Skip to comments.Thread by @KimStrassel: "1) More big breaking news, which further undercuts the Ford accusation
Posted on 09/22/2018 9:40:56 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
1) More big breaking news, which further undercuts the Ford accusation, as well as media handling of it. A source has given me the email that WaPo reporter Emma Brown sent to Mark Judge, one person Ford claims was at the party. This email is dated Sunday, Sept. 16, 2018....
7) So first, huge problem: This was just a week ago, and we have Ford giving two different accounts of who was present. Four boys. No, three boys, one girl. Either way, therapist notes from 2012 definitively say four boys, which Ford didn't dispute. But now... a girl!
8) Other problem: WaPo's reporting. Reporter has for a week had the names of those Ford listed as present. One is a woman. Yet it writes a story saying FOUR BOYS. Why? Maybe a mistake. But if so, why did WaPo never correct that narrative?
(Excerpt) Read more at threadreaderapp.com ...
It was an obvious hoax from the get-go and everyone knows it.
Agree & shes got some heavy hitter sources.
Uh... Er... Gee Kim, don't you realize they're communists yet?
At whose house did this “incident” supposedly take place?
I know Ms. Ford doesn’t remember, but it stands to reason that it didn’t take place at the homes of any of the four witnesses, right?
I’m wondering if we are missing a piece of her story. I mean, she’s not claiming that they were at a home where none of the owners/occupants were present, is she?
The Scalia clerk’s story makes the most sense—even if he did backpeddle. The owner was present—not Kavanaugh.
Nobody on the other side cares about any of this.
Interesting point. I'm guessing she's going to say she doesn't know whose house it was because she had been invited to a stranger's houseparty but went with several people she knew.
This is a good one. She says she was attacked and traumatized for life but she says there was a female friend of hers there (which has been unreported) and Ford has downplayed that because this friend wouldn't have noticed a supposedly traumatized friend fleeing a room as something notable?
Just doesn't work out. First, she's pre-emptively explaining why the only witness on the scene will not know anything happened. Which is fishy. And second, it doesn't even make sense that her demeanor after the event (if it went as she claimed) would be nonchalant enough that a friend would notice nothing amiss.
Ford probably thought her friend would lie for her, take one for the cause, so to speak.
The Scalia clerk is Ed Whelan. He didn’t backpedal at all. He simply apolpgized for bringing Garrett’s name into the story. I think that was all deliberate — and Garrett is cooperating with Whelan.
The whole thing, from Feinstein’s secreting the letter to Ford’s inconsistencies, argues that this was all a set up. Unbelievable that anyone of even a modicum of intelligence would buy into any of this.
And don’t be surprised if twitter nukes all of this!
Whelan didn't backpeddle. The apology was for the people he mentioned in his threads, that he didn't mean to make their names public.
But his theory stands.
And a small world that Kelser is Bob Beckel’s ex-wife.
For some reason, the snip tool doesn't work or I'd post the tweets here. I'd have to do some more digging.
Golly gee, perhaps her question was rhetorical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.