Connect with us

Politics

The Biggest, Most Conspicuous Hole in Christine Ford’s Story

Published

on

If you ask the Democrats and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself), Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s story is so emotional and troubling, it simply must be true.

And if you question it you’re clearly a sexist misogynist who hates women and perpetuates rape culture.

There is no in between.

Trending: Russian Fleet Moves in on Hawaii, Practices Sinking Aircraft Carrier, US F-22 Stealth Fighters on Standby

The in between, of course, in a sensible world, would be to carefully assess Ford’s testimony as to whether or not it is credible in a court of law.

take our poll - story continues below

Do you think the 2nd Amendment will be destroyed by the Biden Administration? (1)

  • Do you think the 2nd Amendment will be destroyed by the Biden Administration?  

  • 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.

Of course, the prosecutor Republicans hired to question Ford says it’s not, and prosecuting men credibly accused of sexually assaulting women is her specialty.

In the lengthy memo written by this prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, she detailed exactly why Ford’s testimony was lacking in any substantial evidence against Brett Kavanaugh.

She discussed extensively how unreliable Ford’s memory was, not only of the incident allegedly involving Kavanaugh, but even of key details such as whether or not she gave her therapist’s notes to the Washington Post.

Matt Walsh over at the Daily Wire explains that of all the key details Ford simply cannot remember, such as where the alleged assault took place, when, and exactly who was there, one conspicious hole stands out: how she got home. Ford claims she does not remember.

Walsh isn’t buying it:

As Mitchell points out in her memo, Ford claims to not remember how she got home from the party after the alleged assault occurred. This detail is crucial because the house, she says, was near a country club and the country club was about a 20-minute drive from her home. That means someone must have picked her up and drove her home right after the incident. The testimony of such a person would be indispensable because they could describe Ford’s physical and emotional state at the time.

According to her allegation, she was a 15-year-old girl who had just been violently assaulted and, in her mind, almost killed. She fled the house fearing for her life. Then she got into someone’s car. That person would surely have noticed that Ford was in distress. The main reason why Juanita Broaddrick’s allegation against Bill Clinton is so believable and credible is that Broaddrick was found by her friends minutes after Clinton allegedly raped her. Those friends corroborated the account, confirming that they did indeed find Broaddrick “crying and in a state of shock” on the night in question.

Is it at all believable that a 15-year-old girl could pull herself together and present herself as totally fine mere moments after running out of a house to escape two drunken rapists? No, it’s not. We must logically conclude that someone witnessed Ford in a similar state of shock, or that nobody did because the incident never occurred.

While this doesn’t necessarily mean that Ford is lying, it is certainly suspicious beyond the point of reasonable doubt. As Walsh goes on to explain, it’s incredibly that Ford would remember key details like how the house was furnished and how many beers she consumed, as well as hiding in the bathroom and hearing the boys talking and laughing, but doesn’t remember calling someone for help.

And while she may have this memory lapse, if she was driven home, there is someone else who would remember picking her up and taking her home, as she would have surely been distressed. Have they also conveniently forgotten as well?

There are far too many holes in Ford’s story to add up. This can’t be stated enough.

Opinion

Desparate Expansion of NYC Trump Probe Targets Ex-Bodyguard

The longer this thing goes on, the harder these prosecutors are having to work to find any dirt on The Don.

Published

on

In New York City, there are powerful people on the hunt for something, anything, that they could use to take down Donald Trump, and this desperate endeavor has turned ever wilder as it goes on. Having Trump’s tax returns and access to his former “fixer” Michael Cohen is not enough for these allegedly competent prosecutors, however, and they are now going to take a look at folks like Trump’s ex-bodyguard. New York prosecutors investigating former President Donald Trump’s business have advised Trump’s former bodyguard and current chief operating officer, Matthew Calamari, and his son that they should get their own lawyers, not use the Trump Organization’s attorneys, The Wall Street Journal reports, citing people familiar with the matter. Prosecutors are reportedly looking into whether the Calamaris have illegally avoided paying taxes on benefits provided by the Trump Organization, including housing and cars. New York City District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. has been investigating the Trump Organization for a few years, focused most recently on whether the company manipulates the value of its properties to get loans and lower its taxes. Vance’s prosecutors are similarly investigating, and widely believed to be trying to gain the cooperation of, Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg, but they don’t appear to have had much luck yet. Now it appears their interest in these benefits extends beyond Weisselberg, the Journal reports, noting that neither Calamari or Weisselberg have been accused of wrongdoing. The Calamaris have taken the prosecutors’ advice and hired Nicholas Gravante Jr., who has represented former AIG head Maurice “Hank” Greenberg and Hunter Biden, among other prominent clients, the Journal reports. The prosecutors who are targeting the Trump organization have been at it for years already, and, after having garnered the aforementioned materials, have still not pressed any charges.  One could imagine that,…

Continue Reading

Politics

Activists Cleared from Lafayette Square Shut Down by Federal Judge

The Trump administration will not be help liable for the incident.

Published

on

For a good, long time, the mainstream media was insisting that then-President Donald Trump was responsible for the clearing of Black Lives Matter protesters from Lafayette Square last year, in an incident that made international headlines. The moment was a fraught one, with demonstrators being forcibly removed from the area by the use of force and tear gas.  It certainly didn’t appear to be a shining moment for free speech, and the rabid liberal media worked their tails off trying to pin the whole thing on Trump. A year later, it would be revealed during the Biden administration that the clearing of the park had nothing to do with Donald Trump, and was being conducted for other, premeditated purposes altogether. Now, activists who were looking to take legal action against the Trump administration are getting shut down in court. A federal judge has dismissed a majority of the claims filed by activists and civil liberties groups who accused the Trump administration of violating the civil rights of protesters who were forcefully removed by police using chemical agents from a park near the White House before then-President Donald Trump walked to a nearby church to take a photo. U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich said Monday the claims in the suit, which alleged that Trump and then-Attorney General William Barr had conspired to violate the rights of protesters last June, were speculative and it was premature for the court to conclude whether the actions of law enforcement officers were justified. Friedrich dismissed the claims against Barr and other federal officials, including the acting U.S. Park Police chief, Gregory Monahan, finding there wasn’t sufficient evidence to prove there was any agreement or plan to violate the rights of the protesters. The judge also said the law gives them immunity in civil litigation. Legal…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week