Thursday, September 27, 2018

Ford Admits She Flies Often after Citing Fear of Flying to Delay Hearing




"During her public testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday, Christine Blasey Ford admitted that she has flown often for business and pleasure in recent years despite citing her fear of flight in requesting that the hearing regarding her allegations against Brett Kavanaugh be delayed.
"In explaining why their client could not grant Committee chairman Chuck Grassley’s request that she travel to Washington, D.C. to testify on September 17, Ford’s lawyers cited her unwillingness to fly, which they claimed stemmed from her fear of enclosed spaces. Ford’s attorney’s further alleged her claustrophobia was brought on by the alleged assault.
"Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona sex-crimes prosecutor retained by the Committee to ask questions of Ford and Kavanaugh, established during the hearing that Ford traveled by plane to Washington, D.C. to testify regarding her claim that Kavanaugh pinned her down and tried to remove her clothes when they were in high school.
“ 'May I ask, Dr. Ford, how did you get to Washington?,” Mitchell asked.
“ 'By airplane,” Ford responded." . . .
Ford’s Testimony Has Changed Everything and Nothing  . . . But it’s also very important to note that Dr. Ford’s testimony has changed nothing about the underlying evidence in the case. She has made her claim, there are no corroborating witnesses. No one else can place the two of them together at the party — not even the witnesses she’s identified. She is inconsistent or forgetful on a number of key points. She can’t even identify who brought her to the party or who took her home. He’s denied the claims and will deny them again.
"That’s thin — very thin — evidence of sexual assault. The evidence is no stronger this afternoon than it was before Dr. Ford testified. When this controversy began, I said that her claims were serious enough that, if true, Kavanaugh should not be confirmed. Further, I said that that she should only have to carry the lowest burden of proof — to establish that her claims were more likely than not. If you step back, look at the totality of the evidence and consider that she has brought no new evidence to the committee, I still don’t believe she has met that minimal burden.

No comments: