Connect with us

News

Christine Ford Supporters Vandalize Yale Law School With Testimony Quotes

This should never happen.

John Salvatore

Published

on

A pro-Christine Blasey Ford person (or people) vandalized the steps of Yale Law school with a quote from her testimony.

This should never happen.

Check it out…

The entrance to Yale University Law School, one of the most famous and respected law schools in America, was tagged with the words of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford on Monday morning.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter…” reads the white graffiti on the paving stones outside the Sterling Law building on Yale’s campus in New Haven, Connecticut.

The quote is taken directly from Ford’s testimony last month during the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a 1990 graduate of Yale Law. In her testimony, Ford described what she says was Kavanaugh’s sexual assault of her when they were both in high school in 1982.

“Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the uproarious laughter between the two, and their having fun at my expense,” Ford said in response to a question from Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) at her testimony, referring to Kavanaugh and his friend. “I was underneath one of them while the two laughed. Two friends having a really good time with one another.”

https://twitter.com/pabloescobarnes/status/1054444930322579462?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1054444930322579462&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fentry%2Fchristine-blasey-ford-yale-law-school-graffiti_us_5bcdf677e4b0d38b587abe4c

Ford was recently nominated for a distinguished award.

From The Hill:

Christine Blasey Ford, the college professor who accused now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault while they were in high school, has been nominated for a distinguished alumna award at her alma mater.

Ford was nominated for the award by a professor at University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, where she earned an undergraduate degree in experimental psychology in 1988.

In a letter obtained by The Hill, Jennifer Ho, a professor in the university’s Department of English and Comparative Literature, said Ford did “something that was extraordinary” earlier this year when “she told the truth about a sexual assault she experienced when she was fifteen years old at the hands of Judge Brett Kavanaugh.”

Ford alleged that she was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh while they were at a high school party in the 1980s. Kavanaugh has strongly denied the allegations.

The people at Body Language Ghost who analyzed then-SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s Fox News interview did the same for Ford and her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

While BLG believes Kavanaugh is innocent, they can’t say the same about Ford.

In fact, they believe “something’s wrong mentally.”

BLG notes: We’re [Dr. Ford] going to sway back and forth. We’re going to have a smaller voice than what is normal and make ourselves small and we’re do a little pretty, it’s cuteness. That’s what it is, it’s cuteness. Doing a pretty pose.

More: We’re going to use emotion to make you sympathize with me. I’m not coming off as a big scary bear or a medusa. I’m a soft little church mouse telling you about the evil kitty outside.

WATCH:

News

Stephanie Grisham Makes Wild Claims About ‘Secret Meetings’ Ahead of Jan. 6th

The clear-headed among us will recognize this nothing-burger for what it is, however.

Published

on

Not everything is a spy novel, or a Hollywood blockbuster.  Not every little political machination in our nation is some sort of clandestine and seismic event.  This is something that we all must remember during the hyperbole-laden headline-mongering that the January 6th committee is looking to drum up.

The group’s very existence appears to be hinged on the idea that Donald Trump is a wannabe dictator of some sort who tried to take over America 12 months and 2 weeks ago.  They appear ready to figuratively die on this hill, and they have no qualms with taking the absence of knowledge and fashioning it into something sinister – much like the conspiracy theorists that they love to deride so much.

For instance, there are now headlines swirling around the mainstream media that tell of “secret meetings” that Trump was having just ahead of the attack on the Capitol – the subject and substance of which is undeniably unknown.

Yet still, these are presented as insidious incidents that somehow prove something that they’ve been looking to prove for a long time…despite our complete lack of knowledge regarding the actual facts of the matter.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Former White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham told the House committee investigating the Capitol riot that former President Donald Trump had secret meetings in his residence in the days running up to January 6, The Guardian reported.

Two sources told The Guardian that she told the committee that Trump held the meetings, and that only a few of his aides were aware of them.

She said she was not sure exactly who attended but identified Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and the White House chief usher Timothy Harleth, as two people who scheduled and directed participants to the meetings, The Guardian reported.

The infotainment industry’s sources claim that Grisham’s testimony was “more significant” than expected, but there is nothing unusual about the sitting US President having meetings in which not every single solitary person in the White House is included.

Nonetheless, Grisham’s nothing-burger continues to gain traction in the media.

Not everything is a spy novel, or a Hollywood blockbuster.  Not every little political machination in our nation is some sort of clandestine and seismic event.  This is something that we all must remember during the hyperbole-laden headline-mongering that the January 6th committee is looking to drum up. The group’s very existence appears to be hinged on the idea that Donald Trump is a wannabe dictator of some sort who tried to take over America 12 months and 2 weeks ago.  They appear ready to figuratively die on this hill, and they have no qualms with taking the absence of knowledge and fashioning it into something sinister – much like the conspiracy theorists that they love to deride so much. For instance, there are now headlines swirling around the mainstream media that tell of “secret meetings” that Trump was having just ahead of the attack on the Capitol – the subject and substance of which is undeniably unknown. Yet still, these are presented as insidious incidents that somehow prove something that they’ve been looking to prove for a long time…despite our complete lack of knowledge regarding the actual facts of the matter. Former White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham told the House committee investigating the Capitol riot that former President Donald Trump had secret meetings in his residence in the days running up to January 6, The Guardian reported. Two sources told The Guardian that she told the committee that Trump held the meetings, and that only a few of his aides were aware of them. She said she was not sure exactly who attended but identified Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and the White House chief usher Timothy Harleth, as two people who scheduled and directed participants to the meetings, The Guardian reported. The infotainment industry’s sources claim that…

Continue Reading

News

Donald Trump Gets Bad News from SCOTUS Regarding January 6th

The Democrats just gained a whole lot of 2022 and 2024 ammunition.

Published

on

In their pursuit of political points, the January 6th committee has exuded a nonstop barrage of actions taken at the expense of former President Donald Trump, generally believed to be in the interest of stymying his plans for the 2024 presidential election.

Their attacks have fairly transparent of late, subpoenaing anyone and everyone who had contact with the former President in and around the date in question, and even some who had nothing to do with the attack on the Capitol at all.

This week, the group scored a rather major win in the Supreme Court, which will allow them access to a trove of documents from the Trump White House.

The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a blow to former President Donald Trump, rejecting his request to block release of White House records being sought by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The court’s order paves the way for the release of records from the National Archives. The records could shed light on the events that led to the riot by Trump supporters protesting the results of the 2020 presidential election, which was won by Democrat Joe Biden.

In its decision Wednesday, the Supreme Court noted that the question of whether a former president can claim executive privilege need not be answered in this case, because a lower court had already decided.

And they didn’t beat around the bush.

“Because the Court of Appeals concluded that President Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former President necessarily made no difference to the court’s decision,” the court said in its order.

There is little doubt that this access will only cause the scope of the already-controversial investigation to widen, and allow the Democrats a plethora of new angles from which to launch their politically-focused onslaught.

In their pursuit of political points, the January 6th committee has exuded a nonstop barrage of actions taken at the expense of former President Donald Trump, generally believed to be in the interest of stymying his plans for the 2024 presidential election. Their attacks have fairly transparent of late, subpoenaing anyone and everyone who had contact with the former President in and around the date in question, and even some who had nothing to do with the attack on the Capitol at all. This week, the group scored a rather major win in the Supreme Court, which will allow them access to a trove of documents from the Trump White House. The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a blow to former President Donald Trump, rejecting his request to block release of White House records being sought by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The court’s order paves the way for the release of records from the National Archives. The records could shed light on the events that led to the riot by Trump supporters protesting the results of the 2020 presidential election, which was won by Democrat Joe Biden. In its decision Wednesday, the Supreme Court noted that the question of whether a former president can claim executive privilege need not be answered in this case, because a lower court had already decided. And they didn’t beat around the bush. “Because the Court of Appeals concluded that President Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former President necessarily made no difference to the court’s decision,” the court said in its order. There is little doubt that this access will only cause the scope of the already-controversial investigation to widen, and allow the Democrats a plethora…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week