September 17, 2018

Derogatory? Yes. Credible? Not So Fast …

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , — Bill @ 8:58 pm

Lies-TruthWho among you did not expect the Democrats to produce at the very last second “someone” who would testify that Federal District Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee for the US Supreme Court, committed some unspeakable act upon her innocent body?

The Democrat’s “someone” this time is Christine Blasey Ford, a professor from Palo Alto University in California.  Ford alleges that about 35 years ago in 1982 when Kavanaugh was a junior in high school and she was a sophomore, they were at a party together at a private residence in Maryland.  She alleges Kavanaugh was drunk, held her down on a bed, tried to remove her clothing, and rubbed her through her clothing.

Ford’s information was provided in a letter to California US Representative Anna Eshoo and then on to Senator Dianne Feinstein as an allegation.   The content of the information, an allegation of wrongdoing,  qualifies it as “derogatory.”   The question is whether Ford and her information are both “credible.”  

To date and insofar as we know, all of the various and meticulous investigations conducted on Brett Kavanaugh’s background to determine his loyalty, integrity, discretion, morals, and character as well as his suitability to be a federal district judge have failed to reveal any credible derogatory information .  The results of the most recent investigation requested by the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary have similarly failed to reveal credible derogatory  information that would disqualify him from being sworn in as an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court.

That’s my long-winded way of saying that Ford’s present information either wasn’t developed during all the previous background investigations or if it was developed, it was analyzed and adjudicated to be insufficiently supported or unverifiable or irrelevant.

A competent background investigation (BI) that might have first revealed the alleged 1982 incident would have checked for police reports or field interview cards of the incident.   The BI would also have tried to identify and interview all the attendees at the alleged party as well as the property’s owner(s) and resident occupant(s).   Information derived from those interviews might have generated spinoff interviews as well.

By failing to timely, accurately, and completely report the alleged battery and possibly attempted rape in 1982, Ford failed to preserve all essential information that could have added to her present story’s credibility.   Timely reporting then would have memorialized her own information as well as the information obtained from witnesses.     It would also have increased the chances of physical evidence being identified and preserved.

Apparently Ford told no one about the alleged attack until 2012 when she and her husband were in a marriage counselling session.  According to the skews media, Ford obtained and released the counsellor’s contemporaneous notes from the session.  The notes contain some factual errors and do not specifically identify Kavanaugh by name.  None of the skews media have mentioned if they independently verified the origin, accuracy, and completeness of the counsellor’s notes.  Ford’s failure to timely, accurately, and completely report her allegation when it first occurred, not 30 years later in a marital counselling session, does not add to either her story’s or her personal credibility now.

Ford has engaged an attorney, Debra Katz, to represent her in the matter.

According to Katz,  Ford took a polygraph examination administered by a former FBI agent “to ensure that her allegations were verified before facing criticism of her story.”  The results of the polygraph exam(s) may have been useful to Ford’s attorney to assess her client’s credibility, but they are of little or no use to anyone else.   Without a great deal more information about all elements of the polygraph pretest, exams, and analyses, it is wrong to conclude the results of the exam verifies Ford’s allegation.

At best and most charitably to Ford, the polygraph examiner’s conclusion that she was being nondeceptive to the questions asked means little more than she believes her own answers and explanations to be true.   It does not prove the truth of her responses to the examiner’s questions; only that she believes them to be true.

One of the network news broadcasts tonight reported that Ms. Ford first contacted California US Representative Anna Eshoo to report the incident.  According to the skews report, Eshoo helped Ford forward the letter to Feinstein.  If that information is correct, then when she gives testimony under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, September 24,  Ms. Ford needs to testify to the facts based on her own personal knowledge, not the facts as they may have been interpreted and wishfully enhanced by any public official or politician.

Senators on the Judiciary Committee are rightly upset that Feinstein was aware of Ford’s letter in July but did not make the Committee aware of it before or during the Kavanaugh hearings.  Feinstein should have raised the Ford letter in the Committee or in her own interview with Kavanaugh.   Her intentionally withholding the information from the Judiciary Committee members justifies a reasonable conclusion  that California Senator Dianne Feinstein intentionally sought to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote in the Committee and the full Senate.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is right, however, to hear Ford’s and Kavanaugh’s testimony on this and only this allegation.    It is up to Ford to convince the Committee through very conclusive evidence presented in total next Monday that further investigation before the confirmation vote is warranted.  Failing to offer such evidence next Monday, Ford’s allegation should be dismissed and the confirmation process should proceed without further delays.

If the Ford allegation remains unsubstantiated and if it was found to have been completely fabricated  or even partially enhanced or embellished by California Representative Anna Eshoo and California Senator Dianne Feinstein to thwart Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to be an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, then both Eshoo and Feinstein should be expelled by their respective Congressional bodies from the US Congress.


  1. I wonder who is paying Ford for this disgusting charade. I dont believe the story, but lets say it is true, he was 16 years old. Before I was 18 many actions of mine were pretty bad and would not want to put all my actions in writing. I dont believe that many of us have perfect records as minors that would want to share with our employers, friends and or even family.

    Comment by Sharon Culbreth — September 21, 2018 @ 12:16 pm

  2. Sharon,

    What seems to me to help Kavanaugh immensely is that he has been investigated already by the FBI. Likely more than once given the various position’s he’s held in the federal goverment. The FBI uses the term “special inquiry” I believe to refer to background investigations (BI) like the ones they would have completed on Kavanaugh. Most people associate an FBI “investigation” with its criminal jurisdiction.

    The FBI’s BIs apparently didn’t reveal any credible derogatory information that had any bearing on determining Kavanaugh’s suitability for government employment and security clearance. If any credible derog was uncovered, it was further investigated and adjudicated to not be relevant.

    Comment by Bill — September 21, 2018 @ 12:28 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress
Copyright © 2024 by OpenCDA LLC, All Rights Reserved