Ford’s letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein contains 14 glaring errors that could only be committed by a poorly educated writer
I know, most of you do not care for Natural News or Mike Adams, but he makes a pretty compelling case that Christine Ford could not have written the recently released letter to Senator Feinstein.
Put aside your understandable bias and read all fourteen points that make up his argument.
I think he is correct.
Put aside your understandable bias and read all fourteen points that make up his argument.
I think he is correct.
She is acting as though the whole thing was proven to be true, and HE did it. I dont see how its proven at all. I could make up a story just as easily and assert that too. The democrats are just trying to do whatever they can to delay and get rid of Kaanaugh and Trump. I think the repubs should just go ahead with the appointment of Kavanaugh, PERIOD, and stop giving the democrats more time to do their damage. At this point regardless of assertions from 36 +- years ago
Writing has suffered so much because of the gender-bias business that today most people use a plural pronoun when there is clearly only one person being written about - it takes a bit of thought to correctly write using personal pronouns and who bothers today? I'd not be surprised to find that she wrote that.
What matters is the signature.
Another thought-
Soon after an unpleasant event, bad writing may indicate emotional distress,
but after 36 years it could mean a show is being put on.
Another friend also suggested the performance at the hearing a show, maybe aided by drugs.
The house has to be PJ Smthi's or the mystery mand which she strangely has blocked from memory. Any others would be readily identifiable. Or, the whole thing is from a planted memory and it does not exist.
She too!...has a "Go Fund Me" page...for what?
They are as dirty as it gets. Traitors abounded during the last administration, they never thought she would LOSE. Kavanaugh is not bought, he is a tremendous man , he knows the constitution provides for protection of the republic by allowing military tribunals. Those courts are to bring justice to those Americans who have been complicit in adding and abetting a foreign power against the USA. Kavanaugh confirmed that point while ask it by Lindsey Graham during the original hearings.
http://memoryalteration.com/
Trump mentioned that he thought, perhaps, it was the chinese that tried to hack our election...now that seem more credible than Russia or Iran...don't think they are smart enough to pull that off. The chinese can copy/imitate most anything.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Mike Adams sometimes has good points to make in his articles, but this one is biased rubbish, imo.
The woman is fully aware that the entire country is watching what she is doing/saying.
This is not about you but Ford.
The logical error is meaningful, e.g. that she claimed fear of flying but traveled long distances by air. This is not the first lie she is caught at: she also stated she did not talk to anybody about this "incident" but came forward with 3 people a day or two ago to whom she allegedly talked. So which version should we believe?
So... this doesn't change my point.
She may have poor grammar and when she writes something that she can't trust a proofreader to check the result is less than professional.
I think it likely that the "experience" being described is less than accurate, but this picking apart the grammar of the letter is irrelevant rubbish, too.
I have been falsely accused of such an act before and my bias is in favor of the accused - innocent until proven guilty with real evidence. Smearing his name is unconscionable.
The woman decided to ruin the life of a decent man and his family. It is the minimum to look at the motivation (which still has not been exposed) and pick apart anything she comes forward with.
Good to know that you are not biased, according to your statement.
I think this method is irrational rubbish. But so is most of politics. ;^)
I said I was biased - in favor of innocence until proven guilty.
Consider, when FFA writes " innocent until proven guilty with real evidence", who is meant? I say it is both, the Judge and the letter writer.
This is just a witchhunt on the part of the democrats to destroy Trump's choice. I am so disgusted by all this anti-Trump stuff. I have had enough. Elections have consequences and I hope Trump wins big in the mid-terms. If he doesnt, I am pretty much done with the USA.
Second, the taxpayers shouldnt be wasting a couple million dollars on a hearing like this just to satisfy democrats that Trumps choice is bad. Trump was right that if he proposed George Washington himself, the democrats would want to reject him. Its SO obvious what the leftists are up to that I think that they should be ignored. Repubs should approve Kavanaugh in spite of this whole charade. He sounds like a great judge, and thats what we WANT. Whatever happened 36 years ago is pretty much irrelevant at this point.
In any event, her life is trashed at this point. I would never take a class of hers, read anything she wrote, or attended any talks she gave. She is just another political hack.
The whole show stinks to high heaven.
More at 11
I wouldn't doubt that she did but just because somebody says so doesn't make it so.
Probably from the FBI's probe into the matter.
I have tried to give her the benefit of the doubt that she isn't malicious, but rather just kinda stupid and overreacting to what happened to her. She wasn't raped, nor did anyone try to kill her. That is absurd. But that she "felt" scared or even terrified seems certainly plausible.
https://youtu.be/uGxr1VQ2dPI
Dead Give a way...!...lookin pretty my butt!
Thanks for sharing...saw one on BK and it was said he acted like a normal innocent person being accused of a crime.
BUT, the million dollar question is: How did the Reports find out?
Please see my Just Plain Crazy post that I just put up. This would certainly be in line with that.
However, I don't believe it - too crazy
PS...Seems the Demoncraps weren't careful about what wished for, what they demanded. The FBI is investigating Them TOO!...laughing
I still have a way to go before I can assume to be a decent writer myself...but I don't have a masters or Doctorate degree either.
Either way, I listen to nothing she says because I consider the whole charade absolutely inadmissible. This is the most egregious mock-hearing since OJ's trial for murder.
https://youtu.be/MfYP8dr4Eos
That's one of the things the article "Picks" out.
If someone was traumatized by events "recalled" by Ford, she would have had a different attitude than what she displayed. She did not seem like having an effect at all, rather a matter of fact piece that may or my never occurred.
“Twelve hours before the hearing they suggest two anonymous men claimed to have assaulted her,” the aide stated. “Democrats were never informed of these assertions or interviews, in violation of Senate rules.”
This is nonsense. How about a NYT bestseller (proofread by somebody literate), numerous paid speaking gigs, and endless adulation from her circle.
My philosophy professor, on the other hand, was a bigot. All semester we studied a variety of mainstream philosophers including Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Kant, St. Thomas Aquinas, Sartre, Camus, and others (No, they didn't include Ayn Rand nor did they get into religious figures such as Mohammed or Christ). At the end, our job was to take any topic of choice and examine how one of the philosophers studied would see that topic. Up to the end, I had a solid A in the class. But when I got my final grade for the semester, it was a B and the professor was unwilling to even give me the critique on my final paper. She wasn't willing to debate my choice of subject, my analysis (which included every single one of the philosophers we had studied), or anything else. It was one of the few B's I received and the only one I knew was 100% bogus.
https://www.politifact.com/facebook-f...
And some of the errors are debatable. "Drunken" is fairly common use, although technically incorrect.
And the reviewer uses "myself" to paper over hiss/her own inability to parse sentences and figure out whether to use e.g. "I" or "me". This reduces the reviewer's credibility.
So, the "poorly educated writer" could easily be Ford.
Is it likely she would make these mistakes?
I was also wondering why Gloria Allred wasn't trotting out accusers until I noticed this week that she's busy with Bill Cosby.
Why am I suddenly thinking of Tony Soprano's "front" with an office at Barone Sanitation?
She said listening to Ford's phony act made her blood boil.
Fortunately for me, none of those were of a sexual nature.
What I can forgive I still don't forget.
Furthermore, I am almost prepared to swear that I did not have sex with that woman. But first, please define sex.
Further furthermore, I humbly request an FBI investigation after they complete that seventh one that's ongoing.
That's because, as Joe Biden told Clarence Thomas, those things don't give opinions or reach conclusions.
So what would that mean to me dino?
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
Me dino could swear that I did not have some multiple choice definition of sex with that woman but that would be too easy.
Hey, FBI, you can't opine with a fill in the blank answer, now can you?
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
Could it not be that it two young teenagers tried to kiss each other and then it didn't turn out so well.
Everyone can relate to being very embarrassed as a teenager. Imagine you are hoping for a wonderful fairy tale moment of a first kiss and THEN some moron comes in and starts jumping on the bed and then jumps on you. Yikes!! I would want out of there! And then memories many years later only remember the bad moments.
It is implausible that she went up by herself to a room upstairs and was just standing there, then a guy comes in and tackles her against her will and then another guy comes in and jumps up and down to the point of knocking them all off the bed.
Her memory is of a bad incident. Their memory is of a goofball moment - she testified that they were laughing.
So, it may or may not have been Kavanaugh, but even if it was, it wasn't malicious, thus a normal moment amongst millions which can't be remembered. He honestly states that he has never attacked a girl. She honestly states this horrible thing happened to me.
The word "violated" just doesn't fit.
I was thinking something more simplistic. lol
But, you know what?...pretty girls still dated me after that horrible experience.
The few democraps that were told, "complained":...oh Now, at the 12 hour!...you have proof BK didn't do it.
Blaming others for something that they had done themselves by "Holding" information until last min.
But the thing is: even if she didn't write it, she's taking ownership of it as having come from her mouth.
As the hearing are proceeding I can only manage to listen for just a minute or two at a time, due to the spewing of so much BS, so I am pretty sure I am missing a lot. But it seems to me that a good bit of her testimony is how much she has been harrassed since the allegation became public.
What does that have to do with JUDGE (Not "Mr.") Kavanaugh's fitness to be on the Supreme Court? I don't care how much she is being harrassed, that has nothing to do with him.
Even as a kid, I wasn't fond of the circus. I haven't found that changing at this point....