By Vivian Lee
September 29, 2018
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.