I can’t believe I’m once again writing about this nonsense regarding judge Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blazey-Ford. But the situation has become so convoluted and so chaotic that it’s taken the air out of most everything else political.
I’m trying not to become cynical, but the more we learn, or don’t learn, the more suspicious this and she becomes.
Let me say that I have no idea what happened, or didn’t. And the fact is, unless someone comes forward and confesses, it can never be determined that the incident, as she described, happened at all, much less that Kavanaugh was the attacker.
The only thing I am sure of is that this is the chaos the democrats hoped for and thrive on.
I’ve listened to many women call in to various programs over the past few days, describing, in vivid detail, what had happened to them many decades earlier. There is a common thread which runs through all these assault victims’ stories. They remember every detail – the who, the when, the what, the how, the where – everything.
Yet Ms. Blazey-Ford isn’t sure what year it was it, but thinks it was 1982. She doesn’t remember how she got home, but certainly remembers that she only had one beer … at the age of 15. She remembers the incident in detail, but can’t recall how she got home?
No one knows what happened that night, if anything. Both the accused, Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge, deny it ever took place.
If I were a cynic, I might be thinking about why she can’t recall how she made it home. A cynic would say that this is awfully convenient. If she were 15, she couldn’t drive herself home. This would mean that someone from the party took her, or she got another ride. This scenario would therefore inject yet another person into the mix.
A cynic would then conclude that the reason she can’t recall is that there was no “ride home.” For if there were, she would undoubtedly have been shaken by the experience and possibly confided to the driver what she had just endured.
A cynic would then further assume that Blazey-Ford would have to produce the name of her ride home, thus involving another “witness.” And if the incident did not occur, she would be stuck, not able to produce a name. So the only alternative is to conveniently forget how she got home.
She wrote the now infamous accusal letter on July 30, 2018. She claims she never intended for her name to go public.
This claim goes beyond just stretching incredulity. If true, this psychology professor, with a bachelors, masters and PhD in her field, is, as I’ve stated in a previous article, the dumbest smart person I’ve ever heard of.
You right a confidential letter to Senator Diane Feinstein, the ranking democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who is a leftist hack, bitterly opposes the Kavanaugh appointment and will do anything to see he isn’t confirmed. And this is the person you believe will see to it that you remain anonymous? How monumentally naïve can she be?
Forgive me for saying so, or even thinking it, but this woman has a PhD in psychology and can’t predict how something of this magnitude will likely play out? Please.
Correct if I’m wrong, but isn’t psychology the scientific study of the mind and behavior?
If I were a cynic, I would conclude that this stinks to high heaven and wreaks of … wait for it…collusion.
Sure glad I’m not a cynic.
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.