Christine Blasey Ford’s Father Supported Kavanaugh After She Made Accusation: ‘I’m Glad Brett Was Confirmed’
Bloomberg Destroys Bernie Sanders: The Best-Known Socialist in the Country is a Millionaire with 3 Houses
WATCH: Buttigieg Demolishes Sanders On Healthcare, Socialist Plans
WATCH: Pigeons Wearing MAGA Hats Released In Las Vegas Ahead Of Democratic Debate
Warren Nukes Bloomberg: He Calls Women ‘Fat Broads’ And ‘Horse-Faced Lesbians’
Ralph Blasey, the father of Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford, reportedly offered repeated support last fall to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh after Ford made her unsubstantiated allegations against Kavanaugh.
The Federalist reports that privately, “it appears the Blasey family had significant doubts about what Ford was trying to accomplish by coming forward and making unsubstantiated allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. Within days of Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, a fascinating encounter took place. Brett Kavanaugh’s father was approached by Ford’s father at the golf club where they are both members.”
“Ford’s father went out of his way to offer to Ed Kavanaugh his support of Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, according to multiple people familiar with the conversation that took place at Burning Tree Club in Bethesda, Maryland,” The Federalist continued. “‘I’m glad Brett was confirmed,’ Ralph Blasey told Ed Kavanaugh, shaking his hand. … The conversation between the two men echoed a letter that Blasey had previously sent to the elder Kavanaugh.”
The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway and the Judicial Crisis Network’s Carrie Severino noted that Ford’s father “presumably wouldn’t have supported the nomination of a man he believed tried to rape his daughter.”
There were multiple problems with Ford’s story, as Paul Sperry explained last year in the New York Post:
For starters, Ford still can’t recall basic details of what she says was the most traumatic event in her life. Not where the “assault” took place — she’s not sure whose house it was, or even what street it was on. Nor when — she’s not even sure of the year, let alone the day and month.
Ford’s not certain how old she was or what grade she was in when she says an older student violently molested her. (But she doesn’t plead inebriation: She described having just “one beer” at the party.)
Earlier this year, Ford’s lawyer, Debra Katz, told an audience at the University of Baltimore’s Feminist Legal Theory Conference that Ford made the accusation, in part, because she was politically motivated to save abortion in the U.S.
“In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court,” Katz said. “We were going to have a conservative [justice] … Elections have consequences, but he will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important; it is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.”
Christine Ford's lawyer Debra Katz says putting "an asterisk" next to Kavanaugh's name in case Kavanaugh attacked Roe v. Wade "is part of what motivated Christine." pic.twitter.com/zoFr2T8Aec
— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) September 4, 2019
Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor who questioned Ford during her hearing in front of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee last September, wrote a five-page memo shortly afterward that explained why she, hypothetically, would not bring charges against Kavanaugh.
“A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove,” Mitchell said. “But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”
Click on page 2 to continue reading…