a teaching responsibility at Stanford.)
  1. Did Dr. Ford use the phrase “drunken” in her letter? Yes. She says “From across the room, a very drunken Judge said mixed words to Kavanaugh …”
  2. What difference does it make? The phrase should be “a very drunk Judge.” Answer: Only an inexperienced or old writer would use the phrase drunken.
  1. Did Mrs. Ford use the phrase “… Judge said mixed words …”? Yes.
  2. What difference does it make? “Mixed words” is a construct a non-native English speaker or very inexperienced old writer working a cover-up would write, not a highly trained PhD who went to Stanford.
  1. Did Dr. Ford use the phrase “the two scrapped with each other”? Yes.
  2. Do Americans say “scrapped?” No. Only a Non-native English or an old speaker would use the word “scrapped.” No one uses the word “scrapped” today. “Scrapped” is archaic. The word is “fought.”
  3. So who wrote the letter? Answer: Dr. Ford did not write this letter. A member of Senator Feinstein’s staff wrote it or Senator Feinstein is old enough to have written or edited it herself.
  1. Did Dr. Ford use the phrase “opportune moment” in her letter? Yes.
  2. What difference does it make? Answers: Low-level writers use sophisticated-sounding words that are “above their pay grade.” Or, someone who is old from an earlier generation might use that phrase. Senator Feinstein is 85 years old. “Opportune moment” and “the two scrapped” are phrases from her generation.
  3. Who wrote the letter? Answer: Only a low-level writer or an old person from Senator Feinstein’s generation would use either one of these phrases.
  1. Did Dr. Ford fail to capitalize the word “I”? Yes. She says “It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet i felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.” Again, the “i” is not capitalized. No PhD from Stanford would make such an error.
  2. So who did write it? Answer: A low-information blogger or activist is likely to make such an error or an old person like Senator Feinstein might let such go as a cover-up. Failure to capitalize “I” is common among younger writers in their twenties.
  1. Did Mrs. Ford use the phrase “yet i felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything”?  Yes.
  2. Isn’t that ok? No. This is a strange construct. The words “compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything” is poor sentence structure and shows lack of coherent thinking.”
  3. Who wrote it? This is a construct you might find in the writing of an uneducated, inexperienced writer or an old writer like Senator Feinstein who was trying to make the letter sound like she didn’t write it. Think about it. Dr. Ford has written many published science papers. This letter was not written by Dr. Ford.
  1. Shifting gears, did Dr. Ford say she is afraid to fly? Yes.
  2. Did she lie and use this excuse to delay the hearing? Yes.
  3. Was she caught in that lie during her testimony? Yes.
  4. Is there more? Yes.
  5. A close look at her letter says she is “vacationing in the mid-Atlantic until August 7th and will be in California after August 10th.” She is flying great distances for a vacation. Her online photos show her vacationing in Hawaii. Thus, the big lie. Take a vacation and she can fly anywhere. Called to testify and she is afraid of flying. She colluded with Senator Feinstein’s office and lied in order to help the democrats delay.
  1. So what is the bottom line? Conclusion: The letter was not written by Dr. Ford. It was written by Senator Feinstein or a staffer or a staffer and Senator Feinstein – perhaps with Dr. Ford’s help by telephone.
  1. Was the letter leaked? Yes.
  2. Who leaked it? Didn’t Senator Feinstein say that “she” did not do it? Yes.
  3. What is the effect of Senator Feinstein’s denial? Answer: She gave herself plausible deniability. The definition of PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY “is the effort by people (typically senior officials [in this situation Senator Feinstein] in a formal or informal chain of command) to deny knowledge of or responsibility for any damnable actions committed by others in their organizational hierarchy and this to establish a lack of evidence that can confirm their participation, even though they were responsible for the actions in question.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability#Overview)
  4. So who leaked the letter? Answer: Given Dr. Ford didn’t write the letter and it was written by Senator Feinstein and her staff colluding, and even if by some stretch of the imagination Dr. Ford did write the letter, one of Senator Feinstein’s staff leaked the letter. It is illogical and makes no sense whatsoever to suggest Dr. Ford or California cronies of Dr. Ford leaked the letter. Dr. Ford was the one who allegedly asked that the letter not be leaked. Then again, Dr. Ford may have said “Don’t leak the letter,” then leaked the letter herself. Given CIA connections and it is not hard to find that she knows how to beat a polygraph. To-date, Dr. Ford has been unwilling to provide the foundation documents for the alleged polygraph.
  1. Did Senator Feinstein dishonestly sit on the alleged letter throughout hearings and leak it contrary to Dr. Ford’s instructions and thereby obstruct justice? That is what the timeline and Dr. Ford’s testimony shows.
  2. Again, can Dr. Ford state where the alleged assault took place? No.
  3. Can Dr. Ford tell us who took her to the alleged party and who took her home? No. Probably one of her brothers.
  4. Is there even one corroborating witness in support of Dr. Ford’s testimony? No.
  5. Is Dr. Ford’s body language during the hearing when she goes into her little girl voice and ducks her head a dead demeanor giveaway indicating that she colluded with Senator Feinstein and her staff and perhaps even with the acquaintances she kept referring to with whom she says she had conversations? Looks like it. Who were those acquaintances? Her brother or brothers? Her father? CIA related? Her cronies with an objective of taking out POTUS Trump’s “conservative” recommendation for the Supreme Court Brett Kavanaugh? (One for the FBI.)
  1. Has Judge Kavanaugh denied all accusations by the different women who allege sexual misconduct? Yes – under threat of felony perjury.
  2. Does Judge Kavanaugh have impeccable personal and family credentials? Yes. Keep in mind he was vetted 6 times already by the FBI.
  3. Does Judge Kavanaugh have corroborating evidence that he was not at any such alleged party? Yes. Multiple witnesses Dr. Ford identified while at the same time Dr. Ford has no corroborating witness, not one.
  4. Does Judge Kavanaugh have a history of supporting women? Yes. In the law and otherwise.
  5. Does Judge Kavanaugh have an impeccable record as a jurist? Yes.
  6. Does Judge Kavanaugh have the knowledge, talent, background to sit on the Supreme Court and decide Supreme Court cases? Yes.
  7. Would Judge Kavanaugh adjudicate fairly? Yes. This is not supposition. This is fact. His track record, the cases he has adjudicated, demonstrate and prove his fairness.
  8. Do the Democrats have anything to fear in confirming Dr. Kavanaugh? No. At least they didn’t until they trashed his family and caused his wife and children to receive death threats.
  9. Does Judge Kavanaugh have one of the finest legal minds in the nation? Yes.
  10. Was Judge Kavanaugh forthright and emphatic in his testimony? Yes.
  11. Did he fully answer all questions? Yes.
  12. Again, does Judge Kavanaugh “unequivocably deny Dr. Ford’s allegations … under penalty of perjury?” Yes. Multiple times.
  13. Have the Democrats tried and convicted Judge Kavanaugh of sexual assault – even calling him an “out-and-out ‘rapist,” a “sexual predator,” a “child predator,” based on bald accusations, without any evidence – with no substantiation – with no corroborating witnesses? Yes.
  14. Are the Democrats’ allegations anything but bare allegations? No. There is no evidence against Judge Kavanaugh. To the contrary, all evidence is for Judge Kavanaugh and the evidence is now mounting overwhelmingly against Dr. Ford.
  1. Is Dr. Ford’s story credible? No. HER STORY HAS LITTLE OR NO CREDIBILITY. There are no corroborating witnesses supporting her story.
  2. Has Dr. Ford now raised approximately half million dollars off her story? Yes.
  3. Have the Democrats created this political and media confusion and “circus” to delay and possibly prevent Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation? Yes.
  4. Is this a Democrat and according to Judge Kavanaugh Clinton coordinated set-up? Yes.
  5. Did and does the Senate Committee have the complete authority “under penalty of perjury” to investigate and decide? Yes. Or, is there need for an FBI investigation? No there is no such need for an FBI investigation. Now that there is one, however, I predict that the democrats will rue the day they asked for one and their perfidy in trashing Judge Kavanaugh has turned the nation against them this fall and in 2020.
  6. As a consequence of the Democrats’ actions, has Judge Kavanaugh’s family received death threats? Yes.
  7. Does Judge Kavanaugh deserve to be confirmed a member of the U.S. Supreme Court? Yes.
  8. Why? Because there is no shred of evidence against him and the presumption of innocence applies and because there is no shred of evidence for Dr. Ford.
  9. Source for the letter analysis (paragraphs 58 thru 70) – Mike Adams who holds an interdisciplinary academic degree in technical writing, reporting on the supposed evidence against Brett Kavanaugh.  https://www.infowars.com/report-14-glaring-errors-highlighted-in-fords-letter-to-feinstein/
  10. See also Eight Big Problems for Christine Blasey Ford’s Story, https://nypost.com/2018/09/25/eight-big-problems-for-christine-blasey-fords-story/

BARREL & PORK AND BLOG POST(S)

(C)(TM) Copyright Linford Corporation

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *