MIL-ED originally planned to conduct an objective nonpartisan professional examination and evaluation of the charges of sexual assault made against Judge Kavanaugh.   ARTICLE K-1

However, certain intervening events have made such an examination impossible. So, what we can do here is present bits and pieces that should be taken for consideration in formulating your own opinion/evaluation. This will be presented in a series of articles. This article is identified as K-1.

Three basic inputs should be reviewed as background to the evaluation:

1.  The presentation by Sen. Susan Collins.( Senator Collins speaks on her decision on how she will vote on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court)  https://www.facebook.com/susancollins/videos/535251660254069/

2.   The detailed evaluation report on  Prof. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony and other inputs by sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell [FROM: Rachel Mitchell, Nominations Investigative Counsel,United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, September 30, 2018 ,RE: Analysis of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s Allegations   .  Also  https://www.wsj.com/articles/this-case-is-even-weaker-than-that-1538433190?mod=mhp  ]  

3. Sen. Lindsey Graham on the FBI investigation into Kavanaugh   You Tube   https://youtu.be/eF_8yEmCRBw 

One difficulty that we have encountered is that a major proportion of information concerning Prof. Christine Blasey  Ford has mysteriously disappeared from the Internet and from other sources of information.

Examples include:

The yearbooks for Prof.  Blasey’s four years of attendance at Holton-arms school; [Some bits and pieces that had been previously extracted were salvaged. Cristina King posted in  the Holton-Arms  yearbook that   Christine had  crashed   her auto into her garage and had claimed that the garage had been moving at that time.  http://ltgjcmilopsg3.blogspot.com/2018/10/is-drblaseys-high-school-drug-use-and.html    ]  

Professional papers and speeches, authored and co-authored, relating to recovered memory syndrome, hypnosis, etc.

Work and professional titles utilized in Dr. Ford’s  current and prior employment such as "psychologist" have been eliminated and/or altered

Prior facebook and other social media pages and postings have been taken down

Another difficulty is that no formal complaint has ever been made by Mrs. Ford against Judge Kavanaugh.  The police authorities in Maryland publicly indicated, prior to the Senate Judiciary committee hearings, that they would currently accept such a  complaint if it were to be made. Then, the skilled investigation called for by Democrats  could take place.

It should be noted that Mrs. Ford publicly stated that she "feared rape" and that her assailant had "attempted to remove her clothing". She also publicly stated that her assailant appeared  too drunk to actually rape her. Also, she said that her assailant’s companion attempted to roll into them, failing  on this  first attempt and succeeding on his second attempt.Her accused  assailant and her assailants companion then proceeded to wrestle with each other on the floor—-indicating that any possible thoughts of rape had already disappeared from her assailant’s mind at that point of time. 

An investigator would probe into details. For example Mrs. Ford stated that her assailant tried to take off her clothes. And that when she tried to scream he put his hand over her mouth to quiet her. Questions would include whether her assailant used one hand or two hands. Whether she moved her head to try to break free. Whether her assailant ceased trying to remove her clothes in his efforts to silence her.

Mrs. Ford stated that her assailant and his companion turned up the music in their effort to drown out the noise. She also stated that her assailant and his companion followed her up the stairs when she went to the bathroom. Questions would include the source of the music-was it a radio in the room? Did the vacant bedroom. have  the radio on when she was allegedly shoved in there.  Who turned up the volume— the assailant or his companion.

Mrs. Ford stated that the assailants companion was dancing on the bed and laughing. She also stated that the assailants companion was very drunk. Dancing[ jumping up and down?]  on a bed and maintaining balance is a difficult feat when sober— when highly intoxicated, it is an even more difficult feat.

Mrs. Ford stated that she was wearing a one piece bathing suit under her clothing. She would be questioned as to the exact clothing she was wearing and whether it had front buttons such as a blouse.

All in all, a skilled investigator would cover this multitude of areas in a nonlinear fashion to see whether the account was fully consistent and believable. Many questions have been raised by various journalists.

 For example John  Nolte states:“ Christine Blasey Ford Brought No Evidence but Plenty of Contradictions” Christine Blasey Ford, the woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of attempting to sexually assault her in 1982 when they were both teenagers, sounded credible to a lot of people. Even those who want to see Kavanaugh confirmed are writing and talking about how credible she sounded, how real and raw.

At the risk of sounding callous — So what?

Now that we live in this Orwellian world where if you do not express the CorrectThink, your humanity is suspect, maybe people are saying this because that is what we are supposed to say. Well, all I know is that I did not find her at all credible — and I am not going to say anything different.

I certainly sympathized with Dr. Ford, and she did change my mind about one thing. I no longer believe she was part of a grand plan to destroy Kavanaugh. Rather, I do believe she wanted to remain anonymous, I do believe she is a victim of the Senate Democrats who re-victimized a woman who has already been damaged in some terrible way.

But was she a credible witness, believable…?

Not even close.

Even what Dr. Ford remembers doesn’t add up.

According to Dr. Ford: She attended a house party miles from her home. She had one beer. There were four or five other people at the party, including her best friend, Leland Ingham Keyser. Brett (Kavanaugh) and Mark (Judge) were already drunk and belligerent. She went upstairs to use the bathroom. Suddenly she was attacked from behind and shoved into a bedroom. Brett and Mark turned the music up so no one would hear her scream as they attempted to rape her. She got away. Locked herself in a bathroom. She waited until it was safe; until she heard Brett and Mark “ping pong” off the walls down the stairs. After it was safe, she ran down the stairs and left the house. She cannot remember who drove her to the party or how she got home.

• In a suburban home in Maryland there was no downstairs bathroom?

• She didn’t hear two very drunk and belligerent boys try to sneak up on her?

• Why was music already on in a room no one was using?

• Wouldn’t blasting the music ensure someone came upstairs to see what was going on, especially whoever’s house it was? This is completely counterintuitive to criminal behavior.

• After she locked herself in the bathroom, Brett and Mark didn’t try to get at her? Didn’t jiggle the doorknob? Didn’t try to claim they were kidding? All tuned up for a rape, they just gave up and went downstairs like nothing happened?

• She left without telling her best friend?

• She left without WARNING her friend there were two rapists in the house?

• No one asked why she was leaving or found it strange enough to ask her the following day why she just vanished from the party?

•

She can remember how many beers she had (one) but not whose house she was in, how she got home, the date, the place, how many people were there (sometimes it’s 4, or 5 or 6), or anything solid?

The only way her story adds up is if you are trying to weave the stuff of Kafka, where the accused cannot grab hold of something to clear himself, not even with an alibi because there is no where or when. In this respect, it is all a tad too neat.

As harrowing as her story is, upon close examination, nothing about it makes any sense.

Then we come to the most damaging elements, the facts and contradictions that actually do undermine Dr. Ford’s credibility:

• From A to Z she has aligned herself with the far-left. Look at the politicians and newspaper (Washington Post) she approached, the highly partisan lawyers she hired, and the talking points she parrots to stall Kavanaugh’s confirmation (afraid to fly, demanding an FBI investigation).

• She lied about her fear of flying. There is no question about this. In order to stall the Committee, her attorneys claimed the 1982 event had so damaged Dr. Ford she cannot be in confined spaces, most especially an airplane; so the hearing would have to wait a week. But now we know she flies all the time. Without being sarcastic, you can call her a world traveler. She travels the world for pleasure. Travel is her passion.

• There is no clean way to lay out exactly what happened, but there is no doubt Dr. Ford’s activist lawyers received the Committee’s offer to fly out to California to meet with Ford in private, and that Team Ford turned down this offer for mercenary reasons: to slow down the confirmation process (the number one goal of Democrats) and to avoid an in-depth interview of Dr. Ford by a skilled professional.

• Every single witness — Every. Single. One. — named by Ford refutes her testimony. Every person she named as being at that house party either says they remember no such thing or that it did not happen. One of those witnesses is her lifelong friend, Leland Ingham Keyser, which bring me to something that must be said…

• Again, I know I am not supposed to say this, but I thought Dr. Ford’s mask slipped more than a little when, during her Thursday testimony,  she dropped her lifelong friend in the grease and did so in front of the whole world. Ford basically called Keyser a liar who was too sickly and ill to bother to tell the truth.

• This may be a small thing, but a college professor with a PhD doesn’t know what “exculpatory” means?

• Dr. Ford’s polygraph is a joke. She was only asked two very broad questions about  a “statement”  —  Is any part of your statement false? Did you make up any part of your statement? — Because she will not supply video or audio of the polygraph session, how can we know what statement she was asked about? There were no specific questions about the actual event, Kavanaugh, or an attempted sexual assault. Polygraphs are sketchy enough, this one is a farce.

• Ford refuses to give the Committee her therapist’s notes, even after she showed them (or part of them) to the Washington Post. When your credibility is on the line, you hold nothing back.

And so…

How Christine Blasey Ford can sound credible to anyone interested in facts, consistency, corroboration, witness testimony, fairness, due process, the Constitution, or evidence is beyond my comprehension. 

Certain  inconsistencies in her testimony have been noted. Mrs. Ford claimed  that judge Kavanaugh's name surfaced during marital counseling in a dispute with her husband over the insulation of a  second front door on their residence as a result of her claustrophobia induced by the alleged assault. In fact, the building permit was for commercial use to permit tenants to occupy space and occurred several years before anyone mentioned judge Kavanaugh's name as a possible Supreme Court nominee.

 City Remodeling Permits Show Project She Linked To Kavanaugh Was In 2008 Not 2012.

Christine Blasey Ford told the US Senate Judiciary Committee that the memories of Brett Kavanaugh “first came up” when she went into counseling in 2012. In May 2012 Ford and her husband argued over her desire to add “a second front door” to their home. Ford told the committee on Thursday the desire for a second door was because Brett Kavanaugh made her “claustrophobic.”

But as Paul Sperry reported  the Palo Alto building permits were issued to Ford and her husband in 2008 — NOT 2012.

Then there are personal factors which would go into financial and political affiliations and prior counseling sessions where she would be explaining, for the record, her perceived difficulties and her belief as to their causation. 

 Her very deep involvement in and commitment to the abortion industry may provide an insight as to her actual emotional, financial, and political motivation..

Professor Ford’s extensive writings on abortion. According to Mary L. Davenport, M.D., Dr. Ford “has 21 articles listed in PubMed…six of them are on Mifepristone, the abortion pill.”    ACCUSER OF KAVANAUGH MAKES MONEY FROM RU-486 ABORTION PILLS - FROM DONNA GARNER - 9.20.18  http://www.educationviews.org/accuser-of-kavanaugh-makes-money-from-ru-486-abortion-pills/        “Nobody knows how Brett Kavanaugh would vote as a Supreme Court Justice on issues surrounding abortion.  However it is very likely that Christine Blasey Ford and the company for which she is a researcher (Corcept Therapeutics) do not want to take a chance. Kavanaugh might hurt their profits! Corcept Therapeutics manufactures and markets an abortion pill called “mifepristone” which is widely known as “RU-486.” 

 The article below written by Mike Adams is fully documented. Please make sure to look at the bios posted in the screen shot entitled “Consortium Core Faculty.”  This clearly shows that Christine Blasey, Ph.D. is a Director of Biostatistics at Corcept Therapeutics and is a current professor at Palo Alto University. Blasey is a paid researcher for an abortion pill company with a lot to lose if Kavanaugh is confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

.Her  actual psychological/psychiatric history.

Dr. Ford states that the emotional impact of her alleged encounter damaged her ability to function in her later days in high school and in the first part of her college career. The Holton-arms school yearbooks for all four years of Dr. Ford's attendance reflects a robust alcoholic fed party atmosphere. Further, Dr. Ford contributed enthusiastic endorsements and photographs documenting her joyous participation, including dates after the alleged attack. 

These yearbooks are contemporaneous evidence may potentially counter Dr. Ford's description of the impact on her of the alleged attack.[Excerpts and photocopies the pages featuring Dr. Ford and/or contemporaries are attached.[and/or linked]  #3 & #4 have  YB page photocopies

http://ltgjcmilopsg3.blogspot.com/2018/09/accuser.html

https://blacklivesreallymatter.blogspot.com/?view=classic

http://cultofthe1st.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-christine-blasey-fords-high-school_19.html?m=1http://

cultofthe1st.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-christine-blasey-fords-high-school_19.html?m=1]

Dr. Ford has received guidance in therapy sessions over the years. Among the significant questions would be what did she attribute the difficulties to in each of the guidance sessions. Concerning the marriage therapy guidance session that she reports? What notes did her therapist take that have not been publicly revealed?

 Does she have borderline personality disorder? Is she a sociopath, the type who can look directly in your eyes and lie through her teeth or pass any number of lie detector tests without blinking an eye?

Certainly, none of this was possible in a public hearing with the ground rules of alternating time for Republicans and Democrats.

The seventh FBI investigation of Justice Kavanaugh came out very well for Judge Kavanaugh. This will be the subject of a separate article.

There were five separate allegations of sexual misconduct against judge Kavanaugh

we will list  them in reverse order.

# Five was an anonymous letter with no return address sent to a democratic senator who released it to the media. Since there were no definitive details and no definitive complainer there could be no investigation by anyone.

# Four was a letter alleging that someone knew directly of an assault which they claimed had sexual abuse content. The person described in that letter publicly stated that during that entire period where she had been dating Judge Kavanaugh he had behaved as a perfect gentleman and nothing even remotely resembling the incident described had ever happened.

#  Three  was Julie Swetnick who is represented by attorney Michael Avenatti. Ms,  Swetnick is the basis for various democratic senators and media articles to call Judge Kavanaugh a "serial rapist". After making charges that Judge Kavanaugh spiked the punch to deliberately intoxicate girls so they could be raped, softened her charge to say she saw him near the punch bowl. After claiming she had been raped and possibly by Judge Kavanaugh at one of the parties she softened her charge to say that he had been in attendance at the party at which she had been raped.

The FBI apparently did not investigate the charges made by Michael Avenatti and Ms,  Swetnick.  Michael Avenatti and various Democratic senators and spokespeople claim that this is a blatant omission by the FBI.  Various media have attempted to investigate these charges. None can find any witnesses at all to parties which Michael Avenatti. and Ms,  Swetnick claim took place frequently and were  well-known. One journalist points out that Ms. Swetnick  was a college student at that time and it  would have been noted as  being very odd for her to be  attending these high school parties. Others have noted major discrepancies in her prior history. 

Since what Ms. Swetnick   claime happened to her is definitely a crime with a and identified victim ,  a known location and a specific time the police would entertain a criminal complaint. Thus, until Michael Avenatti and Ms,  Swetnick settle down to a specific narrative of accusation and file a police complaint, no competent investigation of the allegations can be undertaken.

#2 is Debra Ramirez,  a Yale  University fellow student of Judge Kavanaugh.  Debra Ramirez’ accusations, evidence, witnesses, prior and subsequent history, etc. will be discussed  in subsequent articles.  Jane Mayer,  one of the authors of the New Yorker article detailing Debra Ramirez’ refreshed memory account played a similar role in locating and outing  Anita Hill to play a dissenting role in the Justice Thomas confirmation hearings and has, over the years, published a series of articles demeaning Justice Thomas and justifying the testimony of Anita Hill.

#1 is Christine Blasey Ford.   The public image of Mrs. Ford based on the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings and the analytical report issued by Sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, also will be covered in future articles.

Of concern is the announced  Democratic Party playbook  announced well in advance of the first mention of Judge Kavanaugh's name.

Particularly disturbing are the public remarks made Sen. Charles Schumer and by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi[many months prior to the judge Kavanaugh nomination well before Judge Kavanaugh's name ever came into public mention]. The article describing Nancy Pelosi’s statement is reproduced below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=-qWSfLHND6Q

 Pelosi Explains How To Run a Successful Smear Campaign [One Year Before Kavanaugh]

Pelosi outlines  the  general strategy - “the wrap-up smear”—[used on  Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh ] one  year before it actually happened.

 Pelosi  the “wrap-up smear”….  “It’s a tactic. And it’s self-evident…You demonize — we call it the ‘wrap-up smear’—

It’s a diversionary tactic, It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy,

You smear somebody with falsehoods and all the rest, and then you merchandise it.

And then you (reporters) write it, and then they’ll say ‘See? It’s reported in the press that this, this, this and this,’

 so they have that validation that the press reported the smear, and then it’s called the ‘wrap-up smear.’

 Now I’m going to merchandise the press’s report on the smear that we made.

 Use by Democrats— Cillian Zeal: “

I’m neither claiming a) this was a conscious process from the beginning in the Kavanaugh case or b) that the original allegation or subsequent allegations was or were made with the intention of creating a “wrap-up smear.”

However, almost every detail of how this was handled politically by the Democrats certainly followed the playbook Pelosi accused the Republicans of following. After Dianne Feinstein held on to Christine Blasey Ford’s letter for months and refused to bring it up, it surfaced in the media after Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings were complete.

The Democrats were done talking qualifications at that point — that clearly hadn’t worked — so they glommed onto destroying Kavanaugh’s reputation and taking uncorroborated allegations as irrefutable evidence.