Assign a 'primary' menu

Bombs Begin to Drop on Ford and the Dems- Senate Attorney Releases Her Summary of Blasey Ford Testimony

You are here:
Home
Blog
Government conspiracy
Bombs Begin to Drop on Ford and the Dems- Senate Attorney Releases Her Summary of Blasey Ford Testimony

The questioning attorney for the Senate released her analysis of Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony on September 25, 2018 before the Senate. I have attached the report and just want to make a few comments on the summary and Blasey Ford. BTW as Stefan Molyneux points out in the video below, if we are to believe ALL woman, isn’t Rachel Mitchell a woman too? One with 25 years of experience in the field of sexual abuse. Shouldn’t we believe her too?

Below is the Stefan Molyneux coverage of the Rachel Mitchell report. Stefan does a level-headed job of fleshing out the memorandum if you prefer an audio-visual presentation of the facts in the video:

[youtube_advanced url=”https://youtu.be/wGBIMU__nmM” controls=”no” rel=”no” theme=”light”]http://bit.ly/2ukACda[/youtube_advanced]

On the summary side, Mitchell’s report pretty much blows Blasey Ford’s testimony credibility out of the water. There is more to add to that as we are discovering.

In the analysis, Rachel Mitchell first makes clear that while she is a registered Republican, her analysis is based on 25 years of legal experience and comes strictly from a legal perspective. She clearly states that:

I am not a political or partisan person.- Pt. 1 of Rachel Mitchell’s Memorandum on the Blasey Ford hearing

She also makes it clear that a Senate hearing is not a trial, but it was intended to make clear the truth of Dr. Ford’s testimony from her “legal world, not the political world.”

She additionally makes clear that a “he said- she said” case is “incredibly difficult to prove.” However she points out the following:

For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

Summary of Rachel’s Points

I do not want to reiterate the exact points that Rachel Mitchell used to confirm her conclusions as I have attached a pdf of her memorandum to this page. However, we can hit the high lights.

Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.
Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.
When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific.
Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question- details that could help corroborate her account.
Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend.
Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault. Her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.
Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.
Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.
The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account.

Rachel Mitchell finishes with a timeline with links to citations confirming the timeline statement which speaks to the last point.

My Conclusions on Blasey Ford At This Time

Some have been calling Blasey Ford a political pawn of the Democrats. While she serves the Democrats well, her participation in the take down of Brett Kavanaught also intersects with Dr. Ford’s career goals of supporting and profiting from the abortion industry.

As previously posted, she spent 6 years working as the manager of biostatistics for Corcept Therapeutics, a biotech firm that markets mifepristone, an abortion drug that has earned them hundreds of millions of $ which when coupled with misoprostal achieves a 95% effectiveness rate on inducing early stage abortions.

I believe that if this were pursued more deeply there would be connections to financial interests associated with Ford and the abortion industry.

Christine Blasey Ford- high school picture

Such a Sweetheart?

At any rate, even an ideological motivation would make sense in that Ford is strongly committed to the Pro-Death camp. One of the threats Brett Kavanaugh poses is to Roe v. Wade which Democrats and their operatives in the media have stated repeatedly.

I think Ford was more than a political pawn. She was a willing participant that had a dog in this hunt as well. A dog that points to the abortion industry.

Additionally, a body language analysis indicates that Blasey Ford was rehearsed and acting. She used what the analyzer called the “pretty pose” throughout the interview to engage and convince the audience of the veracity of her claims. She also played the wounded victim with that weak and tearful voice.

To me this is all fitting together into a willing conspiracy in which Ford was a willing participant with some ideological and personal gain in mind as well. Here are my musings on Ford so far but I think the floodgates are just beginning to open on this.

That’s my take on it at this point in time. The background on this case is flying around at lightening speed at present it seems. This is subject to change and likely will as this unfolds.

Rachel Mitchell Analysis on Scribd