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.

Trending: CONFIRMED: Reporters From Big Name Liberal Outlets Found to Have Working Ties With Antifa

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

Who are the happiest people?

  • Who are the happiest people?  

  • 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.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Politics

Beto Turns Conspiracy Theorist When Asked About Validity of 2016 Election

Get out your tinfoil hats!

Published

on

conspiracy tinfoil

When you look around the internet today, there is one group of online rabble rousers who are being stamped out at an alarming rate:  Conspiracy theorists. While many of these self-proclaimed “researchers” and “journalists” are truly incorrigible, (such as nutcase Alex Jones), the underlying fact remains that taking away their right to speak their minds in the internet’s public square is wholly un-American. Remember always:  Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and forcing these dangerous ideas back underground is a surefire way to be blindsided by them when they rise again in a new, never-before-seen form. The evils of censorship aside, there is another alarming trend within this trend, however.  It seems as though only certain conspiracy theories are now considered taboo…namely those emanating from the right side of the aisle. For instance, when Beto O’Rourke tells an audience that he’s not sure how legitimate the 2016 election was, that’s just fine. While appearing on MSNBC’s AM Joy, O’Rourke dropped a bombshell opinion of his. After referencing the Russian breach of the voting systems in two counties in Florida, host Joy Reid asked, “Do you have confidence that the 2016 election was not impacted in terms of, not just the use of propaganda on American voters, but literally that the electoral systems weren’t breached and that Donald Trump was elected fairly?” O’Rourke answered, “I don’t have complete confidence. In part because of what you just shared about Florida, in part because we know from other secretaries of state in other states in the union that their systems were breached. We don’t know if vote tallies were changed, but that alone should be cause for concern.” Of course, several lengthy and in-depth investigations into this very possibility have been conducted, including the 22-month long, $30 million probe helmed by Robert Mueller. None of these…

Continue Reading

News

TOLERANT LEFT: Author Asks if Saudi Arabia Could Give Trump the Khashoggi Treatment

More violent dog whistles from the radical left are emerging as Washington’s dysfunction approaches critical mass.

Published

on

Fran Lebowitz

For as tolerant as the liberal left claims to be, they sure do want a lot of harm to come to the President and the republican party. This “resistance” attitude is something straight out of Hollywood, which makes sense since much of this violent and anti-American rhetoric is being spurned on by wealthy celebrities who have not a care in the world. Just two weeks after Kathy Griffin posted an incredibly gory image of herself having figuratively beheaded a facsimile of the President, a former Bernie Sanders campaign staffer attempted to assassinate the entire GOP charity baseball team. We must always remember that there are consequences for these sorts of political outbursts, particularly at a time in which our nation is so divided. So why on earth would author Fran Lebowtiz suggest that the President be killed on a public forum such as HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher? Lebowtiz began her rant by saying that “impeachment would be just the beginning of what [President Trump] deserves”. She added, “Whenever I think about this and what he really deserves, I think, we should turn him over to the Saudis, his buddies. The same Saudis who got rid of that reporter. Maybe they could do the same for him.” It took until the main program had ended for Lebowitz to backtrack, likely fearing an ugly visit from the Secret Service. Later, during the “Overtime” segment, Lebowitz said, “I didn’t realize that I said it. … I regret saying it.” She added, “I did not mean that, and I regret saying it. I regret that everyone misinterpreted it…they misinterpret everything. Why should they stop with me?” Sorry Fran – there’s nothing to misinterpret here. Also, as an author, the idea that Lebowitz somehow wasn’t calculating the words that she was using is absurd…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend