It's time for Christine Ballsy-Fraud to face the music too.
Go after her just like they are with Judy Monro-Leighton.
In case you don’t remember, both women accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault back in 2018 in order to try and keep him off the supreme court. (Yes I have modified the more prominent last name to make it more appropriate, and that’s what I always use for her.) Monro-Leighton has recanted her false claims, and in fact has admitted that she never even met Kavanaugh:
According to The Beltway Report, a letter written by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, made a criminal referral against Monro-Leighton, who admitted that she “just wanted to get attention.”
She also admitted that an anonymous letter she sent to then-Sen. Kamala Harris describing a graphic sexual assault by Kavanaugh and a friend was not written by her, despite her original claim of being “Jane Doe from Oceanside, California.”
“No, no, no. I did that as a way to grab attention,” Munro-Leighton explained when questioned by investigators of the Committee on the Judiciary. “I am not Jane Doe… but I did read Jane Doe’s letter. I read the transcript of the call to your committee… I saw it online. It was news.”
In her statements, she also clarified that she never met Judge Kavanaugh.
So now the question is will she be appropriately punished? And what about Christine Ballsy-Fraud??
The nearly 52 year old (at the time) woman who did the whole scared little girl routine on Capitol Hill, even though she was a college psychology professor who surely would have had many hours of speaking in front of large classes full of college students. Will she ever be punished for her lies???
At this link is the list shown below of contradictions in Ballsy-Fraud’s claims:
Blasey Ford's polygraph letter contradicts the letter she sent to Senator Dianne Feinstein: the polygraph letter states that "four boys and two girls" were present at the alleged party while the letter to Senator Feinstein states "me and four others" were present.[24]
Blasey Ford's second front door was not built in 2012 as she attests, but in 2008.
Blasey Ford's second front door was an office for a marriage counselor.[25]
Blasey Ford denied ever having discussions with anyone other than her attorneys about how to take a lie detector test.[26]
Blasey Ford's testimony contradicts the therapist's notes Ford provided the Washington Post: The therapist notes not only fail to mention Kavanaugh's name but state that she was assaulted by four students from an "elitist boy’s school." In her testimony, Ford testified that she was attacked by two boys.[27]
Blasey Ford's testimony on the timeline of the alleged attack conflicts with the text message she sent to the Washington Post and also the therapist notes: Summer of 1982 in her testimony; "mid-1980s" in the text message and also the therapist notes.[28]
Blasey Ford's testified that she has a fear of flying and stated: "I was hoping that they would come to me," referring to her Senate Committee testimony. It was later revealed that she flies all over the world for both business and vacations.[29]
Blasey Ford testified that she did not know nor did her attorneys tell her that Chairman Grassley offered to fly the Senate Committee to California to obtain her testimony, even though that fact was widely reported by the media for several days. [30]
Blasey Ford testified that she never helped anyone with a polygraph test and that she was afraid of confined spaces. A sworn declaration by an ex-boyfriend of Ford states that she had no problem living in a "very small" 500 square feet apartment with only one door and that she helped a "life-long best friend" prepare for a polygraph test in anticipation of interviews with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office.[31]
The sworn testimony of all witnesses to the alleged assault contradict Blasey Ford's testimony, including the testimony of a lifelong friend of Dr. Ford[32]. In addition, the FBI report of the seventh FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh states that 10 additional witnesses failed to corroborate Dr. Ford's testimony. [33]
Blasey Ford's attorney, Debra Katz, stated during remarks at the University of Baltimore’s 11th Feminist Legal Theory Conference, that Dr. Ford's motivation to accuse Justice Kavanaugh was her 'desire to tag Kavanaugh's reputation with an "asterisk" before he could start ruling on abortion-related cases.' This contradicts Dr. Ford's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee where she said she was coming forward out of a sense of "civic duty." [34]
Maybe the best point is what I put in bold, where even Ballsy-Fraud’s lifelong friend says it never happened, and none of the other witnesses even remember the supposed party where she claims it happened. Taking the list as a whole, and factoring in everything else, it’s absurd that this woman was even allowed to publicly comment and smear Brett Kavanaugh, let alone get the whole charade up on Capitol Hill in the hearing.
In case you forgot, there was mention of Ballsy-Fraud having “repressed memories” and/or false memories:
That is the possibility that Dr. Ford may have been misled by a sincere but false memory of something that never happened, perhaps created by her marital or individual psychotherapy.
At first blush this may seem far-fetched. But science has shown that implanted false memories are such a common phenomenon in human affairs – and have sent so many innocent people to prison -- that fairness to Judge Kavanaugh requires study of relevant portions of Dr. Ford’s therapists’ notes, and perhaps testimony.
So she was seeing her own shrink(s) for personal and marital issues. And of course she’s claiming publicly, for the first time ever, that she was sexually assaulted a full 36 years prior to the claim!
So back when this crap was going on I came up with a mental calculation of sorts to gauge whether someone was telling the truth about a crime. Here in the U.S. one of our well respected beliefs is that you are innocent until proven guilty. To me, this means that if you have no direct or indirect knowledge of the accused or the accuser, then you must assume that there is at least a 51% chance that the accuser is LYING, which is the minimum to presume that the accused is innocent.
To assume anything else is to be un-American. Ponder this and recall all of the idiotic comments even from Republicans like governor Kay Ivey on Roy Moore’s accusers “I have no reason to doubt the women”. That’s just an incredibly stupid comment about any accusation. Of course anyone with no direct knowledge ALWAYS HAS AMPLE REASON TO DOUBT THE ACCUSER. (Spineless people made those types of comments out of fear of left wing attack dogs.)
This is true regardless of the nature of the accusation, and the sex of the accuser is completely irrelevant. And women exaggerate and lie about men’s behavior all the time. They do so freely because they can be 99+% sure that nothing will happen to them if they do lie. Just like men lie to women to cover up infidelity. For women who might be offended by my comments, consider a false accusation against your own son, your father, your brother, or your husband. Maybe some of you have already had to deal with this horror. False claims of rape usually go completely unpunished, no matter how much evidence may be shown that it was a complete lie.
So now what sort of information would start to shift things one way or another in Kavanaugh’s case? (Of course if you are called for jury duty you should only consider what is presented at trial, but you or I sitting on a jury for a Kavanaugh crime is highly unlikely.) If Brett Kavanaugh had some previous sexual assault convictions, then of course that would shift us towards his being guilty. Yes I know he would not be a judge if that were the case, but I’m done with guilty side shifting hypotheticals anyway.
What about Ballsy-Fraud’s accusations and the chance she was lying?? The 51% she’s lying is if the accusation is fairly new and we know nothing else about her or Kavanaugh. If it’s an older event being claimed for the first time, that 51% lying chance goes up. If it’s 5 years old, for example, I’m wondering why the wait. So for me it’s got to be at least a 55% chance she’s lying at that point. At 10 years the wait is even harder to justify, so I’m already at about 60% to the lying side. You may disagree, but to be sure most law enforcement agencies will treat years long delayed accusations as less likely to be true.
What if it’s a bizarre and inexplicable 36 years?? Well now I’m at least 80% she’s lying. What if it just happens to be timed with Kavanaugh’s SCOTUS nomination after all those years, and the tactic perfectly matches a previous left wing method to smear Clarence Thomas to try and keep him off the court?? Well now I’m above 95% she’s lying. It’s just too convenient and too typical of how democrats act.
What if her lifelong friend says it didn’t happen, and in fact says Ballsy-Fraud’s attorney was pressuring her to lie, and everyone else Ballsy-Fraud claims was at the party says that it never happened??? Well now I’m at a 99.99% chance Ballsy-Fraud was lying. All of the info I have about Ballsy-Fraud and her accusation at this point says she’s a lying liar.
Throw in the repressed memory and/or false stuff and the other lies and I’m at 100% certainty that Ballsy-Fraud is lying through her teeth. I don’t even need to consider the horribly fake little schoolgirl act for the cameras, nor that Ballsy-Fraud almost certainly got paid royally for her lies to try and take down Kavanaugh. I know she’s a damn liar, and anyone else remotely honest knows she’s a liar too.
Change my mind.