By Vivian Lee

September 29, 2018

Christine Blasey Ford takes the oath. Image: Getty Images.

The word of the moment is “credible.” Immediately after the Ford-Kavanaugh hearings ended on Thursday evening, The New York Times published several online editorials as to why we should “believe” Christine Blasey Ford and not Brett Kavanaugh. The lead editorial is still posted there: “Why Brett Kavanaugh Wasn’t Believable and Why Christine Blasey Ford Was.” This was echoed on the front-page of the print version on Friday, showing two huge photos side by side: a stoic-looking Ford with her right hand raised, next to an angry Kavanaugh who is meant to appear unhinged. As The Times notes:

What a study in contrasts: Where Christine Blasey Ford was calm and dignified, Brett Kavanaugh was volatile and belligerent; where she was eager to respond fully to every questioner, and kept worrying whether she was being “helpful” enough, he was openly contemptuous of several senators; most important, where she was credible and unshakable at every point in her testimony, he was at some points evasive, and some of his answers strained credulity.

Who cares about the truth of the matter? As everyone had been told, it was the “optics” that would be the deciding factor.
CNBC tells us Ford was credible because she was vulnerable, at times she “appeared visibly traumatized,” and she made direct eye contact, “showing that she had nothing to hide.” And, by the way, she was genuine. The Boston Globe reports that “Christine Blasey Ford Was More Credible.” This is because Kavanaugh’s defense “doesn’t ring true.”

Brett Kavanaugh testifies. Image: Associated Press.

Plus, Ford “doesn’t seem like a partisan schemer.” Then we hear from Slate that Ford was credible because she was trustworthy, she was honest, and because she was not really certain about all the answers she gave. In other words, although she could not substantiate any of her allegations with witness testimony or real data about the alleged event, this somehow acted to her advantage. She was credible because, well, she was credible. Even President Trump found her to be so.

By contrast, Kavanaugh was considered not credible, as supported by the various published images of him looking vicious, indignant, and, um, uncredible. He was “angry,” he went “full partisan,” and he lost it in a “toddler-worthy temper tantrum.” He even resorted to asserting his virginity in high school and for some years after. Not credible, sez Trevor Noah. Kavanaugh is “trying way too hard.” A team of pundits at MSNBC breaks it down:

We are told to “believe” Ford and not Kavanaugh by virtually all mainstream outlets, including the controlled opposition “alternative” media, The only exception to this snow job is Fox News, which clings to the antiquated idea that the accused may be telling the truth. Online sources, however, tell a different story. Is Ford credible? I don’t think so, and neither do many others who watched her testimony.

As Fellowship of the Minds points out, Ford is a 52-year-old professional with a BA in Psychology from the University of North Carolina (1988), a master’s degree (PsyM) in Clinical Psychology from Pepperdine University (1991), and a PhD in Educational Psychology from the University of Southern California (1996); in 2009 she earned another master’s degree (MEd) in Epidemiology from Stanford University. Wow – that’s impressive. Why is she not familiar with the details of a polygraph test and clueless about the meaning of the word “exculpatory”? Not to mention the fact that she supposedly did not know how to contact the US Senate.

Handwritten statement by Christine Blasey Ford, as used for her polygraph exam.

Efforts have been made to interpret Ford’s body language and handwriting. Analysis of her performance at the Senate hearings suggests that she was acting the part of a vulnerable, confused child, feigning nervousness, and playing the “terrified” victim. One does not need a professional analyst to spell this out – anyone paying attention will have noticed her discrepant behavior. Her handwriting is odd as well – with errors and strike-throughs – and traits that are said to indicate an addictive personality and lack of self esteem.
Not only that, her memory is rather poor for an academic.

Protesters on Capitol Hill on Monday. Image: Associated Press.

Most obviously, she does not remember when or where her alleged assault took place, or how she got to the party and home again, but that was a long time ago. However, she is also foggy on when she took the polygraph test, despite the fact that she had just come from her grandmother’s funeral – she either took the test on that very day or maybe it was the following day – just not sure. She didn’t know who paid for her polygraph test. And, by the way, she wasn’t sure if she gave the Washington Post her therapist’s notes. Are these memory lapses, or is she lying?

In a blatant lie, which was brought out in her questioning, Ford told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she was too afraid to fly east for the hearings, despite the fact that she has been flying all over the country – indeed the world – continually, as she had to admit. More important, is she lying about her allegations of assault? Is the attempted rape she has described, and from which she escaped, enough to traumatize her for the following 36 years – leaving her so claustrophobic that she needs a house with two front doors? Those who have actually been raped, and I am one of them, tend not to spend the rest of their lives paralyzed as “victims” but get on with things – in a way that Ford has oddly been unable to do. Except for somehow getting a BA, two master’s degrees, a PhD, holding several professional positions, and publishing widely – overcoming all odds no doubt.

Tied into this idea is the #MeToo movement, which insists we “believe” the victim, women, Ford, etc., because of course the victim is telling the truth. Scores of protesters have appeared in support of Ford, carrying banners reading “Believe Survivors” or wearing t-shirts and buttons with “Believe Women” and “I Believe Christine Blasey Ford,” while some write “I believe” on the palms of their hands, for some undiscernible reason. A victim of assault may indeed be telling the truth, but she may also be making a false accusation.

#MeToo has been hijacked and is now a “color revolution” – or perhaps it was from the start. Like the Arab Spring, the Rose/Tulip/Orange revolutions, and now the “Resist” movement in the USA, #MeToo is such an engineered campaign. So-called color revolutions worldwide are financed by deep state entities to stoke and capitalize on the distress of repressed populations (in this case, women) to create chaos through protest and divide-and-conquer tactics in order to advance the objectives of those at the top. The driving force behind color revolutions is now social media, and appropriately we have #BelieveChristine on twitter.

Graphic for #BelieveChristine. Image: Planned Parenthood.

The graphic meme is the raised hand with clenched fist, which has migrated from the Middle East and Eastern Europe to #DisruptJ20 for Trump’s inauguration – and on to #BelieveChristine. The special tactic of #MeToo is to take down those who have been accused but denied due process, pitting women against men and destroying the concept of innocence until proven guilty. This is the case with the orchestrated Ford accusations against Brett Kavanaugh.

Not coincidentally, Ford’s lawyer Debra Katz is a never-Trumper, a “Resist” protester who herself sports a shirt with the clenched fist of the color revolution. As learned in the hearings, Katz and her colleague Michael Bromwich are both working for Ford pro bono, and they paid for her polygraph test. We also learned that Senator Dianne Feinstein recommended the firm of Debra Katz to Ford as counsel. Just who has organized this massive effort? And who is paying for it? Bromwich resigned from his law firm in order to join Ford’s legal team. He recently represented Andrew McCabe after his firing by Jeff Sessions, helping raise money for McCabe’s legal fees from a crowdfunding campaign.

Speaking of which, Christine Ford now has several GoFundMe campaigns in progress, as alluded to in her testimony. As of this writing, these have raised over $700,000. As Ford has no legal fees, one wonders why she needs this financial support. To ascertain her credibility, perhaps one should follow the money – as researchers have done for the well-funded families of the “victims” at Sandy Hook and the various other “mass shootings.”

Vivian Lee is the nom-de-plume of a tenured professor at an east coast university.

Leave a Reply

18 thought on “Christine Blasey Ford: Not “Credible””
  1. I’m going to put a request in here, which is that commenters try to maintain a tone of civility and consideration towards the phenomena of sexual assault if not necessarily towards the person reporting it here.

    I notice that the author takes on a combatively skeptical tone towards Ford but seems to imply Ford’s lack of believability exists in some contrast to Kavanaugh.

    For the record, I traveled in very closely related circles (not directly personally but in terms of the environment) and can absolutely say Kavanaugh comes across as extremely likely to have committed such an act and similar type ones. I do not have any idea if he did this to Ford but tend to doubt it.

    I suspect that while he may not have assaulted Ford herself, that because he so certainly did some other girls or young women the party or parties possibly colluding to bring America this theater knew they could ‘win’ against him. Had Brett Kavanaugh not done these things to other girls he would not be facing what does seem to be some kind of psy op.

    I have much more to say on this topic but felt the need to put the brakes on what is coming across as a misogynistic interpretation of this drama. I personally will not dignify any debate about it without stating that Vivian Lee’s treatment seems extremely one-sided and myopic to me.

    1. And to add, ‘rape’ is a word that ceased to have any fixed meaning in the 1990’s, so I’d question anyone who begins a discussion with the assertion that her ‘rape’ is somehow assumed analogous to another woman’s.

      There really is no such thing.

  2. Scratch all this, I’m out. I think there is another essay on this topic that hopefully doesn’t reduce this blog to such amateur interrogation.

    Are you less than average attractive, Vivian, in any multitude of ways?

    Have you sought help for dealing with this problem(s)?

    Because that’s about what I get from this absurd tripe – a very jealous and petty woman who can’t compete positively.

    1. You miss my point, Sue. I am a life-long women’s rights advocate. The real and important issues that underlie #MeToo are being misappropriated to the detriment of the concerns of women, and the engineered Ford-Kavanaugh circus is part of it. We are told by the politicians and the MSM to “believe” any and all alleged victims, with allegations and “credibility” standing in for evidence; by design, the presumption of innocence has been tanked in the process.

      1. It’s not that I don’t agree that the foundations of #MeToo are extremely sketchy to say the least, it’s that you seem to assume Kavanaugh is somehow credible compared to Ford’s fairly obvious deceptiveness (like the fact that throughout her ‘tearing up’ comments she never once appeared to actually tear up, for one e.g.). And one motive for deception for sexual abuse and assault survivors is shame, before the whole country no less. So I find her inscrutable but largely hard to believe.

        Neither one makes a strong case for him or herself.

        If you read around you’ll find that the evidence strongly supports that he really did the kinds of things she’s claiming. Before he testified I knew he’d been *there* in the circle of guys doing god knows what, but after watching his spoiled rich (male) kid response to being questioned it was clear he’d actually raped in some capacity/molested or assaulted, as opposed to just stood around knowing. I say this as someone who literally studied, in person, these types of people in very closely related environments.

        The article also fails to address all the deep pockets backing Kavanaugh, and his history of molesting the Fourth Amendment, among other judicial overreaches of power. He’s been the most opaque candidate for SCOTUS in terms of releasing documents in recent history according to a legal analyst who watched all the hearings.

        They both stink. I think she has ties to Big Pharma that warrant auditing.

        My theory is that one side of some Deep State type of internecine war is going to win – probably Christine’s, whatever that one is.

        There is so much to say on the incredible complexity of sexual abuse and assault, especially when alcohol or drugs and era are added to the mix. But I feel like Kavanaugh’s guilt (generally) is so clear it’s not necessary for me personally to further contemplate it, although frank discussion of these dynamics might benefit society. And I am something of an expert, sadly.

        Last, I wouldn’t toss out all of #MeToo although its foundational motives are clearly suspect (like removing zionist liberal jews from positions of power in Hollywood, etc. etc. there are more…) I read Rose McGowan’s book and found it interesting for its insight into those gray areas that exist between civil and criminal assaults, among others.

        Anyway, I just don’t get the coddling of Kavanaugh and the ignoring of his connections.

        What if, Ford was some victim of childhood sexual abuse which then predisposed her to adolescent attacks? Early childhood abuse is the only type I studied (in friends and acquaintances) that seemed to block out memories until adulthood. Tween and early teen assaults didn’t follow that pattern in any girl/woman I encountered in a long journey of exposure to survivors, and it makes sense psychologically.

        What if she really is CIA and the above theory holds true – she was a victim of childhood sexual abuse who then becomes some sort of agent of the CIA in adulthood? She gets deployed to take down Kavanaugh for some faction within the government.

        The permutations are endless. She could be hiding in public hearing that she was drugged or hinting at it. Very little seems to explain the lack of memory around the supposed trauma.

        I can remember exactly what I had on at the tender age of only semi-pubescent 14, from my shoes to my sweater, jeans and outer jacket, even an undergarment. I couldn’t and didn’t name until early adulthood because it was the same era as Ford when there were no words for ‘acquaintance assault.’ But the clear memory was always there.

        So Ford’s whole story presents, just as she does, as bizarre and convenient with very small chance of somehow being legit, like maybe if they drugged her. But to not remember how she wound up with these two at all, when the experience ‘traumatized’ her so directly after, is tough to buy.

        Still, Kavanaugh’s rabbit hole is just as deep and dark and I for one am hoping he’ll be replaced by some more moderate justice. Some like Michael Moore think Trump is both preparing and being prepared/groomed to become a dictator. Kavanaugh’s judicial record of promoting a strong arm executive branch would suit such an agenda perfectly, for Trump or a replacement.

        Last for now, I don’t see how ‘innocent until proven guilty’ would apply to this situation. That’s a criminal justice threshold, not a civil one and this is more a job interview where there isn’t even an established threshold. It is precisely this notion that assailants enjoy such an unearned protection when civil institutions forced victims into their company that accounted for the vast numbers of assaults against targets who couldn’t begin to defend themselves or hide behind normal criminal justice-level boundaries.

    2. I am stunned.

      To think that in 2018, there are still women such as Sue, who resorts to insulting a female writer’s appearance instead of disagree on substance. How catty and shallow of you.

      Hey, Sue, how come you don’t ask a male writer “Are you less than average attractive in any multitude of ways?”

      1. Are you honestly suggesting that ‘the substance’ of sexual assault between teenagers isn’t almost inherently about physical and aesthetic appearance as a main element? Really?

        The reason I didn’t ask a male writer is because it was written, this attack against a female, by what I suspected is an insecure female. Just as you are clearly demonstrating major insecurity as a male.

        Gorsuch is a particularly attractive guy aesthetically, while this Kavanaugh was a much plainer type…not bad looking but nothing special. Ford’s picture from around the time has her looking way cuter. I could easily see Kavanaugh trying to force what he couldn’t accomplish on his merits, just as I suspect Gorsuch has no stories surrounding him in part because he had less trouble attracting more than his share of girls.

        Of course, there’s much more to these sorts of power dynamics than that, but pretending how we look (or looked) doesn’t matter in the mating game is completely absurd.

        Nice try.

        1. “Just as you are clearly demonstrating major insecurity as a male.”

          More gender-identity pop-psychology trash.
          Only those with no substantive arguments resort to gratuitous insults.

          To Dr. Tracy: Why do you allow your guest blogger to be insulted, and not even come to her defense? What purpose do Sue’s comments serve? Do you really think Sue’s mind can be changed by MHB?

          I’ve found that a useful guide to just about everything in life is the question, “What’s the point?” The question cuts to the quick, and how I answer that question illuminates what course of action I should undertake. JMHO.

        2. I’m afraid that “Sue’s” remarks are trollish, are not helpful or productive attempts at engagement, and simply appear to be a red herring to the matter at hand. I agree that if these are her sincerely held positions that it’s doubtful she will learn much at MHB. “Sue” has recently confronted me on Twitter as well, bizarrely accusing me of defending Blasey Ford because I’m Irish Catholic.

          The question as an editor becomes, how can a troll be identified and to what degree should trolling be censored?

        3. Dr. Tracy are you denying a. that sexaual assault doesn’t pivot on dynamics of power, and since its sexual thereby physical attractiveness and b. that the Irish catholics have not played a pivotal role in the scourge of sexual abuse of children in America and elsewhere?

          If bringing these issues to light and contributing money to your cause makes me some kind of troll I’m happy to leave this blog as its cause has clearly degenerated..

        4. Frankly I have no idea what you’re talking about. Myself and other readers, as evidenced in the comments here, have concluded that your remarks here and elsewhere are far
          beyond the pale of the matter at hand. This is classic troll behavior that seeks to divert what could be a productive discussion straight into the ditch.


        5. @Sue:

          You’re so stupid you don’t even realize that your identity-politics “explanations” for Vivian Lee, Dr. Eowyn and Dr. Tracy can turned against you.

          Using your “reasoning,” your beliefs and opinions on the Ford-Kavanaugh or any issue are due entirely to your gender (presumably female, but then just as “Dr. Eowyn” is not necessarily male, “Sue” may not be your real name), race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion (are you a Satanist?), etc. etc.

          Which means your beliefs and opinions are entirely subjective that, as such, merit no one’s consideration, as all of us are captives of our particular gender-race-religious-sexual identities, according to your twisted Cultural Marxist “reasoning”.

          In the end, yours is a radically subjective, relativist, and solipsistic nightmarish world. I feel sorry for you.

  3. Christine Blasey Ford clearly lied about her phobia about flying. And yet during Thursday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D) invoked “Once a liar, always a liar” (in Latin) against Judge Kavanaugh — the same Richard Blumenthal who lied about having served in Vietnam.

    The hypocrisy of Democrats is boundless.

  4. This is not a “freedom of speech” Constitutional purpose. MHB is a privately-owned blog and does not owe anyone the “right” to have their comments published, mine included.

    I own and edit a blog as well. The question I ask myself is “What purpose would be served by publishing comments that gratuitously insults a post’s author? What’s the point?”

    If it’s “diversity” of opinions you value, there’s plenty of Sue’s brand of “diversity” all over the Internet. But that doesn’t mean MHB or my blog has to publish them.

  5. I do not wish to lend credence to this whole matter because personally I am ashamed and embarrassed that our congress even brought this matter to formal hearing. Whatever screening or vetting process applicable in these cases seems to have been ignored by all.

    However, here is a balanced article that I think sheds proper understanding when legitimate cases of this kind are evaluated formally by congress or other legal venues.

    5 Signs You’re In The Midst Of A Moral Panic

    ByAshe Schow
    September 29, 2018
    98.4k view


    I personally have reservations about some of the underlying assumptions of the above article, but my reservations stem from my personal worldview. I see that our entire government and media for many decades has strongly suppressed even the questioning of any kind of any highly publicized alleged shooting or violent or traumatic event, sometimes referred to as “false flag” events, and there have been increasing negative ramifications for simple questioning of events.

    The other object of extreme suppression by the media and the corporate / CEO type power brokers is the subject of child and adult human trafficking, sexual abuse of children, satanic ritual abuse and sacrifice of children and adults, as well as the substantial record of these activities being associated with what we call our “elite.” I guess I will refrain from giving a link to an excellent short video on this subject because it is not directly related to the subject at hand.

    These are the two giant elephants in the living room of our culture and all of our foundational understandings of the principles of our Constitutional republic form of government.

  6. I am sorry I posted…

    Look closely when the journalist’s last name begins with Sch…

    5 Signs You’re In The Midst Of A Moral Panic

    ByAshe Schow
    September 29, 2018
    98.4k view

    This article was recommended by Styxhexenhammer666 a few days ago and at first glance I thought it was offering a side of the issue I had never heard before, but now I see that Styx is just another pagan disinfo / misinfo entity, regardless of his intelligent sounding rhetoric. No longer going to view “his” videos no matter you YouTube appears to push and steadfastly maintain and sustain his YT channel.

    Here is a good rebuttal of that “Satanic panic” theory and it refers to how the “child and family” state agencies and contract foster care companies are all covering up something so dark and evil that, of course, most will simply not want to know the truth about.

    A Call For An Uprising
    Published on Sep 29, 2018

    Mathew 18:6
    But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.

Leave a Reply