Ep. 115 - The Biggest And Most Glaring Hole In Christine Ford's Story
How did Christine Ford get home from the party after her alleged assault? Why hasn't that person come forward to testify to her demeanor and appearance mere moments after she was supposedly attacked? For that matter, why hasn't anyone in her life -- parent, family member, friend -- come forward to vouch for her emotional state in the weeks, months, and years after the supposed attack, when she claims she was traumatized and failing school because of it?
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
You know, there's one thing I want to say just at the top here, that I in the past have been critical of Trump's, some of Trump's rhetoric about the media.
I've found that some of it has been a bit overblown, even dangerous at times.
And although I agree in general with his criticisms of the media, I agree with anyone's criticisms in general of the left-wing media.
But I thought that some of it was overblown.
However, These last few weeks with the Kavanaugh story have, I think, vindicated everything that Trump has ever said about the media.
He's exactly right, in fact.
Actually, he could probably go even further in his criticisms than he has gone.
When you see what the media has done here, they have, with this Kavanaugh story, and of course it's not the first time they've done this, but it's just been so striking.
They have completely discarded any Semblance of integrity, objectivity, decency, honesty, ethics.
They've just gotten rid of all of that.
And now this is a straight-up, in-your-face, blatant, explicit smear campaign to destroy Brett Kavanaugh because he's not pro-abortion.
That's what's going on with the media.
Just another example of that, if you happen to be watching NBC or MSNBC on Monday nights, I don't know why you would do that, but if you did, you would have seen an interview with Julie Swetnick.
Now, Julie Swetnick is the mentally unbalanced woman who's accused Brett Kavanaugh of engaging in systematic gang rapes, and in fact paints a portrait of their high school years
Where, as a time when there was just gang rapes going on all the time, every weekend, there would be gang rape parties, and all the girls would come, for some reason, to these gang rape parties, and then they would be gang raped, and, uh, but they would keep coming back, and Julie Swetnick, even though she's three years older, but she would come to these high school gang rape parties, and she kept coming, and then she was gang raped, and then she kept coming back even more, even after that.
Um, so that's her accusation, and ever since she released those accusations through Michael Avenatti, who's a, um, just a...
Ever since those accusations last week, we found out that, well, there was a restraining order.
Her ex-boyfriend tried to get a restraining order against her because he says that she threatened him and threatened his child.
We find out she was accused by her employer of making up This I think is important, actually.
According to her employer, back I think it was maybe about 18, 20 years ago, she made up false sexual harassment claims because she had been sexually harassing a couple of men at work.
And when they went and told on her, she made up this claim in retaliation.
So, and then there are other details as well.
Anyway, so MSNBC decides let's do an interview with her.
Now, they say, they tell us two things.
Number one, they could not confirm or corroborate anything she said.
Nothing.
They could not confirm a single detail that she told them.
And number two, they also admit that what she says in the interview does not line up with the allegations that she released even a week ago.
She's already changed her story.
Yet they decided to air this interview anyway.
I mean, this goes beyond just journalistic malpractice.
Everyone at NBC involved with airing this interview should be fired and sued for all the money they have because of this.
I mean, this is crazy.
So they know, they know that this is not a credible story.
They know that it cannot be confirmed.
They have to know because if they have brains in their heads, they know that the story is just insane and ridiculous on its face.
And they know she's already changed her story in a week and yet they come out, they air the interview anyway because none of that matters to them.
They just want to get it out there because they know that there are going to be a lot of stupid people watching who will see the interview, even with the disclaimers of, oh, we couldn't confirm anything, she changed her story.
A lot of stupid people are going to see the interview and that's not going to matter to them.
They're going to, they're just going to glom onto these, um, to these lorid details, and so that's all they're interested in doing.
Now I want to, let me read just one clip from this interview.
This is what Swetnick says.
Now pay attention to the words that she uses.
She says, talking to Brett Kavanaugh, he was very aggressive, very sloppy drunk, a mean drunk.
I saw him go up to girls and paw on them and try to, you know, get a little too handsy touching them on private parts.
I saw him try to shift clothing.
I don't know what that means.
I saw him push girls against walls.
He would pretend to stumble and push and stumble into them and knock them against walls.
He would push his body against hers.
Now, if you've been following this story, that paragraph there sounds very familiar, doesn't it?
What Swetnick has done is she has just repeated verbatim the things that the media has already reported and the allegations that have already been reported about Kavanaugh in the last week.
She's just taking those allegations and repeating them verbatim.
Sloppy drunk, mean drunk.
Well, that's exactly what a couple of his acquaintances in college said about him.
Those are the exact terms they used.
Sloppy drunk, mean drunk.
Um, very aggressive.
Well, that's what the media has been saying that all week, especially after his, after he, you know, had the gall to be angry at false allegations against himself at the hearing.
And so they said, oh, he's aggressive.
So she said that too.
Pushed against walls.
Well, that was another unsubstantiated, ridiculous charge that someone came up with in 1998.
You know, that was released last week.
In 1998, supposedly he pushed somebody against the wall when he was drunk.
So she's just taking this, she's just repeating what she read.
What she saw on cable news.
She was repeating it back to them.
And they aired the interview.
I mean, it's... So, yeah.
Fake news, I would say so.
Whatever Trump has said about them, I think they have earned all of those labels and then some.
Now, so we heard yesterday from Rachel Mitchell, who's the prosecutor that was recruited by Republicans to question Christine Ford at the hearing.
And she came out with a very thorough report where she's talking about all the many holes in Ford's testimony.
And she says, in fact, That the case, it's not even a he said, she said.
The case, according to Rachel Mitchell, now keep in mind, Rachel Mitchell is a sex crimes prosecutor.
So she is, you know, she knows the law, but she also deals with these kinds of claims all the time.
This is what she does.
So she hears these kinds of claims all the time.
She can differentiate between credible claims and not credible.
And she's saying, as someone who does this every day, these are not credible.
In fact, she says it's even weaker than a he said, she said.
And that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the story that she tells.
So she released this memo.
The memo is just devastating for Ford and for Democrats, or it would be devastating if the media would report on it, which they haven't, of course, because they're too busy listening to Julie Swetnick talk about the gang rapes.
But very devastating.
And she goes through all of the inconsistencies in Ford's story.
There are quite a lot of them.
Um, I want to read, here's a, just want to read some of her bullet points on that, on, um, In particular, now she talks about all the inconsistencies, but she also discusses inconsistencies and memory lapses and blank spots from just the last few months.
Forget about 35 years ago, from just the last few months.
So here are some of the bullet points from that part of the memo, talking about the last few months.
Reading now from the Daily Wire's report on this, it says, Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.
Dr. Ford struggled to remember her interactions with the Washington Post.
Dr. Ford could not remember if she showed a full or partial set of therapy notes to the Washington Post.
She does not remember whether she showed the Post a report of the therapist's notes or her own summary of those notes.
She does not remember if she actually had a copy of the notes when she texted the Washington Post on July 6th.
Dr. Ford refused to provide any of her therapy notes to the committee.
Dr. Ford's explanation of why she disclosed her allegations the way she did raises questions.
She claimed originally that she wished for her story to remain confidential, but the person operating the tip line at the Washington Post was the first person, other than her therapist or husband, to whom she disclosed the identity of her alleged attacker.
She testified that she had a sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate.
She did not contact the Senate, however, because she claimed she didn't know how to do that, But she doesn't explain how she knew how to contact her Congresswoman, but not her Senator.
I mean, presumably, she just went online and Googled it, and then went through the channels.
But she said she didn't know how to do that with her Senator.
She couldn't figure out how to Google that, but she could Google her Congresswoman.
Dr. Foote could not remember if she was being audio or video recorded when she took the polygraph, and she could not remember whether the polygraph occurred the same day as her grandmother's funeral or the day after her grandmother's funeral.
And then also it notes that it would have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who was grieving.
That's actually a really good point.
I mean, no competent polygraph examiner would give you a polygraph on the day that you come home from a funeral for your grandmother.
I mean, it's no, no, that's a joke.
Nobody would do that because a polygraph is measuring all of the, you know, it's, you know, it's the things that it's measuring.
If you're, if you're, Now, if polygraphs were actually real science, which they aren't, but if you're grieving, that's going to mess up the whole thing.
So there are a lot of really important points, and this is not just about poking holes in her memory.
There's also the whole thing about the therapist notes.
Now, we only know She's telling us that she told this story to her therapist and that she even, and then, well, maybe she mentioned Kavanaugh's name to a therapist, maybe she didn't.
She says she doesn't remember, her husband says she did, whatever.
But we only know that because she's telling us, she's claiming that she told her therapist about this, right?
She claims that she told her therapist at least the whole story, even if she didn't mention the guy's name.
So obviously the question is, well, can we see those notes?
Can we see what you actually told your therapist?
To make sure, number one, that you really told your therapist at all.
You didn't make that up.
And number two, the story you told your therapist, does it line up?
Well, we already know it doesn't line up completely because the number of people involved has changed.
But for instance, I mean, this is just hypothetical, but What if she told her therapist the story, but then said something like, yeah, I don't, you know, indicated that she wasn't actually sure completely who did it, right?
I mean, just hypothetically, how do we know that that's not in the notes?
Well, because she won't give us the notes.
Well, then it's sort of relevant to know that, well, you say you don't want to give the notes, it's personal, private, okay, but you gave it to the Washington Post.
Then she says, well, I don't remember if I gave it to the Washington Post.
Oh, you don't remember.
I feel like you'd remember that.
I mean, How do you not remember that?
This is a huge moment in your life.
You're talking to the media about this thing that you're saying has traumatized you all this time.
You don't remember that conversation?
What?
And I would think sending them your therapist notes, that's a kind of very vulnerable... It's not something you do every day.
You don't send your therapist notes to media outlets every day.
It's the kind of thing that she... I mean, you either did it or you didn't.
I think you remember doing it if you did.
Oh, she doesn't remember.
So I think we are clear to speculate.
Either that she never gave her therapist notes to anyone, so what she's telling us about what she told her therapist could be completely bogus, or she did give her therapist notes to the Washington Post and now those notes are being hidden for some reason.
Either way, doesn't look good for her.
Now, here I think is the, and I talked about this last week, but I want to focus in on it again.
I think the most important potential lie, the most important inconsistency or hole in the story that could possibly be a lie, is this.
And Mitchell points it out in her memo.
Ford claims to not remember how she got home from the party after the alleged assault occurred.
This detail is very crucial.
Because the house, she says, was near a country club, and we know that the country club was a 20-minute drive from our home.
It was like six or seven miles, right?
Which, if you're going residential roads, might take you 20 minutes.
So that means that someone had to pick her up and drive her home.
Um, there's no way that she walked seven miles home.
And if she did walk seven miles home after, you know, according to her, right after being sexually assaulted, I think that seven mile walk home, she would remember that, but she doesn't remember how she got home.
So we, we, we can only assume that she was driven home by someone.
So somebody picked her up.
Um, The testimony of that 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 was almost killed.
She said she thought she was going to die.
Okay.
She fled the house fearing for her life.
Then she got into somebody's car.
That person surely would have noticed that Ford was in distress, okay?
Maybe Ford wouldn't have told the person.
Maybe Ford would have said, uh, I'm fine.
You know, but whoever that person was, they would be able to tell, okay, this girl's crying.
She's, I mean, she's obviously distressed about something.
Now the main reason why Juanita Broderick's allegation against Bill Clinton was and is so believable and credible is that Broderick was found by her friends moments after Clinton allegedly raped her.
And those friends have come out and corroborated her account.
And they confirmed that she did, you know, that they did find Broderick crying and in a state of shock on the night in question.
Now Broderick also told them at the time, Bill Clinton did this to me, which I mean, which basically makes it 100% like it happened, right?
But even if she hadn't, even if she had said, oh, something horrible happened, but she didn't give specifics or she didn't say who it was, The fact that she was found by her friends on that day, bleeding, bruised, crying in a state of shock.
I mean, that is very significant evidence in her favor.
Is it believable that a 15-year-old girl could pull herself together and present herself as totally fine moments after running out of a house to escape two drunken rapists?
No, it is not believable.
Not at all.
It just isn't.
We must then logically conclude either that somebody witnessed Ford in a state of shock or that nobody witnessed it because it didn't happen.
Now, Ford claims she can't remember who picked her up.
But she remembers hiding in the bathroom after the assault.
She remembers hearing the two boys laughing and talking as they left the room.
She remembers running down the stairs.
She remembers leaving the house.
She remembers the whole chain of events right before she opened the door to somebody's car.
And then what?
Her memory goes completely blank at that very convenient moment?
Well, that's actually not exactly correct, because she doesn't remember the whole chain.
Because presumably she called somebody.
She would have had to call somebody to pick her up.
And this was before cell phones.
She would have had to use a landline.
So either she... So she says she ran right out of the house.
Well, she must have gone in the kitchen first to use the landline or she went to somebody else's house or something.
Went to a payphone.
I mean, but again, if she's walking down the street searching for a payphone or if she's knocking on someone else's door to use a phone, she would remember that.
But she would have had to call somebody, unless she had already arranged for someone to pick her up, and it just so happened, coincidentally, that that person happened to show up right after she had been sexually assaulted, which, again, is hard to believe.
So, she would have had to call somebody, but she doesn't remember what must have been a rather panicked phone call, and she doesn't remember what had to have been the most uncomfortable and difficult car ride of her life.
But she remembers that the house was sparsely furnished and she remembers precisely how many beers she consumed, which she says was only one.
Now, her memory may be spotty, right?
It was a long time ago.
But it is very interesting that key details which could corroborate her account just so happen to be completely blocked from her memory.
You may even call that suspicious.
You may even say that this is a clear indication that she is lying.
And besides, even if she doesn't remember getting into somebody's car right after the assault, what about the person behind the wheel?
Why haven't they come forward?
Do we have two cases of convenient amnesia happening at the same time around the same event?
The only way, okay, that a person might forget about the time that they picked up a traumatized 15-year-old girl is if there was no indication That she was traumatized.
But if there's no indication of it, then that would seem to punch a humongous hole in Ford's story.
But that brings us back to the question of whether or not it's believable that a girl, you know, might conceivably run out of a house, fleeing two drunken rapists, and then get into somebody's car and not give off any vibes at all that she had suffered some kind of terrible experience.
That's just, again, it's hard to believe.
It's especially hard to believe, assuming that the person who picked her up was either a parent or one of her friends.
Unless she hitchhiked, or unless she called a cab to pick her up, the story doesn't add up.
You know, if, I mean, you feel like you could have, there's a good chance it would have been a parent to pick her up at the age of 15.
Well, Look, I know that kids can hide things from their parents, but if you pick your daughter up mere moments after she was just sexually assaulted, you're going to notice that something is going wrong.
Or if you're a girl and you pick up one of your girlfriends, you're going to notice.
And it seems extremely likely that your friend's going to tell you something happened.
But even if they don't tell you, you're going to notice something was wrong.
But nobody's come out.
No one's come out to say, yeah, you know what?
I did pick up Christine Ford.
I remember.
She didn't tell me what happened, but she was obviously distressed about something.
Nobody's come out to say that.
Now, wait a second here, though.
I'm saying that it's unreasonable to think that she was able to completely pull herself together to the point where nobody would notice that something was amiss.
Well, she actually admits that she didn't pull herself together.
She testifies that her grades in college suffered because of the attack.
Now, oddly enough, the attack happened when she was 15, and she had two more years of high school in front of her.
She doesn't say anything about her high school grades suffering, which is interesting, which would seem to indicate that her high school grades were fine.
So if you were to go back and look at her high school days, you would see that she did fine.
And then she gets into college and she does poorly for a couple of years, and we're supposed to believe that that was because of the sexual assault?
That it happened three years before?
But in the intervening three years, you were fine?
I mean, what?
But that again, I think, shows calculation in her testimony.
Like, she's going back and she's thinking, okay, I know that I did well in high school, but I did get bad grades first two years of college.
Someone could go look that up and see, oh, look, that vindicates me.
But the real point is that she says she was devastated at the time to the point where her academics suffered.
Let's pretend that that's true.
Okay, so let's go beyond the car ride then.
Let's assume that she did hitch a ride home with a stranger and that the stranger has since, you know, moved to Mars or died or something.
Okay, fine.
Well, what about the night when she got home and she saw her parents?
Or the next day?
What about school on Monday?
What about the next week, or month, or year, or three years, or five years, or ten years?
She said she was traumatized this whole time.
Why has nobody come forward and said, yeah, you know, Christine, she never told us what happened, but she did change.
There was a sudden change in her behavior.
You know, something was wrong.
Right?
I mean, everything was fine, and then all of a sudden, no one has come out to say that.
Nobody.
Yet she claims, number one, she was traumatized, and number two, there were outward signs of her trauma in the form, at least, of bad grades.
Nobody, though, who knows her has come out and said that.
Her parents are alive, as far as I know.
Her parents have said nothing.
Have you noticed that?
Nobody in her family has come out to say anything, to vouch for her at all.
And even if she didn't tell them, I mean, these are really important witnesses.
They could tell you something about her mental state at the time.
But they say nothing.
That is very curious, isn't it?
So there you go.
I think there are a lot of holes in the story, but that particular hole.
You know, the fact that nobody, nobody has come out to vouch for this idea that she was traumatized.
We have not heard from whoever this mystery person was who picked her up from the scene of her sexual assault.
You know, if we want to be generous to Christine Ford, we could say that, well, you know, memory lapses, so on and so forth.
I think we're at a point now where this is more than memory lapses.
She is hiding something.
She is at a minimum hiding something.
What is she hiding and why?
And then as a corollary to that question, who has been coaching her about what information to say and what information to keep hidden?
