Connect with us

Investigators Just Found Explosive Evidence INSIDE Ford’s Home Debunking Her Claims

Published

on

The left has held up Christine Blasey Ford as a paragon of virtue as opposed to Kavanaugh who they have painted as a boozing, sexually aggressive frat boy. Talk about twisting facts. In my opinion, Kavanaugh is the one with moral fortitude here and has led an exemplary life. He drank a few beers in high school and college. Who doesn’t? Ford on the other hand… let’s just say her credibility is seriously in doubt here.

An unlikely trigger for Ford is her house in Palo Alto, CA. According to her testimony:

“I had never told the details to anyone until May 2012, during a couple’s counseling session. The reason this came up in counseling is that my husband and I had completed a very extensive, very long remodel of our home and I insisted on a second front door, an idea that he and others disagreed with and could not understand. In explaining why I wanted a second front door, I began to describe the assault in detail.”

According to the PA Daily Post:

“Despite an online rumor to the contrary, a building permit from the city of Palo Alto does not contradict Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony regarding a second front door she had installed on her house.

“As the Post reported on Tuesday (Sept. 25), a 2008 building permit for the 753-square-foot expansion on Ford’s L-shaped, Eichler-style home includes plans for a new door on the master bedroom.

“The story mistakenly referred to the new bedroom door as a backdoor. Conservative pundit Paul Sperry tweeted about the second door on Thursday (Sept. 27), claiming the 2008 date of the permit “raises questions” about Ford’s testimony that the first time she told her husband that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her in high school was during a May 2012 conversation about their home remodel.

“According to the building permit, the Fords removed a home office attached to the garage, expanded the garage and added a master bedroom onto the front, with its own front door. The new bedroom’s front door opens onto the street, perpendicular to an adjacent front door on the great room.

“They now rent out the master bedroom with a private door to Google interns, Ford testified.

“The floor plan is dated Nov. 29, 2007, and received a plan check approval from the city on Jan. 28, 2008. Other documents were submitted for the renovation on Feb. 4, 2008.

“The Fords didn’t file any other building permits with the city until June 14, 2013, when they added a solar hot water system to their home.’”

But the dates and details of that second door seem to shift and change.

As Ford was questioned by Sen. Diane Feinstein, she described how she suffered horribly after the Kavanaugh attack years later that caused her to demand the second door. “Anxiety, phobia and PTSD-like symptoms are the types of things that I’ve been coping with,” Ford said. “More specially, claustrophobia, panic and that type of thing.” Ford was asked by Feinstein if that was the reason for the second door and she said yes, it was.

Originally, Ford wanted the door for aesthetic purposes. But the door did not add to the overall look of the house one way or another.

They bought the house on June 20, 2007. The “very extensive, very long remodel,” including the second front door, were completed under a building permit granted in 2008 as stated above.

One wonders naturally why, four years after the remodeling, which also added two rooms and a bathroom, is the installation of that second door still such a bone of contention between the couple that it was an issue in the counseling they were undergoing in May 2012? That’s when she says the door caused her to remember the Kavanaugh assault.

Ford went on to testify: “It — it now is a place to host Google interns. Because we live near Google, so we get to have — other students can live there.” So, it was probably pretty much a rental which is in violation of local zoning according to Real Clear Politics.

But that is not the only oddity here.

From Real Clear Politics:

“And that may answer another strange anomaly. Because since 1993, and through some listings even today, there was another tenant at what is now the Ford property. It is listed as this person’s residence from 1993 to July 2007, a week or so after she sold the house to the Fords.

“Her name is Dr. Sylvia Randall, and she listed this address for her California licensed practice of psychotherapy, including couples psychotherapy, until her move to Oregon in 2007.

“Currently she only practices in that state, where she also pursues her new career as a talented artist as well.

“But many existing directories still have Dr. Randall’s address listed at what is now the Ford residence.

“Which raises other questions. Why has Christine Ford never said a word about Dr. Randall? And why has she been evasive about the transcripts of her crucial 2012 therapy session, which she can’t seem to recall much about either? Did she provide them to the Washington Post, or did she just provide the therapist’s summary? Who was the psychologist?

“In a phone call, I asked Dr. Randall if she had sold her house to the Fords. She asked back how I had found out. I asked if she was the couples therapist who treated the Fords. She would not answer yes or no, replying, “I am a couples therapist.”

“So was the second door an escape for Christine Blasey Ford’s terrors or was documenting her terrors a ruse for sneaking a rental unit through tough local zoning ordinances? And if the second door allowed access and egress for the tenant of a second housing unit, rather than for the primary resident, how did the door’s existence ameliorate Ford’s professed claustrophobia?”

Those are very good questions that should be answered. There is evidence in the home of a rental and possibly a business. One thing is for sure here… Ford’s reasoning for the door and her sudden memory of an alleged sexual assault are more dubious by the hour.

 

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