Friday, September 28, 2018

Christine Blasey Ford v. Brett Kavanaugh THE POLITICS OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION

She came first. In a very emotional little girl voice, Christine Blasey Ford spoke. She told a story of sexual misconduct. She recounted an event somewhere at some time the summer of 1982. She recalled others at the party including her best friend, Leland, a guy called P.J., Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh. She went up the stairs to go to the bathroom and was followed by two extremely inebriated young men, whom she identified as Judge and Kavanaugh, who sneaked up the stairs behind her. She remembers music in the room where the event occurred, but no music in the room below. One of the participants in the misdeed turned up the music and then jumped on her. After the roughhousing during which she claims she was groped, nearly smothered and laughed at, the three fell off the bed and she fled back to the bathroom and locked herself in.  The two extremely inebriated boys who sneaked up the stairs behind her turned the music back down, "pinballed" off the stairwell walls going down the steps and began a conversation below. Ford dreaded passing before everyone but could not remember anything about what did happen when she walked down the stairs to pass before everyone. She remembers leaving by the front door. Her recitation was emotional, sincere and compelling. 


1. All of the others cited as having been at the party deny any knowledge of any such event. 

2. The Judiciary Committee under the direction of Senator Grassley offered to accommodate Dr. Blasey Ford by coming to California. Her attorneys did not inform her. Indeed, they told the Judiciary Committee that she was so traumatized by the event in question that flying to Washington would be an ordeal. Senator Grassley extended the time so that Dr. Blasey Ford could drive to Washington. When asked how she got to Washington, she said that she flew. 

Mitchell: "You fly fairly frequently for your hobbies and you've had to fly for your work. Is that true?"
Ford: "Correct. Unfortunately."
Mitchell read from Ford's curriculum vitae, pointing to hobbies she pursues including "surf travel." Ford then confirmed she has flown to Hawaii, Coast Rica, South Pacific Islands and French Polynesia to surf.
So, that was an apparent lie fabricated to extend the period of time before she would testify. 

3. When asked about when she acquired her attorneys, she said that Diane Feinstein helped her get her attorney.

4. She did not know about paying her attorney’s bills. Really? What wife and mother would not 

know about paying her bills?

a.     When asked who paid her attorneys she looked confused and befuddled and said something about “Go Fund Me” pages, though she is apparently well-to-do, owning two homes in California, holds a tenured university position, and travels around the world to surf.
b.     Earlier during the dramatic hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ford said she didn’t think she paid for the polygraph test herself and she does “not yet” know who did. Her attorneys conferred and then agreed that they are working “pro bono.” 
c.     The attorneys recommended by Diane Feinstein to Blasey Ford, includes Deborath Katz.  George Soros’ Open Society Policy Center has directly funded the Project on Government Oversight — whose vice chairwoman is none other than Debra Katz. Townhall characterized Katz’s background as “a long history of dismissing sexual assault allegations against liberal politiciansdonating to left-wing causes, and even publicly demonizing all Trump advisors as ‘miscreants’ who are worse than deplorables.”
 Michael Bromwich, the attorney who flanked Blassey Ford on her other side at the hearing, told the committee. “We are not being paid. We have no expectation of being paid.” He also represents Andrew McCabe. 
What Bromwich did not mention was that he not only was not being paid for his time representing Ford—he also left his job at a Washington law firm where he served as senior counsel.
According to Bloomberg, Bromwich, 64, resigned from Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP, as some of the partners at the firm had objected to his decision to represent Ford. You can rest assured George Soros will make sure Bromwich gets remunerated.
Someone is footing these bills. With Katz involved, I would bet Soros money is there. In other words the "RESIST MOVEMENT"/Democrats" are paying for her testimony.)

5. She does not know with whom she came to the party nor how she got home. The country club where she assumes the party originated since she recalls wearing a one piece bathing suit is six miles from her home.

6.  So, how could something that is evidently so real to Dr. Blasey Ford not be real? 
There are those with extreme positions who would like to deny the authenticity of all repressed memories and those who would accept them all as true. As Van Benschoten (1990) has pointed out, these extreme positions will exacerbate our problems: "Denial fosters overdetermination, and overdetermination invites denial" (p. 25). 
If we assume, then, that some of the memories might be authentic and some might not be, we can then raise this question: If a memory is recovered that is not authentic, where would it come from? Ganaway (1989) proposed several hypotheses to explain SRA memories, and these same ideas are relevant to memories of a repressed past. If not authentic, the memories could be due to fantasy, illusion, or hallucination-mediated screen memories, internally derived as a defense mechanism. Further paraphrasing Ganaway, the SRA memories combine a mixture of borrowed ideas, characters, myths, and accounts from exogenous sources with idiosyncratic internal beliefs. Once activated, the manufactured memories are indistinguishable from factual memories. Inauthentic memories could also be externally derived as a result of unintentional implantation of suggestion by a therapist or other perceived authority figure with whom the client desires a special relationship, interest, or approval.  
The Memories Are Not Authentic 
To say that memory might be false does not mean that the person is deliberately lying. Although lying is always possible, even psychotherapists who question the authenticity of reports have been impressed with the honesty and intensity of the terror, rage, guilt, depression, and overall behavioral dysfunction accompanying the awareness of abuse ( Ganaway, 1989, p. 211 ). 
There are at least two ways that false memories could come about. Honestly believed, but false, memories could come about, according to Ganaway (1989), because of internal or external sources. The internal drive to manufacture an abuse memory may come about as a way to provide a screen for perhaps more prosaic but, ironically, less tolerable, painful experiences of childhood. Creating a fantasy of abuse with its relatively clear-cut distinction between good and evil may provide the needed logical explanation for confusing experiences and feelings. The core material for the false memories can be borrowed from the accounts of others who are either known personally or encountered in literature, movies, and television. 5

It looks likely to me that Christine Blasey Ford, perhaps with a bit of an adolescent crush on the older son of her father's golfing friend at Burning Tree, may indeed have had a very vivid nightmare with the most memorable part of the nightmare being hearing the laughter of Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. These two young men, seniors, could possibly have been totally unaware of the fifteen year old and the sting of that manifested itself in a very vivid nightmare in which the two boys laughed at her. That very vivid nightmare when recalled became imprinted indelibly as a memory.

7. The Democrats took this poor woman, ignored her request for confidentiality, provided her with political hacks for attorneys who had no intent to represent HER, but the Democrat Party. She was a pawn in their effort to derail a qualified candidate.

Does Blasey Ford's career as a psychologist (PH.D. in Educational Psychology) have anything to do with her own "recall"?  

Ford recalled that she ended up falling into a career researching trauma after a friend gave her a “harsh talk” and told her to pull it together (after failing statistics), advising her to study psychology because the major didn’t require classes to be taken in a specific order.
Ford “wholly embraced the So-Cal lifestyle” during her postgraduate years, according to The Washington Post, and even took a one-year internship in Hawaii to finish her PhD.
Ford’s husband would later explain that Ford explicitly moved to the west coast to get away from the “D.C. scene.” He said to The Washington Post“She didn’t always get along with her parents because of differing political views. It was a very male-dominated environment. Everyone was interested in what’s going on with the men, and the women are sidelined, and she didn’t get the attention or respect she felt she deserved. That’s why she was in California, to get away from the D.C. scene.”
Might Blasey-Ford, as a psychologist interested in trauma, have been influenced by books on trauma that she might have read? 
Sources of Details That Could Affect Memory 
There are at least two important sources that could potentially feed into the construction of false memories. These include popular writings and therapists' suggestions. 
Popular Writings 
All roads on the search for popular writings inevitably lead to one, The Courage to Heal (Bass & Davis, 1988 ), often referred to as the "bible" of the incest book industry. The Courage to Heal advertises itself as a guide for women survivors of child sexual abuse. Although the book is undoubtedly a great comfort to the sexual abuse survivors who have been living with their private and painful memories, one cannot help but wonder about its effects on those who have no such memories. Readers who are wondering whether they might be victims of child sexual abuse are provided with a list of possible activities ranging from the relatively being (e.g., being held in a way that made them uncomfortable) to the unequivocally abusive (e.g., being raped or otherwise penetrated). Readers are then told "If you are unable to remember any specific instances like the ones mentioned above but still have a feeling that something abusive happened to you, it probably did" (p. 21). On the next page, the reader is told 
You may think you don't have memories, but often as you begin to talk about what you do remember, there emerges a constellation of feelings, reactions and recollections that add up to substantial information. To say, "I was abused," you don't need the kind of recall that would stand up in a court of law. Often the knowledge that you were abused starts with a tiny feeling, an intuition... Assume your feelings are valid. So far, no one we've talked to thought she might have been abused, and then later discovered that she hadn't been. The progression always goes the other way, from suspicion to confirmation. If you think you were abused and your life shows the symptoms, then you were. (p. 22) 
What symptoms? The authors list low self-esteem, suicidal or self-destructive thoughts, depression, and sexual dysfunction, among others.

I remained glued to the television emotionally drained. Nearly convinced. 

And then Brett Kavanaugh came into the room for his testimony clutching his wife’s hand and surrounded by guards in uniform. You could tell the man was sleep deprived and emotionally drained. He came armed with indignation at how the reputation he had worked so hard to acquire –long hours studying, going to church, doing volunteer work, coaching his daughter’s basketball teams, and listening to causes to adjudicate fairly. With years of service and accomplishment, now at the pinnacle of his career, he must experience a drive-by ambush, an attack on him and his family by people he does not know or was only vaguely familiar with.  With no regard to the consequences on his family and little girls, the Democrats sought and stirred up innuendo and malicious accusations by women who are more political than honest. Some so absolutely horrific as to be ridiculous, yet the Democrats give them credibility because “women must be believed.” 

Kavanaugh emphatically denied Blasey Ford accusations, struck back at individual Democrat Senators for calling him evil and everyone associated with him evil, and labeled what should have been Senatorial "advise and consent" to "seek and destroy!" 

After listing all of the horrible experiences his family had endured during the time the Democrats stalled, Kavanaugh proclaimed, “This grotesque and coordinated character assassination will dissuade competence in good people of all political persuasions from serving our country.”
Democrats, show the truth of your indignation! Your righteousness! Apply the same standards to your own Party!

Juanita Brodderick is waiting for you to apply all of that fiery indignation by supporting her! 
Karen Monahan, the woman Keith Ellison abused, waits for you to defend her with the same fury. Then go after Cory Booker who admitted in a column titled 'stealing second' that he wrote in the Stanford student newspaper in 1992 about fumbling a girl's breast at a party. Pretty much what Kavanaugh is alleged to have done. And he pontificates on the heinous crime allegedly committed by Kavanaugh?! 


Until they apply the same standards for their own, the rest of us will see them as merely a bunch of political activists who have no care to the consequences to our country.

No comments:

Post a Comment

I would love to hear from you!