Editor’s Update: New information uncovered. “The Blaseys refinanced the property, paid the foreclosing lender, and a foreclosure never occurred. Judge Kavanaugh’s only involvement was to sign the dismissal of the foreclosure action, which would hardly create any animosity towards her or Brett by the Blaseys. It is also important to understand that foreclosures in Maryland are largely administrative. They are not adversarial proceedings in which a judge ultimately picks a side. –FreeRepublic
The woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of misconduct has hidden secrets of her own. Not only is she a never-Trump liberal activist and Democrat donor, but she also has an intimately personal ax to grind. Apparently after three decades of silence, Christine Blasey Ford decided now is the time to get revenge on the nominee’s mother.
The past didn’t bother her enough to come forward when Kavanaugh made headlines for other high profile jobs, but now she has to tell the world? She claimed the Supreme Court nominee tried to grope her in high school while his friend watched, then tried to join in. She’s dreaming, both men insist. Nothing she alleges ever happened at all, they firmly maintain.
Newly discovered evidence suggests strongly that the real reason for her speaking out is that Kavanaugh’s mother snatched Blasey Ford’s childhood home away from the family in 1996. Not one of the liberal media outlets mentions the seemingly obvious conflict of interest.
At the absolute last split-second, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) stunned Capitol Hill with a dramatic announcement, calculated purely to disrupt Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Sketchy news that misconduct allegations against the nominee were being forwarded to the FBI.
While Democrats insisted the charges were so horrible they had to be kept strictly confidential, the liberal media was well watered with selective leaks.
After “watching portions of her story come out without her permission,” she told the Washington Post, “if anyone was going to tell her story, she wanted to be the one.”
At a public news conference, Blasey Ford claimed, “one summer in the early 1980’s, Kavanaugh and a friend, both ‘stumbling drunk,’ corralled her into a bedroom during a gathering of teenagers at a house in Montgomery County.”
She further alleged, “while his friend watched, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, he put his hand over her mouth.”
She was able to escape, she claims, “when Kavanaugh’s friend and classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling,” writes Town Hall. She fled to a bathroom, locked herself in, then eventually left the house.
A quick internet search revealed she hasn’t been shy about pushing the liberal agenda these past few years, but a public record that one researcher dug up might explain everything.
Martha Kavanaugh served as a Montgomery County Circuit Court judge. The accuser’s parents, Paula K. Blasey and Ralph G. Blasey, were defendants in a foreclosure case numbered 156006V, filed August 8, 1996. Martha Kavanaugh was their judge. They lost. The answer appears clear, it’s all about revenge.
“I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time,” Kavanaugh said in a statement.
His friend Mark Judge told Breitbart, “Now that the anonymous person has been identified and has spoken to the press, I repeat my earlier statement that I have no recollection of any of the events described in today’s Post article or attributed to her letter.”
For the record, Judge and Kavanaugh went to different schools.
Last year Ms. Blasey Ford got her photo published in the San Jose Mercury News. The Stanford Psychology professor wanted to show solidarity with Women’s March feminazis by wearing a pink “p**sy” hat but she seems a little “repressed.” Her version is a pink brain. One piece of anatomy is the same as another, she reasoned, after all, it was a science march.
She was at the event to promote global warming pseudo-science and was wearing the hat because people were “angered by the Trump administration’s proposed cuts to research,” she told the Mercury News reporter.
The resident of leftward-tilted Palo Alto even did her part to allow China to continue polluting by purchasing “carbon offsets from nonprofits like the Nature Conservancy” to “reduce” her “environmental footprint.”
Even if the allegations turned out to be totally accurate, the first thing her attorney will be asked is “how is this different from Paula Jones?”
Blasey Ford is represented by high profile lawyer Debra Katz, who according to Town Hall, “has a long history of dismissing sexual assault allegations against liberal politicians, donating to left-wing causes, and even publicly demonizing all Trump advisors as ‘miscreants’ who are worse than deplorables.”
When Paula Jones accused then-President Bill Clinton of sexual harassment in the 1990’s, Katz is on record saying she didn’t have a case. There are a lot of similarities in the circumstances between what Clinton is accused of and what Blasey Ford alleges.
Clinton court documents state Jones was summoned to Clinton’s hotel room where he “unexpectedly reached over to (her), took her hand, and pulled her toward him, so that their bodies were close to each other.” After groping her leg and pelvic area through her clothes, he tried to kiss her.”
Jones relates she extricated herself and moved to a sofa. Bill Clinton then allegedly dropped his pants and asked for some oral gratification. He backed down when she didn’t cooperate and she left.
Attorney Katz told CNN at the time, “Paula Jones’ suit is very, very, very, weak. She’s alleged one incident that took place in a hotel room that, by her own testimony, lasted 10 to 12 minutes. She suffered no repercussions in the workplace.”
A few days later, Katz convinced CBS that “Jones’ allegation could not hold up in court because, ‘Clearly a one-time incident that took place in 10 to 12 minutes, she was not forced to have sex, she left on her own volition, the courts increasingly are finding that that is not enough to create a sexually hostile work environment claim.” Or, for that matter, any other kind of crime.
“If a woman came to me with a similar fact pattern,” Katz promised, “I would probably tell her that I’m sorry, it’s unfair, but you don’t have a case.”
The reason why, she continued, is that “courts have generally held that a one-time proposition does not constitute harassment. If it’s one time, it has to be severe, almost a sexual assault, not just touching of somebody’s breast or buttocks or even forceful kissing.”