Why did Christine Blasey Ford name all these people without knowing whether they'd corroborate her story?
1 2018-10-09 by 1cognoscere
Yes, I know. It's possible she was simply being honest. I have no reason to doubt that.
But wasn't it a strange tactic to list, by name, several individuals who were supposedly at this party without first contacting them to see if they'd corroborate? She named PJ Smyth, Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh, Chris Garret and Leland Keyser as all having been present at the party. Was there really a need to open up all these "liabilities" (that is, potential denials) just to blame Kavanaugh of assault?
It was the lack of corroboration that doomed her case, in the end. But that's all her (or her lawyers') fault for naming five people in the first place.
All she'd have had to do is name Mark Judge. I think, if this was her word vs. two men who were allegedly drunk at the time, she'd have "won."
45 comments
1 StrikePrice 2018-10-09
Personally, I think she believed what she was saying. Was it factual? 🤷🏿‍♀️
1 Pacinelp 2018-10-09
Yeah, the vocal fry was what convinced me. /s
1 1cognoscere 2018-10-09
I agree. If she had come across very confident, motherly, and professorial, I think this would have all gone down differently.
I'm not insulting her appearance, and she is who she is. That's fine, and you can't help it. But if she'd come across more like someone who's life wasn't really affected by this, rather than someone who claims Kavanaugh haunts her to this day, I think it would have been harder to criticize her testimony.
1 Amore33 2018-10-09
“Motherly”? Kinda sick dude
1 chadwickofwv 2018-10-09
I don't. I watched her testimony and everything about her body language and tone screamed deception.
1 StrikePrice 2018-10-09
Totally fair. In that case, do you think she was paid? Who would do that to themselves without a reason?
1 WhiteLamp2018 2018-10-09
Attack, attack, retract.
1 Tukarrs 2018-10-09
In her testimony she consistently corrected the record against her case, which is a very strange tactic if she was trying to convince people.
Contrast this with Brett who was evasive in many answers. He would filibuster with his achievements in highschool talking about how he was captain of the basketball team and how he loved going to church.
Maybe she just wanted to recount it to the best of her abilities, because she believed that stating her truth would ultimately result in justice.
If we want to view it conspiratorially, she could have fabricated a much better story. It seemed like the mainstream media and democrats were going all in with her stories anyway. It leads to the conclusion that her testimony must have been designed to fail. It was meant to cause further tribalization between the republicans and democrats. If everyone accepts that everything is partisan, it might be easier for elites to pass bills that benefit them under the radar.
1 Apersonofinterest666 2018-10-09
There’s no such thing as “her truth”.
There is THE truth and that’s it.
1 TheyGonHate 2018-10-09
I noticed they kept saying that.
1 aleister 2018-10-09
Best part is yet to come. They are coming after them and reclaiming their names. Rumor is Swetnick is about to leave the country.
1 DonnaGail 2018-10-09
Somehow this doesn't surprise me about Swetnick.
1 Xaviermgk 2018-10-09
And yet people will decry that there was no conspiracy to smear Kavanaugh. On the conspiracy subreddit.
1 DonnaGail 2018-10-09
Yes. It's sad that people can't see the truth. To me, the timing of the allegations said a lot.
1 Xaviermgk 2018-10-09
I've said it before, but Anita Hill and Ford both being university professors...a little suspect...
1 KnowledgeGoblin 2018-10-09
set up as a patsy .. she thought she was cozy .. she was used and dumped
1 toneii 2018-10-09
She was positioned to oppose Romney’s potential nomination of Kavanaugh, if Obama had lost in 2012. That’s why she named him to her therapist then.
1 kittyhistoryistrue 2018-10-09
It was never supposed to get that far. They were banking on Republicans pulling the nomination, and with any other president they would have been right.
No other president would have dared to disbelieve the woman or point out the holes in the story the way he did. Trump purposefully pushes the Overton Window foreward to allow weaker allies to say, "I wouldn't go that far but..."
1 Tukarrs 2018-10-09
Well, the only other president that could have been planning was Clinton and she would not have nominated Kavanaugh.
Are you saying that Christine Ford's supposed Masters did not foresee that Trump would stick with Kavanaugh even though Trump stuck with Roy Moore?
That the DNC is so good at secretly pulling the strings, but they still haven't adapted to Trump after 18 months?
You are saying that Christine Ford didn't need to make an airtight case even though it would have simply been omitting the other corroborating witnesses which was simpler.
She included facts that hurt her testimony. The only two reasons is either she is being truthful to a fault or she is intentionally sabotaging herself.
Or else if there's a liberal cabal they're clearly incompetent.
1 DRVSGGEOTUS 2018-10-09
Simpler than that.
They actually believe too much of their own propaganda against trump.
They've told so many lies they can't keep reality straight anymore.
1 japroct 2018-10-09
I think Ford was not a puppet being used to discredit Kavenaugh but rather to delay his confirmation for 6 months while another pointless, ineffective, full blown FBI investigation was performed on the witnesses and even creating side investigations resulting in at least a year's delay. The objective wasn't necessarily to get Kavenaugh made inelligable. It was to delay the entire process of getting a conservative judge on the supreme court. I think "they" were trying to get split decisions of the supreme court on cases that are scheduled in the very near future.
1 KiltedSith 2018-10-09
So the massive deep state that has taken control of the single most powerful entity in the known universe, the US government, is too incompetent to find 5 people capable of reciting roughly the same information?
You are suggesting that the collection of power mongers and business owners that managed to secretly take control of the cultural, economic and military leader of the world, are too fucking incompetent to organise a half a dozen people?
1 acmemetal 2018-10-09
Who's saying that the entirety of the "deep state" had to have been involved? Could just as well have simply been a few top level dems and a few crooked party lawyers.
And if she's telling the truth than why were her lawyers pressuring witnesses? Source: Wall St Journal Oct. 5
1 KiltedSith 2018-10-09
Absolutely! I made a huge assumption there. It was stupid on my part. But my point still kinda stands. These people are at the very top of their fields. Assuming they are incompetent is a poor answer to u/tukarrs points.
Because they were lawyers that had the potential to become insanely popular by getting a win in the public eye? Why assume conspiracy when greed is such a good answer?
1 whacko_jacko 2018-10-09
They never expected Trump to win. They had their playbook all ready to go under the assumption that they would be scheming for President Clinton rather than scheming against President Trump. That was their big mistake and they have been scrambling in desperation ever since.
1 KiltedSith 2018-10-09
And no one has managed to work out Trump doesn't give a shit about sexual assault claims yet? I mean its not like the Republicans ever cared in the first place, or even the Democrats in many situations!
1 whacko_jacko 2018-10-09
I think the Democrats were emboldened by their success with Roy Moore. Even after Trump actively campaigned against Moore in the primary election, they still kept the attacks going about Trump supporting him in the general. Nevermind the fact that he was unenthusiastic and basically just told voters the R seat is too important and they should vote for him anyway. But, they were successful. Even if Roy Moore really was a creep, it's impossible to know because the whole situation was tainted with partisan smear tactics.
They thought the same tricks would work again.
1 KiltedSith 2018-10-09
I did not know about that! I have some reading to do
1 acmemetal 2018-10-09
It's Trump's don't give a shit attitude that has pushed his opposition back on their heels. For so long they've been able to use political correctness to neuter the republicans they don't know what to do now.
1 DRVSGGEOTUS 2018-10-09
5 people THEY TRUST.
that's the key. they want to keep it all in the family.
why they used ford. who's brother works with peter strzok sister in law...
1 KiltedSith 2018-10-09
Then why not name no one? Say it happened at school, or in a library, or any other one of the thousands of possible places. Why come up with a shitty lie?
1 KiltedSith 2018-10-09
If it was faked, why wouldn't they just find 5 other people willing to lie? The logical answer is that it wasn't faked! Is it really so hard to believe that this guy did some bad shit when he was young?
1 acmemetal 2018-10-09
Then why was her legal team trying to pressure the witnesses to cooberate her story??
Source Wall St Journal
1 KiltedSith 2018-10-09
Because a win with the eyes of the world on them would massively increase their earning potential?
On another note its really cool that you provide a source!
1 FORKinmyDICK 2018-10-09
So lying for money? Or am I not understanding what that means? So they pressured people into making a statement so they could 'win' and make more money? If so that doesn't lend anything to any of therewith stories being credible.
And I'll go ahead and give the source for the other guy.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of-dr-ford-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-1538715152
1 1cognoscere 2018-10-09
No, that's not hard to believe. I'm just wondering...
1 KiltedSith 2018-10-09
What?
1 1cognoscere 2018-10-09
It's not hard to believe Kav did this, I mean. I'm just wondering why she brought up five names of five deniers when it wasn't necessary to have brought up any.
1 KiltedSith 2018-10-09
Because its what she honestly remembers? I get that there is always the potential for people to be liars but I don't understand the assumption in this case.
1 1cognoscere 2018-10-09
Say I was late to an exam because I got mugged by a classmate. And my professor doesn't believe my excuse.
So to "prove" my case, I name five people who I saw just seconds before it happened -- they were walking right next to me until about 10 seconds before I got mugged.
But I also know that these five people are all friends with the mugger and probably talk to him every so often, and I have no way of knowing whether they like me. They may even hate me, because of my beliefs.
Why would I take the risk of naming them as witnesses without knowing whether they'd corroborate? I'd start with one or two. If they denied, I'd quit talking about more witnesses and just say no one (else) saw -- it's my word against the mugger's. Not my word against six people's.
It's a tactical move designed to get people to believe the truth. It's not lying.
The 100% honest and open approach is to list everyone who I think may have seen. But if I want to win my case, I'm not going to list five friends of the mugger as "witnesses," especially if I don't believe they even actually saw the mugging happen, but might have heard something.
Just a thought experiment.
1 pablo_o_rourke 2018-10-09
They count on the claim being widely reported in the media (it was) and the denial is ignored (it was). This is how they’ve been operating for decades.
1 ftwtidder 2018-10-09
Leland Keyser and Mark Jude are both recovering addicts "they" thought "they" could manipulate Judge and Keyser into say or thinking it was true.
Yes Ford is lying and this was setup by the democrats.
1 parrhesiaJoe 2018-10-09
-- "simply being honest. I have no reason to doubt that."
Reeeeeeally?? You can't see ANY reason she might be lying?
The only fools in this case are those who claim they have any idea who is innocent and guilty. My best guess is still only a guess.
I can think of a dozen reasons why she might lie, and a dozen reasons why Kav would lie... and people are REALLY good liars.
1 parrhesiaJoe 2018-10-09
It was 30 years ago... no one remembers where they were, or who was there 30 years ago, unless it was a place something traumatic happened. You could name ME and I couldn't say for certain that I wasn't there.
If it's completely made up, it sounds more credible to a lot of people if you give random details. In fact, that's why you are making this post, so mission accomplished.
1 970mississippi 2018-10-09
SHE WOULDN'T HAVE WON ANYTHING BECAUSE SHE LIED, WAS USED AS A PAWN WILLINGLY, CONNECT HER DOTS TO BECOME A SINGLE LINE, HER TIES TO KILLARY, GOVT WOULD TELL ANYONE IT WAS A DEM AGENDA TO BE RID OF TRUMP AND ANYONE CONNECTED W HIM. NOTHING CHANGES WHEN LIES ARE TOLD, DAMAGE ALREADY DONE, LIVES RUINED.
1 Apersonofinterest666 2018-10-09
There’s no such thing as “her truth”.
There is THE truth and that’s it.
1 acmemetal 2018-10-09
Who's saying that the entirety of the "deep state" had to have been involved? Could just as well have simply been a few top level dems and a few crooked party lawyers.
And if she's telling the truth than why were her lawyers pressuring witnesses? Source: Wall St Journal Oct. 5
1 KiltedSith 2018-10-09
Because a win with the eyes of the world on them would massively increase their earning potential?
On another note its really cool that you provide a source!
1 DRVSGGEOTUS 2018-10-09
5 people THEY TRUST.
that's the key. they want to keep it all in the family.
why they used ford. who's brother works with peter strzok sister in law...