Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

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.

take our poll - story continues below

Will the media learn anything from their biased reporting of the Jussie Smollett story?

  • Will the media learn anything from their biased reporting of the Jussie Smollett story?  

  • 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.

Trending: REPORT: Smollett Tells ‘Empire’ Castmates ‘I Swear to God, I Did Not Do This’

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.

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.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Politics

Prosecutors Could Strip POTUS’ Pardon Power for Paul Manafort

The legal maneuver is likely to peeve the President.

Published

on

Paul Manafort

Paul Manafort was undoubtedly a close friend and ally to Donald Trump for some time, but his current position as a Robert Mueller-led pawn is likely grating to the Commander in Chief.

Manafort stands accused of several crimes – some loosely tied to the 2016 election, some not at all.  Given his close relationship with President Trump, the possibility of Manafort being pardoned when, (or if), his court dates cease has long been the subject of tenacious pontification.

For his part, President Trump has refused to rule out such a maneuver, but has not indicated his inclination either.

take our poll - story continues below

Will the media learn anything from their biased reporting of the Jussie Smollett story?

  • Will the media learn anything from their biased reporting of the Jussie Smollett story?  

  • 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.

Now, prosecutors from the State of New York are looking to neuter the President’s options in Manafort’s case, by adjudicating it outside of the Presidential Pardon’s jurisdiction.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office is preparing state criminal charges against Paul J. Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign chairman, in an effort to ensure he will still face prison time even if the president pardons him for his federal crimes, according to several people with knowledge of the matter.

Mr. Manafort is scheduled to be sentenced next month for convictions in two federal cases brought by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III. He faces up to 25 years in prison for tax and bank fraud and additional time for conspiracy counts in a related case. It could effectively be a life sentence for Mr. Manafort, who turns 70 in April.

The move was likely designed to curtal the President’s pardon powers specifically.

The president has broad power to issue pardons for federal crimes, but no such authority in state cases. And while there has been no clear indication that Mr. Trump intends to pardon Mr. Manafort, the president has spoken repeatedly of his pardon power and defended his former campaign chairman on a number of occasions, calling him a “brave man.”

Manafort’s troubles come just days before the Department of Justice expects to receive the final report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Continue Reading

Politics

Kamala Harris’ Ex-Flame Makes WILD Prediction About 2020 Chances

Buckle up, folks.  Things are about to get pretty wild. 

Published

on

Kamala Harris

As with any election that involves an incumbent President, the other side of the aisle is straining to put as many candidates out in the ether as possible.

This crowding of the democratic race for 2020 will certainly provide the nation with a very intimate look into the differences among the progressive avenues of the left-wing, and will undoubtedly escalate their internal infighting to epic proportions.

There is a very real chance that this could bring the democratic party itself to its knees, as the socialist wing attempts to convert some of the more moderate wings, and with the possibility that the entire organization could be driven hard to the left.

take our poll - story continues below

Will the media learn anything from their biased reporting of the Jussie Smollett story?

  • Will the media learn anything from their biased reporting of the Jussie Smollett story?  

  • 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.

And let’s not forget that the 2016 race created an unfathomable opportunity for the DNC to discover just how to rig their own primaries.  Now that this precedent has been set, trust in the democrats is at an all time low.

So, does Kamala Harris stand a chance?  Her ex-lover doesn’t seem to think so.

Former San Francisco mayor and California State Assembly speaker Willie Brown threw shade at his ex-girlfriend, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), and the other contenders for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2020, writing Saturday that none of them can beat President Donald Trump.

In his weekly column in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brown wrote:

Make no mistake, President Trump’s State of the Union address was the kickoff for his 2020 re-election campaign, and so far I’ve yet to see a Democrat who can beat him.

[T]he overnight polling after the speech showed that once again, he connected with voters, at least enough voters to make him a 2020 favorite.

You can’t say the same for the Democratic contenders. They all have impressive credentials, winning personalities and positive messages, but none displays the “people personality” that our media-savvy president has mastered.

Let’s just hope Democrats can figure out that we need to go beyond the left and motivate voters across the board, just as midterm congressional campaigns did under Nancy Pelosi’s leadership.

“Beyond the left” sounds like the surefire end of the democrats as we know it, but there will only be one way to know for sure.

Buckle up, folks.  Things are about to get pretty wild.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend