How Rachel Mitchell Quietly Blew Up Dr. Ford’s Testimony

0
374

RUSH: What is this? (interruption) You want a replay of the babe that imitated Dr. Blasey Ford? Snerdley didn’t hear it yesterday? Okay, can we grab that from the archives? I just saw the note. Can we grab that from the archives again? The actress, who I’m still not gonna name because she’s gotten in a lot of trouble with her buddies on the left for doing this, but I mean it is so spot on. We’ll get to that. We’ve got a lot of time to get to that. Greetings, and welcome, folks. Here we are revved and ready again, just as I said yesterday we would be, at the Rush Limbaugh program and the EIB Network.

It’s 800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program. Got it already? Okay. Let’s do this and get it out of the way and then there’s a couple of other things I want to do to get out of the way before we get to the meat of this. I just want to point out that Christine Blasey Ford’s entire testimony was blown up by an ex-boyfriend of six years. The ex-boyfriend describes how, after he broke up with her, she continued to use his credit card, that she never once expressed a fear of flying, that she lived for a time in a 500-square-foot home, so she’s not claustrophobic.

He said it didn’t have two doors, that she never once mentioned being sexually assaulted by anybody, and the big deal is that she helped people prep to take lie-detector tests. She never had a fear of flying. (cough) I’ve got a frog in my throat today, folks, and until I get rid of this I may sporadically cough out there. It’s very rude and I apologize in advance for it. She never once mentioned sexual assault. He had sent a letter and signed it.

His name’s been redacted. He sent a letter to the committee. The point is, look, she’s a doctor of psychology. She knows how to manipulate lie detector tests. She’s coached people on how to do it. And, again, just to review, never mentioned assault, never mentioned by Kavanaugh, ex-boyfriend of six years, never demonstrated any kind of claustrophobia, never expressed or showed a fear of flying. In fact, they flew all around Hawaii, this boyfriend and Dr. Ford in a little prop plane, and she never expressed any problem with flying.

He also says that she is a polygraph expert and she cheated on him, but that was just a bonus. She cheated on him and that was just a bonus. Now it has also been learned… (cough) I want to try to develop this later… I really hope this doesn’t mean that I’m getting a cold. You get a frog in your throat… (interruption) Red tide? You talking about the algae thing that’s…? (interruption) No, no, no, no, no. I smoke enough cigars to be immune from most things.

(interruption) Oh, yeah… nicotine that provides the immunity? It really does in my case. I can prove it. Every time I’ve quit smoking I’ve gotten a perpetual never-ending cold. Hey, don’t distract me on this. Red tide. Algae. Ron DeSantis will fix that after he becomes governor. I’ve seen his TV ads. He’s gonna fix that. That’s his primary message in his campaign ad. He’s gonna fix the bad algae and the red tide out there, Ron DeSantis.

I was gonna try to make the case here today, do you remember the prosecutor that the Republicans hired, Rachel Mitchell? And everybody was just disappointed as hell and panning her and say what’s going. In retrospect now with things that we have learned just in the last 24 hours, that woman was brilliant. That woman has caught Christine Ford in lies. If they’re ever needed, if it’s ever needed to expose this woman, I think people are gonna try to get through this without exposing Ford for what she is. (interruption)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I’m gonna talk about what Trump did, but Trump did not mock her last night. He made fun of her claims. He did not imitate the way she speaks. But, look, I understand Republican senators being alarmed about that, but you gotta look at it this way. Trump is simply providing them cover. Trump is giving them shade to go ahead and vote the way he… Trump said what needs to be said, but these guys aren’t gonna say it.

Her timeline alone has shifted. When do you think this incident with Kavanaugh, the alleged incident happened? Because she has described it as early ’82, mid-’82, sometime in ’83, her timeline has changed based on who she’s been talking to, and that has been documented. The fact that she has lied openly now about not knowing anything about polygraphs and not helping people pass them. There’s a signatory to one of the support letters written for her, Monica McLean, retired FBI, special agent, her best friend for life, and she is named as one of the people that helped Dr. Ford pass a lie detector test in her employment application for the FBI. Monica McLean issued a statement to ABC: “I have never had Christine Blasey Ford or anybody else prepare me or provide any other type of assistance whatsoever in connection with any polygraph exam I have taken at any time.”

I think they’ve been caught big time, and Rachel Mitchell, if I have time… I’ve just got enough data on this right before the program began. I didn’t have time to assemble it. But the questioning that we all thought was a waste of time has exposed potentially Dr. Ford to so many lies that if it ever became necessary to use them, she could be destroyed. Credibility, credibility could be destroyed. I think everybody’s gonna try to get past this or through this without any challenging of Dr. Ford because she’s elicited such sympathy.

One of the ways she did that was with her speech pattern, which I am one of the only people in the media that I know have pointed out her speech pattern. Look, I’m a professional and highly trained broadcast specialist. Vocal work, voice capabilities, voice talents (cough), excuse me again… I may have gotten it out of there that time, we’ll see, are a specialty of mine.

I recognize speech patterns. I am able to attach speech patterns to personality types. You can definitely do this. Well, a voice actress in Hollywood decided to post on Twitter her impersonation of Dr. Ford afterwards, and the Twitter universe came down on this woman mercilessly. So we have not mentioned her name. It’s out there, but I want to protect her at least here from any further assaults taking place. But here is what she posted and it is so spot on.

ACTRESS: I don’t know if anybody is listening to the Dr. Blasey Ford testimony about Brett Kavanaugh, but this is how I sound. I know it’s a surprise to even me that I talk this way and I’m a doctor and a grown woman. I sound like I’m still back at that high school party. Um, I can’t help it. I just have this kind of a voice, like a baby, even though I’m a doctor, and I’m on this media circus political stage, and I have kids myself that I don’t know why I speak with vocal fry (sic), but you can listen to my testimony and hear that a grown woman sounds this way, Dr. Blasey Ford, thank you.

RUSH: And that speech pattern, what does it make you think? You’re dealing with a child here, you know, the up-talking at the end of every sentence. It’s vulnerability. It’s fragility, almost, in a way, maybe even somebody nervous and traumatized and scared. And that is exactly the personality that I think she wanted to affect. And she succeeded with it. And it’s because of that that I think… No matter what is learned about her and how much she has lied, if you will, which again, Rachel Mitchell has, if necessary, could blow this woman out of the water.

That’s what I had… Nobody else has put this together, by the way, that I’ve seen. I’ve just… In random show prep, you know, story here, story there, I’ve been noticing things. There’ll be a little reference to what Rachel Mitchell asked her about Subject A and her answer, then you read another story and there’s one more reference to Rachel Mitchell. And you put all these together, and it’s almost as though Rachel Mitchell knew going in that she knew a lot more about Blasey Ford than anybody has alluded to.

She knew about Monica McLean. She knew about the polygraph. Everybody, “Why’s she asking this? Why are you…? This is not what this is about. This is about Kavanaugh. Why aren’t you asking her details to confirm about her story?” Instead, this prosecutor was asking all about seemingly unrelated or not really important things. So we will just have to see. Again, Monica McLean, retired FBI, and this, by the way, brings up or conjures up… FBI? Ford has a best friend in the FBI who resigned, retired in 2016?

I wonder how many people working on the Trump case at the FBI trying to establish collusion that Dr. Ford and Monica McLean know. You know, what kind of possible connection here is there, maybe? So it’s fascinating, as is the letter from the ex-boyfriend. The primary reason the ex-boyfriend says he broke up with her is how she lied about using his credit card. He took her name off the credit card when they broke up, and she continued to use it.

She charged about 600 bucks on it. Ford was asked directly in the hearing if she had given tips on how to pass a polygraph. She said, “Never. Never.” Rachel Mitchell: “Have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to pay a polygraph test?” “Never.” Remember when that question was asked? I do. “What the hell was this?” Now, Senator Grassley has been busy refuting claims made by Avenatti and others.

Grassley is on fire, by the way. Grassley is doing such a bang-up job, as is his staff here. Grassley has sent a letter to Ford’s attorneys telling them about the ex-boyfriend seeing her coach somebody on how to pass a lie detector test and has again asked for the therapist notes and the polygraph, the audio-visual. They want to see it. Grassley and the committee want to see the notes of her meetings with her therapist and they want to see the polygraph test that Ford took.

Ford’s lawyers have refused to turn any of that over. So they’re not being forthcoming with things that are crucial. Now Dianne Feinstein has made a move to seal the FBI investigation. I think they think the case is collapsing, and you know what I think evidence of the case collapsing is? This New York Times story on Trump’s taxes.

That’s the first thing I thought when I saw this New York Times story. Because they’ve been sitting on this so long that Showtime has been able to prepare a TV documentary on it. So Showtime, which is owned by CBS, has been working with the New York Times on this documentary on the supposedly explosive details of Trump’s taxes. And what do we know about Trump’s taxes?

Well, it’s a blockbuster story of the day. The Times reports that Trump’s father may have left him more money than anybody knew about 40 years ago and that Trump and his siblings set up shell corporations and phony “thises” and “thats” to hide the money from the IRS. There’s another blockbuster story out there today that Kavanaugh wrote a letter to his college friends that they should warn the neighbors in the Ocean City condo they were renting that they might make some noise.

He wrote the letter 33 years ago. This shows that Kavanaugh was out of control in high school, going to loud parties, creating loud parties, loud noise. He was so thoughtful, he sent neighbors a letter warning them that there might be some raucous noise coming from the condo when they threw the party. That’s a blockbuster story out there. Monica McLean left the FBI and the DOJ after 24 years of employment there as soon as Trump won the election, 2016.

The only thing Ford has turned over from the polygraph is two questions. Remember when that came up, the polygraph exam? I asked her two questions. Two questions? What polygraph test, what lie detector test only asks two questions? That’s all the committee has been given. Now, Blasey has been citing the polygraph has proof that she’s telling the truth. And now here comes this ex-boyfriend saying that…

The problem with the ex-boyfriend is he’s a boy, and that gives Democrat senators the right to totally disbelieve him. Men, of course, lie all the time about things. Women never do, as it goes.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: The objective of this was to get Kavanaugh to withdraw his nomination or to have Trump pull it.

Now that that hasn’t happened this case is beginning to collapse. You see stories all over the media about how all this so-called evidence just isn’t there. They thought that the mere allegation would be enough, that Kavanaugh would not sit there and let his life be destroyed by this. They thought Trump wouldn’t sit there and let his nominee be destroyed like that because they think Trump’s ego is such that he will not be allowed to be to look bad because of what somebody else did or didn’t do.

So they thought there would be a giant cave on this, and there hasn’t been. So now it is panic and scramble time. So they zero in on Flake, and Trump couldn’t hold it in anymore. Last night at the rally, he just unloads on the fact that Christine Ford doesn’t have any evidence, is changing her story. And the media is all over the place now saying (paraphrased), “Well, you know, this just may have screwed it. Murkowski and Collins, they both think that Trump was horrible and they both now might not vote for Kavanaugh.”

Okay. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I told you some things yesterday that I’m sure people have forgotten. But they’re no different today than they were yesterday. Democrat senators in red states are in heap big reelection trouble. In fact, there was news yesterday — polling data, late polling data — that we may be looking at a red wave in the Senate, not a blue wave. In North Dakota, which Trump carried by 36 points, Heidi Heitkamp is in deep doo-doo after having come out against Kavanaugh.

“The latest poll taken after the Democrats began smearing Kavanaugh but before the committee fiasco last week showed that Kevin Cramer, the Republican opponent to Heitkamp, has opened a 10-point lead over Heitkamp! Joe Donnelly in Indiana is similarly nervous. Claire McCaskill in Missouri is losing to her challenger, Josh Hawley. Joe Manchin, West Virginia…” They’ve all been hoping that McConnell would wimp out or that some Republican senators would wimp out and not vote for Kavanaugh so that they would be off the hook and not have to.

In other words, these four — Donnelly, McCaskill, Manchin, and Heitkamp — have all been hoping that Collins caves, that maybe even McConnell would cave and that Murkowski would cave and will Flake will continue to flake and cave. But in their states, there’s hell to pay. In their states, people want Kavanaugh confirmed. In fact, in North Dakota, voters back Kavanaugh 60 to 27.

Polling has begun heading the wrong way for Heidi Heitkamp. So my point is, it may not matter what happens to Collins and Murkowski. But if they actually don’t vote for Kavanaugh simply based on what Trump said last night? Well, that would be embarrassing for them. Now, since Trump’s on the record as questioning the veracity of Dr. Ford, I want to share something with you I found today at Power Line.


Scott Johnson, one of the contributors at Power Line, writes,
“A reader however, writes to note the changes in Ford’s timeline. The reader calls himself an ‘engineer with a specialty in data visualization.’ He made the graphic” he created a chart, in essence, “drawing on public sources – ‘mainly the Washington Post and public legal documents.'” It is the dates, the varying dates, the different dates of the sordid event Dr. Blasey says happened — and the dates float!

She’s not even consistent with the day. So the timeline of her story doesn’t even add up. “The reader notes ‘the sudden story change correlating with the time progression in the Story Date column (first column). For six years her story was ‘mid ’80s.” ‘Why,’ he asks, ‘the sudden change within a few weeks after 7-6-2018? Answer: Dr. Ford came into the Democrat orbits of Rep. Anna Eshoo (Democrat), Senator Dianne Feinstein (Democrat), their staffs and highly partisan Dem lawyer Debra Katz (recommended by Feinstein).

“Right after that, Dr. Ford changed her story two more times in two months — growing more specific — as they conspired to damage Kavanaugh.” So the chart here — and I know charts are difficult to convey, but this is a text chart. There is some bars in this thing. But it is entitled, “Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s Ever-Changing Story — Multiple inconsistent stories of the date of the alleged incident.” In the therapist notes, the incident is said to have occurred in the mid-1980s when she in couples therapy.

The therapist notes from when she was in individual therapy say that the story occurred not in the mid-eighties, but the late eighties! In her text message to the Washington Post, she’s back to saying that it happened in the mid-eighties. In her letter to Dianne Feinstein, she said the incident happened in the early eighties! In the handwritten statement at the time she took her polygraph, “high school summer in the eighties” and “early” is crossed out.

Early eighties could have been ’80, ’81. At the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, she said it happened in the summer of 1982. She had never said that before. She had said mid-eighties, late eighties, mud eighties, early eighties, high school summer, early eighties. She specified summer 1982. These changes occur as she is in consultation with all these Democrat activists, the staff of Feinstein and Anna Eshoo and Debra Katz, the lawyer.

Christine Blasey Ford’s Changing Kavanaugh Assault Story Leaves Her Short on Credibility — Put aside Christine Blasey Ford’s emotional performance. Her testimony revealed her as a witness whose memories change at her convenience. … First, Ford’s testimony that the assault occurred in the summer of 1982, when just 15, conflicted with both her therapist’s notes and the text message Ford sent to the Washington Post.”

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: “First, Ford’s testimony that the assault occurred in the summer of 1982, when just 15, conflicted with both her therapist’s notes and the text message Ford sent to the Washington Post. According to reporter Emma Brown, Ford claimed she had been assaulted in the mid-1980s; and the therapist’s notes stated Ford had been the victim of an attempted rape in her late teens.” Well, she was 15 in 1982, 1983 somewhere along there, but the “attempted rape happened in her late teens.

“But by that time, Kavanaugh was attending Yale, so Ford’s recasting of the attack to the summer of 1982 is suspect.” In other words, this event, if it happened, she had all kinds of potential dates where it could have happened — and every time she reported this, the date changed. It became “the summer of ’82” only after she began to consult with Feinstein’s staff and Anna Eshoo’s staff and her lawyer, Debra Katz.

I’m convinced that they decided to claim the date was ’82 so as to coincide with where Kavanaugh might have been able to be placed. “She still — and this is fundamentally crucial. She still cannot specify when. Trump was right. She can’t specify where — meaning, the house. She can’t specify the time of day. She doesn’t remember how she got home. The floor plan of the house also changes. She ran out of a small bathroom to a bathroom in one instance of the story.

In another instance, she they ran out of the small bathroom into a living room, family room, combo room. So much of her story is fluid, and the Democrats know everything that I’m telling you. It doesn’t matter, because this is purely political, it’s not about sexual abuse. It’s political, and therefore she’s gonna be believed, Did anybody find it strange, the minute she makes the allegation here comes a movie or a video of Hollywood actresses and all these Democrat Senators, “I believe her.”

Based on what? Well, I’ll tell you: Based on the necessity of believing her, because this whole thing was strategized. This is what the left does. Meanwhile, the country is being asked to feel so bad and so sorry for a woman who was so mistreated. Don’t forget, even the number of witnesses that she claims were there changes — and the sexual makeup, the gender makeup. Some cases five people there. Some cases three people plus her.

In one instance, it’s all guys. In one instance, it’s all guys and one woman her best friend. But no matter. Everybody she places there denies being there, ’cause she doesn’t know when it was! I really think having now looked at Rachel Mitchell’s questions in the aftermath of what we have learned that I think Mitchell was brilliant. I think Rachel Mitchell…

If it ever comes to this, her questions and the answers from Ford are gonna be able to be assembled and compared with what Ford has said and the Democrats have said, and I think she… If it comes to this, she could be exposed as a serial perjurer. That was what Rachel Mitchell was after. Nobody saw it at the time. Everybody thought Republicans were making a big mistake here rather than challenging her honesty and veracity while she was testifying.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here