XPost: talk.rape, talk.politics.misc, soc.culture.usa
XPost: uk.legal

Speaking of Defamation, Ethics Villain Christine Blasey Ford Has
Resurfaced. Yecchh.
MARCH 20, 2024 / JACK MARSHALL


After embarrassing herself, a distinguished Supreme Court nominee and
Senate Democrats with her despicable late-hit testimony impugning the
character of now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Christine Blasey Ford was good
enough to disappear for five years. Unfortunately, that time was
apparently occupied with the process of cashing in. Her “memoir”—if collected dubious re-discovered memories can be fairly that, “One Way Back,” is out on Amazon and book stores.

Like Anita Hill before her,Ford was dredged up by unethical Democrats to
try to derail the Supreme Court nomination of a conservative jurist by a Republican President by an accusation of sexual misconduct that was
decades old and never reported at the time. Compared to Ford, however,
Hill was the epitome of rectitude. Ford’s tale, conveniently “recovered” in therapy, was more than thirty years old and involved an alleged
attack by Kavanaugh when he and she were both teenagers, at a party
nobody could place in locale and time (besides the year, 1983). Not one
witness claimed by Ford has confirmed her allegations. Kavanaugh denied
them.


Mark Judge, Kavanaugh’s friend whom Ford claimed saw the attack, has repeatedly said it never happened. Ford’s friend Leland Keyser, whom she claimed was at the mysterious party, has said she has no “confidence in
the story.” P.J. Smyth, a classmate of Kavanaugh’s whom Ford also said
was at the infamous party, also denies it. Nobody has stated that Ford
told them anything about the alleged attack after it occurred. Never
mind: the Senate hearing was during the peak of #MeToo mania: Ford is a
woman, so she had to be believed. Kavanaugh is a man, and worse, a conservative, a Republican, and nominated by that Satan in the White
House, Donald Trump. Of course she was telling the truth. Of course he
was an aspiring rapist. Of course an unconfirmed story about a
teenager’s misconduct should be sufficient to ding a judge, husband,
lawyer and father whose record as a professional and adult was beyond
reproach.

As I related at the time, a woman in a legal ethics class I was teaching literally freaked out on me mid-seminar because something I said
triggered an anti-Kavanaugh, anti-male, anti-Republican rant. She filed
an official complaint against me for stating, correctly, that if a male
client wanted a law firm to assign a male lawyer to his case, there was
nothing unethical about the firm complying with his wishes, and that it
would be unethical to force a female attorney on such a client in the
interests of diversity, equity and inclusion. I was forced to drop that information out of my course.


And thanks Christine!

Bite me.

Nonetheless, the New York Times handed off reviewing duties for
Christine Blasey Ford’s book to a synpathetic feminist writer who
reports on the thing as if it is historical fact rather than
uncorroborated, unreliable, politically-motivated hooey. (Note that the
claims of women who have accused Bill Clinton and Joe Biden of rape were immediately discounted by the same publication despite having more
markers of credibility.) Here are some samples from the rave review:

“Her lucid memoir, ‘One Way Back,'” Lucidity is irrelevant to reliability. “The Wizard of Oz” is lucid.
“Kavanaugh, seeking confirmation to the Supreme Court, less poetically
but “categorically and unequivocally” denied he had done any such thing, brandishing old calendars as an alibi.” Kavanaugh should not have had to
deal with such an old, irrelevant, and unconfirmed accusation at all.
“Blasey Ford’s new memoir, “One Way Back,” is an important entry into the public record — a lucid if belated retort to Senator Chuck
Grassley’s 414-page, maddening memo on the investigation.” It’s not an important entry into the public record if it cannot be corroborated and
is inherently unbelievable. Are uncorroborated claims that there was
another shooter on “the grassy knoll”important entries in the public record, or just dust thrown in the eyes of those who view that record?
“The assailant’s suffocating hand over her mouth, attempting to mute her screams, is one terrible detail that lingers; along with the bathing
suit under her clothes that impeded their forcible removal.” But those “details” are as alleged and undemonstrated as the accusation against Kavanaugh.
“Blasey Ford never wavers from her certainty that it was the young
Kavanaugh looming over her in that room, but she doesn’t seem hellbent
on bringing him down.” No, she just tried to derail his SCOTUS
nomination and smear him on national TV, then wrote a book repeating the
act.
“As she mulled going public, “If he’d come to me, really leveled with
me, and said, ‘I don’t remember this happening, but it might have, and I’m so sorry,’ it might have been a significant, therapeutic moment for survivors in general,” she writes. “I might have wobbled a bit. I might have thought, ‘You know, he was a jackass in high school, but now he’s not.’” What? Why would anyone say that to a person who appears after
decade to accuse him of a high school incident in order to derail a
career advancement? If I don’t remember doing something wrong, I’m not going to tell my accuser “I’m so sorry” or “I might have done it,” especially when I know a hostile media will spin that as a confession. “Blasey Ford suffered from her testimony…” Good. She should have suffered. It was an unethical and vicious act, with malign motives.
But to the New York Times, she’s heroic.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)