Blasey Ford’s Curious Omission

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke10/1/18
There was something curiously missing from Professor Christine Blasey Ford’s Thursday Senate testimony, something quite relevant to her basic claims. Please consider the following segment from her testimony about the alleged (circa) 1982 sexual assault by SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh:

Both Brett and Mark [Judge] were drunkenly laughing during the attack. …During this assault, Mark came over and jumped on the bed twice while Brett was on top of me. And the last time that he did this, we toppled over and Brett was no longer on top of me. I was able to get up and run out of the room.

Now please read the corresponding segment from her original letter, sent months ago to Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.):

Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with Judge. …At one point when Judge jumped onto the bed, the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other.

After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom.

What jumps out at you? “[T]he two scrapped with each other.” “Scrapped.”

I related this aspect of Ford’s story to a woman close to me at a Saturday affair and asked, “What does that tell you?”

She responded, “That they weren’t that interested in her.”

Now, don’t misunderstand me. The incident Ford describes would be sexual misconduct and surely morally wrong. But assuming it happened — and let’s for argument’s sake say that Ford was assaulted by a boy (whether Kavanaugh or someone else) in the manner she describes — it’s quite understandable why she omitted mention of the scrapping from her Senate testimony.

It severely weakens her case.

Question: Would a boy intent upon raping a girl begin scrapping with a friend in the midst of passionate attack?

Were I to take Ford’s Senate testimony at face value, I’d have to say that, yes, probability dictates it very well could have been an attempted rape. But reading her original letter, I’d say that the incident sounds like something else: drunken high-school hijinks where two guys did, admittedly, cross a serious line — but not one on whose far side lies rape. That’s how significant the “scrapping” omission is.

To reiterate, the boys’ alleged actions would be wrong regardless. The point, however, is that there’s a lot of moral real estate between inappropriate, alcohol-fueled, sexually aggressive physicality and the heinous crime of rape.

Based on Ford’s original letter, a very logical interpretation of the alleged incident is that it did in fact involve drunken horseplay gone wrong. Note that boys are very physical (which is why they wrestle with each other so much); even more so when they’re inebriated. So the boys in question, inhibitions released by booze, slip into testosterone-goofing mode. This is evidenced by their hysterical laughter. One of them then gets inappropriately physical with Ford before they get physical with each other — they were getting physical, period.

The only difference is that since Ford was a girl and teen boys have sky-high libidos, the drunken horseplay with her assumed a sexual tone.

Of course, again, this is just an interpretation. But it’s one strongly suggested by the boys’ laughing and scrapping.

Ford and her handlers surely agree, too, more or less. Why else would they have omitted mention of the scrapping from the Senate testimony? After all, the professor doesn’t remember much from that allegedly known incident in that unknown house in that unknown neighborhood in that uncertain year. But that the boys “scrapped” is something that, her original letter informs, she did recall.

It’s entirely implausible that the omission could have been a mere oversight. Remember that Ford’s testimony was written out, and she, her lawyer and perhaps even some handlers undoubtedly scoured it with a fine-tooth comb. They wanted to maximize its impact and ensure she didn’t perjure herself. The only reasonable explanation is that they purposely, tactically omitted part of the story.

There would only be a strong case that Kavanaugh (again, assuming it happened and he was the perpetrator) was attempting rape if the scrapping were the result of white-knight intervention by Judge. But Ford never even implied that this was a possibility. Rather, she painted a horseplay scenario, where Judge twice jumped on the bed, with the second leap resulting in a toppling of all three.

Of course, Ford could also claim that, on second thought, she wasn’t sure if the boys actually did scrap. But then we’d have to ask: If she imagined that, what else did she imagine?

Ford’s Senate omission was strikingly significant, and Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, who questioned both the professor and Kavanaugh, should have asked about it. After all, attempting to commit the heinous crime of rape, even as an older minor, would certainly reflect damningly upon a person’s character. But it would be completely unfair to epitomize a man’s whole life based on one incident of lewd, aggressive, drunken high-school horseplay.

So Professor Christine Ford didn’t reveal anything new in her Thursday testimony — except, perhaps, in what she failed to say.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to • (177 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Blasey Ford’s Curious Omission

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    There are a lot of holes in false accuser Ford’s testimony, which is why Mitchell, in her report, said the claims were even weaker than a “he said, she said” situation. And this leaves out a lot of holes Mitchell didn’t mention. For example, how did she get home (and how did whoever took her home not notice her state)? Did she warn her close friend who was still at the party (and all alone with some aggressive, randy boys if the false accuser were reporting accurately) about what might happen?

    And then there is her (or her alethephobic — thank you, Joe Pouchy, for introducing me to this useful word referring to a morbid fear of truth — dirty political tricks team) lying about her fear of flying (which Mitchell exposed in the hearing). There is her apparent ignorance of Grassley’s offer to question her at her home (if the false accuser is telling the truth, her political dirty tricks team grossly violated legal ethics, and even the law, by not telling her).

    Mitchell also pointed out the various contradictions in her shifting story. None of this ever came up, at least in the sense of an accusation, in the hearing, but we all know what would have happened then — false accuser Ford would have started crying about how mean they were to her, with the fork-tongued devils as her amen chorus. I hope Jeff the Flake, Lisa Murkybrain, and Curly Sue Collins read and absorb the report, though now that the worthless Flake has chosen to do the full Kasich it will probably do little good in his case.

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    In this situation, the accuser should be considered incredible until proven credible. There’s that old saying: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Bork. Thomas. (And others I forget). And now this. Not credible at all. Should be dismissed out-of-hand unless she has video.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Well, there would be no video from 1982 (or whenever). But there could have been some sort of corroboration, and there isn’t. But the reason we have all these hearings and investigations is that the GOP needs at least one more vote than it reliably has. If they all demand something, they get it.

      Incidentally, there are reports that the FBI (which really got moving immediately on this investigation) may be done today (much as with Anita Hill’s false accusation, which they investigated in 3 days). This will give the Demagogues a chance to keep their word.

      Okay, you can all stop laughing now.

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Everything that allows the triumph of the revolution is moral, and everything that stands in its way is immoral.

    Psychopathic Nihilist Revolutionary, Sergei Nechayev 1871

    This clearly delineates the left’s moral and political philosophy.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      More or less the same thing as what Arthur Koestler called “thinking dialectically” in his entry in The God That Failed.

      The FBI may be done with this investigation today, but of course the Demagogues will complain, and so will their sock puppet Jeff the Flake (Worthless-Himself). We’ll have to see if Murkybrain, Curly Sue, and the handful of theoretically reachable Demagogues agree with His Jelliness.

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    It’s interesting that “feminism” is still about tears and victimhood. Self-empowerment is only true to the extent that they de-power someone else…such as this attempted lynching. A big girl would get over someone touching their butt in the 5th grade (or whatever the current charges are by the “MeToo” movement zealots).

    This isn’t a he-said, she-said issue. Anyone with half a brain should suspect a set-up….aka that Ford is lying for the cause. This should be the default position. This is about the Left and Democrats willing to do anything up to the point of murder to advance their cause.

    Republicans don’t fight back because they have accepted the basic premises of feminism and most of the social agenda of the Left. I’m not even sure what voting Republican (state, local, or Federal) means. That’s not hyperbole. Their agenda is about spending more money and making more laws for their chosen causes. And although I can appreciate that Trump, for instance, is aiming the flow of money and power at more worthy things (such as building pipelines rather than Solyndras), there is little thought to the size of the pipe itself.

    I certainly want a Supreme Court Justice in there who interprets law according to the idea that words mean things and doesn’t treat the Constitution and law as an Ouija board. And this is the one and only matter of this conflict. It’s not about Kavanaugh having supposedly set kittens on fire and dipping little Cyndi’s pigtails in the inkwell. This is about someone standing in the way of a basically Communist utopian cult of increasingly zealous and unhinged adherents.

    I think our side loses when we parse one word to the extent that Selwyn does. I’m not buying it. This is missing the overall. Of course Ford is lying. She is the equivalent of a Christian martyr of old. She’s taking one for the team and knows she will be an instant hero and celebrity for doing so. There is no down side other than the struggle to fake tears and make her story seem real. But then I’m sure she’s practiced this in front of the mirror and had extensive help from handlers. And clearly those who have watched these hearings objectively have noted how this supposedly robust and accomplished woman has taken on the persona of a child’s voice in her testimony in a clear attempt to add to her sense of victimhood.

    It’s all bizarre theatre, a show trial in the grandest Soviet tradition but (so far) without the firing squads that come in the end. Anyone who calls themselves a “Progressive” and thinks he or she is on the “right side of history” needs to take a look in the mirror. They are on the side of a cause that killed 100 million people last century, a cause so sure of its righteousness and its vision that any offense to others was justified.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I think our side loses when we parse one word to the extent that Selwyn does. I’m not buying it. This is missing the overall. Of course Ford is lying.

      I don’t care if she is lying or not, as we cannot know one way or the other. This supposedly took place 36 years ago and the woman has no corroborating support. In fact, those she claims were there say that it is not the case.

      Only in a dishonest society could such rubbish be used against anyone, much less a man who has led an exemplary life.

      The damage the Dims and idiot Reps like Grassley and Flake have done to our country is enormous.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        The Demagogue lawyer who cleared Keith Ellison of Karen Monahan’s accusation (as everyone knew would happen) said that a single accusation (though actually there’s another, older one that wasn’t brought up) without support wasn’t enough. Someone should ask Amy Klobuchar (the closest thing to a human among Judiciary Demagogues last week) if she agrees with that, since it takes away the case against Kavanaugh.

        Oh, wait, Kavanaugh was irate at being smeared and labeled (as well as his supporters) as evil, so he’s also a belligerent rapist (at least by leftist illogic). And he threw ice at someone in a barroom brawl (the New York Slimes reported that one today). And he knew false accuser Ramirez was up to something (from mutual friends who informed him what she was asking them about, though he didn’t know the details).

        If those last two are the best they can come up with now, he should be safe. If Jeff the Flake, Murkybrain, and Curly Sue don’t all duck and run, that is. They only need one more vote.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I think our side loses when we parse one word to the extent that Selwyn does.

      It is worse than that. We should not even engage in most of the themes the left invent. They shape the narrative, which is inevitably false. We should stick to the basic facts and not get drawn into their web of fiction and lies.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I agree, Mr. Kung, that we (particularly politicians) shouldn’t accept the premises of the Left. Not to do so takes courage and a certain amount of intellectual acumen. These seem to be in short supply in the GOP (and just about everywhere else).

        Don’t get drawn into the faction and lies indeed.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:


          Let me give you an idea of how out of touch even “reasonable” leftists are.

          I just finished a book titled “The Last Days of Stalin” by Joshua Rubenstein. This guy is an academic and was an “organizer and regional director for Amnesty International USA for thirty-seven years.” This should give a good indication of his leanings.

          In commenting on how the USA reacted to Stalin’s death, Rubenstein writes,

          For Foster Dulles, Soviet concessions were a moral challenge to resist rather that an opportunity to explore. How else can we understand his apocalyptic warning to Eisenhower on May 8 when he insisted that

          “the existing threat posed by the Soviets to the Western World is the most terrible and fundamental in the latter’s 1000 years of domination. This threat differs in quality from the threat of Napoleon or Hitler. It is like the invasion by Islam in the tenth century. Now the clear issue is: can western civilization survive?…The present course we are following is a fatal one for us and the free world.”

          Perhaps Foster Dulles sincerely believed his own rhetoric, what the Cold War historian John Lewis Gaddis called his “penchant for overstatement.”

          Please let me know where Foster Dulles was wrong.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            I recall that my US history text in high school was equally scathing about Dulles. We also had Arthur Schlesinger’s The Age of Jackson as separate reading. I think I was the only one who completed it, and it was quite a struggle. Unfortunately, this meant that when I won the Outstanding Student Award for American history that year, the book I received was another Schlesinger work.

            Oddly, the teacher himself (who was also the baseball coach, having previously starred for the team) was rather conservative. I have no idea how much, if any, control he had over the texts.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      And clearly those who have watched these hearings objectively have noted how this supposedly robust and accomplished woman has taken on the persona of a child’s voice in her testimony in a clear attempt to add to her sense of victimhood.

      Another thing about Dr. Fraud’s presentation which I found contrived was her glasses. They gave a Mrs. Magoo-like look. I feel certain this was intentional. She looked much harder without the glasses. Have a look at how hard her eyes look without the glasses.

  5. Timothy Lane says:

    The American Criminal Liberties Union is running an ad basically proclaiming Judge Kavanaugh guilty by association. They show Billy the Goat and Bill Cosby denying their accusations, and then Kavanaugh doing so. Implicitly, this organization that actually used to support civil liberties is saying that denial of the charges is proof of guilt (they supply no actual evidence against him). Or, perhaps, since such denial can be assumed when someone is accused, that accusation proves guilt.

    They certainly no longer believe in due process. At least for conservatives.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      The ACLU was started by leftists and has continued in the same strain. If anything, it is worse today than every before. That should be no surprise given their present head.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Alan Dershowitz was just complaining about their reversal tonight on Hannity.

        Incidentally, Chris Coons forwarded another accusation against Kavanaugh to Grassley, who actually responded appropriately. It seems that during Kavanaugh’s first year in law scool, there was a very bad drinking party at his undergraduate fraternity. The letter didn’t claim Kavanaugh was there, but he had been at that frat the year before, so he must be guilty. The link is:

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          If this report is true, things are looking bad for Dr. Fraud. It would appear her story is unraveling and she has committed perjury.

          I suspect there is more to come.

          I suggest the Reps call a vote on Kavanaugh and press hard for his confirmation.

          Wait until the November elections are over and demand Dr. Fraud come before the Judiciary Committee again for questioning with all the documents they request.

          If she has lied then turn the case over to a grand jury for indictment.

          Wash and rinse and do the same thing for her “lawyers” and anyone else who has lied or committed a crime in this case.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Sleazy Pornstar Lawyer and his client definitely deserve a grand jury investigation of possible perjury. And false accuser Ford’s political dirty tricks team should face the same grand jury. Since she clearly seems to have lied about her pretended fear of flying, Mayella Ford should also face that grand jury.

  6. The musings above are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Christine Crazy Ford’s original account of her ordeal.

    It couldn’t be more obvious that Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge were wholly disinterested in sex.

    They were clearly early-stage scrapbookers who were captured by this fascinating hobby decades before the current rage.

    Although they occasionally took time out for roughhousing, nothing could dissuade them from returning to their activity that dominated their every waking moment: scrapping — by themselves, with each other and with their fellow students.

    Puzzle solved.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      You’ll have to unpack that a little. It’s been a while since I’ve been at college. I don’t know what games are being played.

      But it’s more probably that these women were simply lying. They were on political Jihad for their cause.

  7. Timothy Lane says:

    Elizabeth made it in for a visit today for the first time in a few months (it’s a long walk for her, so she rarely makes it). One of the things we discussed was the Kavanaugh confirmation process, which she supported. (I also read “The Banshee Queen” for her.) I had been especially interested in her viewpoint as a former rape victim. She sounded skeptical of false accuser Ford.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *