Connect with us

GAME OVER: Prosecutor Who Questioned Ford Drives Final Nail Into Her Coffin

Published

on

Well, Folks, it’s official. The Liberal Left will now become even more unhinged than normal.

The sex crime prosecutor who questioned Ford last week, Rachel Mitchell, laid out in a clear five-page memo for the Committee all the inconsistencies she actually found in Christine Blasey Ford’s story. Confirming that she would never bring charges against Judge Brett Kavanaugh based upon the evidence and testimony’s given.

Mitchell stated that this was “even weaker” than a “he said/she said” case. Because according to her expertise the witnesses, named by Ford, actually refute or don’t corroborate her case whatsoever.

Here is more on this via Chicks On The Right:

“Here are the problems detailed by Mitchell.
1. Ford isn’t consistent on when the assault ever occurred.

She varies, with multiple descriptions, telling the WaPo the “mid-1980s,” Feinstein “early 80s,” the polygraph statement “high school summer in early 80’s” with early then crossed out, the WaPo “summer of 1982.” Notes from a therapy session she provided the WaPo said “late teens” but she told the WaPo and the Committee she was 15. And she’s refused to turn over the therapy notes. While one might be unclear about a date, “Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year.”

2. She didn’t actually name Kavanaugh in the therapy notes in 2012 and 2013 and then the odd question where she says that “her husband recalls that she used the name.”

3. She testified that she told her husband that she had experienced a “sexual assault” before they were married. But she told the WaPo that she told him she had experienced “physical abuse” before they were married. She said she was referring to the same thing.

4. What she doesn’t remember are key details that could prove (or disprove) her claim.

She does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it.

Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.
Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.
She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.
She also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
Dr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she did not look like she had been attacked.
But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver.
Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.

But then she remembers small details that wouldn’t prove or disprove her case, such as that she had one beer and took no medications.

5. None of the people she alleged to be at the party have corroborated her claim or even that there was such a party.
Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, Patrick “PJ” Smyth, and her lifelong friend Leland Keyser (née Ingham). During the hearing she claimed there was another boy but she couldn’t recall the name.

Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.

6. Ford’s story about what happened has not been consistent.

In her letter to Feinstein, she said he heard Kavanaugh and Judge talking to other people at the party while she was hiding in the bathroom. But during testimony, she said she couldn’t hear them.

And she’s been inconsistent about describing who was at the party with multiple versions.

7. Ford had trouble recalling important recent actions relevant to making her claims.

She couldn’t recall if she showed her therapist’s notes to the WaPo (she did). And she refused to show the Committee the therapist’s notes.

She said she wanted it to remain confidential but she actually called the WaPo tipline before she told anyone else and despite saying that she had a “sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the president” she contacted her representative, not Feinstein first.

She said she couldn’t remember if she was recorded while she was taking the polygraph.

And she could not remember whether the polygraph occurred the same day as her grandmother’s funeral or the day after her grandmother’s funeral.

Mitchell also makes the point that it’s professionally wrong to administer a polygraph to someone grieving.

8. There are questions about her alleged psychological effect of the ‘assault.’

While claiming a fear of flying, she flies frequently for work and hobbies, she flies to the Mid-Atlantic and has flown to Hawaii, French Polynesia, and Costa Rica as well as to Washington, D.C. for the hearing.

It’s not clear that her attornies ever told her about Chairman Grassley’s offer to have people fly to California to interview her.

She doesn’t say that she had problems in the rest of high school while she says this contributed to issues in college.

She implied there were other issues that contributed to her symptoms but when asked about them, she wouldn’t list other issues, noting none was a “striking as” this.

9. The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account:”

As you can see her story doesn’t add up. No matter how much the left kicks, screams and throws tantrums her story just cannot be collaborated.

There is no doubt something happened to this woman, real or imaginary. But the fact is she has contradicted herself too much and she lied way too much although the left wing media tried to convince us that she was truthful and credible. I don’t know of one person who’s opinion she changed.

The biggest red flag in my book was the fact that she had issues flying but we later found out she was a frequent flyer who flies often for both business and pleasure. When asked about this she said she has no issue flying when it’s for vacation? What?

We know this woman can’t be all there, after all, she is or claims to be a psychologist which is pretty much a field that changes parameters depending on what far left social justice platform they care to support this month. But you would expect if she was going to make an accusation like that she would at least try to seem credible.

And let’s not forget the fact that her social media pages were scrubbed the moment the letter came out. Odd, don’t you agree?

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Trending Now on Right Wing News


Clinton IT aide created Gmail address to forward Hillary’s emails: report

Published

on

...

* By

Continue Reading

New York Times Editor: We’re Switching From Russia Collusion To ‘Trump Is Racist’

Published

on

The New York Times and others have repeatedly tried to take down President Trump with libelous statements on the Russian collusion front and have failed spectacularly every single time. Now, New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet has accidentally admitted that for two years his far-left newspaper was “built” around spreading a hoax. Oops. But it’s never too late to shift propaganda in this political war.

He was secretly recorded saying just that and it got out. Baquet also admitted the Times’ staff is loaded with left-wingers “who cheer us when we take on Donald Trump, but they jeer at us when we take on Joe Biden.” Do tell. I’m shocked I tell you. Simply shocked.

What is actually shocking is this recording comes by way of the leftist rag, Slate. They got their mitts on the recording of a company-wide meeting Baquet held with his staffers and it is an illuminating look at how leftist media utilizes and manipulates propaganda for political effect. Why Slate would let that out is puzzling, to say the least.

Baquet has now admitted that for two long years his leftist newspaper was “built” around the Russia Collusion Hoax: “It got trickier after [inaudible] … went from being a story about whether the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia and obstruction of justice to being a more head-on story about the president’s character. We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well.”

Truly well? Do you mean by lying and falsifying facts? They did that very well. There was not a shred of evidence that Trump colluded with Russia yet the NYT reported on it as fact for two years and in actuality, made stuff up to fit that narrative.

But the New York Times has seen the light, so to speak. The Russia collusion hoax hasn’t worked so now they are switching tactics… Trump is now a racist and everything will revolve around that lie: “Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story. I’d love your help with that. As Audra Burch said when I talked to her this weekend, this one is a story about what it means to be an American in 2019. It is a story that requires deep investigation into people who peddle hatred[.]”

The truth is that if Trump were actually a racist it would have come out decades ago. This is a last-ditch effort to besmirch a sitting president so a communist can take his place in the next election. It’s subversion and in my book… a form of treason.

You can still taste the salty leftist tears from being disappointed that Mueller did not take down Trump: “The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, two things happened. Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, “Holy shit, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.” And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we’re talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago. We’re a little tiny bit flat-footed. I mean, that’s what happens when a story looks a certain way for two years. Right?”

So, while the NYT, WaPo, and other lefty rags spewed lies and propaganda, outlets such as Breitbart, The Daily Wire, and The Daily Caller among others did real reporting and told the truth. For their efforts, a number of them have been banned on social media.

From Breitbart:

“Baquet pretty much spends the rest of the 90 minutes meeting fielding questions from individuals who are supposed to be professionals but who only want to know how they can call Trump and his supporters racists even more often.

“You see, according to the Times’ staff, everything is racist because everything really is racist.

“You probably think that whole “everything is racist” thing is me being sarcastic. Here’s a direct quote from a staffer [emphasis added]:

Hello, I have another question about racism. I’m wondering to what extent you think that the fact of racism and white supremacy being sort of the foundation of this country should play into our reporting. Just because it feels to me like it should be a starting point, you know? Like these conversations about what is racist, what isn’t racist. I just feel like racism is in everything. It should be considered in our science reporting, in our culture reporting, in our national reporting. And so, to me, it’s less about the individual instances of racism, and sort of how we’re thinking about racism and white supremacy as the foundation of all of the systems in the country.

“Good grief. What a dispiriting and not-at-all surprising look at the ignorant whack jobs in charge of our media — and in the case of the New York Times, not just the media, but what is considered the elite of the media elite. What are they obsessed with? What do these conspiracy-loons see everywhere in 2019 America…?

“Raaaaaaacism.

“Here we sit in the most tolerant, diverse country in the world just a few years after having twice elected a black president with the middle name “Hussein,” and the people in charge of the media are breaking down into pools of self-pity because they want to scream racist at us even more than they already have.

“And again, let’s not forget that the only way they can try to pretend America is racist is by way of massive hoaxes: the Very Fine People Hoax, the Covington Hoax, the George Zimmerman Is White Hoax, the Hands Up Don’t Shoot Hoax, the Jussie Smollett Hoax, and the countless hoax hate crimes they spread over and over and over again without scrutiny.”

Good grief is an understatement. The NYT does not cover real news anymore like the rising tide of anti-Semitism in this country. They are too busy protecting terrorists and radicals, while smearing the president and conservatives, to do their actual jobs.

The New York Times openly admits that anti-Jewish hate crimes don’t interest the Times because white supremacists are not behind them: “If anti-Semitism bypasses consideration as a serious problem in New York, it is to some extent because it refuses to conform to an easy narrative with a single ideological enemy. During the past 22 months, not one person caught or identified as the aggressor in an anti-Semitic hate crime has been associated with a far right-wing group, Mark Molinari, commanding officer of the police department’s Hate Crimes Task Force, told me.”

But young white males are domestic terrorists according to these people. Geez. Not communist Antifa or Black Lives Matter or the Nation of Islam or the Black Panthers… white boys are the ticket, y’all.

Since the media is out of Russian ammo and they detest Trump, they have to have another way of smearing him and throwing the race card is their final desperate move in this political dance. Nothing else has stuck to Teflon-Don. Look for them to cry ‘racism’ non-stop for the next two years in their latest contrived hoax against the president. But you won’t hear them cover actual racism because it does not fit their political narrative. It has to be Trump, Trump, Trump! or it’s not news.

The NYT is a peddler of hate. No wonder they had to stop publishing political cartoons because the editorial staff can’t recognize blatant anti-Semitism. These aren’t journalists anymore… they are Brown Shirts. They feel they’ll get away with calling Trump a racist. After all, they got away with the Russian crap for two years.

DONATE NOW TO BUILD THE WALL WITH BRIAN KOLFAGE, CLICK BELOW:

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Latest Articles

[ifform list="4174" submit="Subscribe"]

Send this to a friend