Senate Report Exposes Major Inconsistencies in Ford's Kavanaugh Testimony
Christine Blasey Ford's claims against Justice Kavanaugh appear inconstant
With the release of the Senate Judiciary Committee's report on the investigation into claims of sexual misconduct against Justice Kavanaugh, major inconsistencies in Christine Blasey Ford's testimony have been brought to the surface.
After investigating Ford's claims, the committee found "no evidence" of any wrongdoing by Judge Kavanaugh and nothing to support the allegations made against him.
The report indicates that over 40 witnesses were interviewed by Senate investigators and not one of them could provide evidence that the accusations levied against Kavanaugh by multiple women were true.
Since the report was compiled, however, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has instructed the Justice Department and FBI to launch several investigations into two of the accusers for making false allegations against the then-Supreme Court nominee.
The attorney for one of the accusers, Julie Swetnick, - "Creepy Porn Lawyer" Michael Avenatti -, has also been referred for criminal investigation by Grassley after it emerged that he may have falsified witness statements to support his client's claims.
“After an extensive investigation that included the thorough review of all potentially credible evidence submitted and interviews of more than 40 individuals with information relating to the allegations, including classmates and friends of all those involved, Committee investigators found no witness who could provide any verifiable evidence to support any of the allegations brought against Justice Kavanaugh,” the report concludes.
Report highlights inconsistencies in star witness Ford’s testimony
Christine Blasey Ford was the first woman to come forward with allegations against Kavanaugh, claiming he attempted to sexually assault her in Summer 1982, while the two were in high school together.
Margot Cleveland, an opinion columnist who had covered Ford’s testimony for outlets such as USA Today, highlighted several contradictions.
One of those inconsistencies was the summer of ’82 allegation itself, with Cleveland noting her initial recollection placed the assault in the mid-80s
2/ Following hearing one point I stressed was Ford's changed story from assault happening in mid-80s/late teens to 1982 at 15. Several questioned my basis & as I explained evidence provided committee as discussed in hearing. Here's Ford's text to Washington Post that used mid-80 pic.twitter.com/5kQVf3fbgf— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) November 4, 2018
Cleveland also notes that the Judiciary Committee spoke to witnesses that contradicted Ford’s claims that she struggled with relationships after the alleged Kavanaugh assault.
“I had a very hard time, more so than others, forming new friendships and especially friendships with boys,” Ford testified about the first four years afterward.
One witness that spoke with the committee said Ford did not struggle to form friendships with males, referring to the time period between 1984-1986, half of those same four years.
Ford “seemed to have a number of other non-dating male friends,” he stated, “more guy friends perhaps than females.”
The witness also cast doubt on the infamous "I needed two doors in my home to escape Kavanaugh" story.
“At these parties,” he said, “she did not seem to be afraid to be in rooms or apartments with only one entrance.”
Other witness statements contradict Ford’s version of events or "her truth" as Democrats would like to call it.
And they revealed a consensual encounter Ford may have had during the same timeframe…
7/ Here's what two other witnesses coming forward told investigators.I haven't seen anything in report calling into question their veracity and would think a criminal charge would have been filed against the two if they had discovered them lying. Obviously may or may not be Ford. pic.twitter.com/hLHIKQe4xG— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) November 4, 2018
As Cleveland stated in early October, Ford’s testimony was successfully emotional but the truth is that she is nothing more than “a witness whose memories change at her convenience.”
The report also noted that two relatives of Ford were asked to provide statements for the investigation, but declined to do so.
The numerous inconsistencies or flat-out falsehoods are something Republican voters should not soon forget this Election Day.
Senator Lindsey Graham explains that Democrats tried to “destroy (Kavanaugh’s) life” and hold onto the open Supreme Court seat until they won in 2020.
They were power hungry.
In a perfect world, that should come back to bite the resistance party.
As one former CIA Operations Officer and member of the Democrat Party admits, the effort to destroy an innocent man has “awakened a Republican giant.”
One question remains: If Christine Blasey Ford falsified her claims against Brett Kavanaugh, what did she have to gain...?