A 2012 New Yorker piece naming Kavanaugh as a potential Romney pick for the Supremes may provide the genesis for Christine Ford’s questionable accusation.
By now you’ve all heard that Christine Blasey Ford is the woman accusing Kavanaugh of attacking her 35 years ago, a claim he strenuously and absolutely denies. Her story is a bizarre pastiche of precise details and huge memory holes. It’s also got a big lie planted right in the middle, which is Ford’s claim that she always meant to be private and only went public now because she couldn’t hide anymore.
That’s bull crap. The moment Ford sent a letter to a Democrat pol, she knew with absolute certainty that this would be a big deal, that her name would emerge, and that she’d become the Democrats’ new darling.
But this post is going to focus on one of the more weird things about Ford’s accusation against Kavanaugh, which is the fact her therapist’s notes date from 2012:
Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room. (Emphasis mine.)
Put aside for now the fact that the notes don’t jive with the accusations Ford is making. Focus, instead, on that date: 2012.
It’s a weird date. Keep in mind that Ford, aside from being a Bernie supporting academic, is a psychologist. Part of getting a degree in psychology is going through analysis. One would think that, even if, as a shy 15-year-old, Ford was too afraid to go public with her charge against Kavanaugh, when she went through psychoanalysis on her way to her degree, she would have spoken about this alleged assault, especially because she says it traumatized her for years. But she didn’t. Instead, suddenly, in 2012, she’s bathed in flop sweat from an incident decades before.
So what happened in 2012? Coincidentally (or not), 2012 was another election year.
In 2012, Romney ran against Obama. Up until his 47% gaffe, Romney was doing well. He actually had a shot of winning.
For the Democrats, as has been the case since Bork, having a Republican in the White House, especially with the ever-aging but never retiring Ruth Bader Ginsburg a perpetual risk, raised the specter of a conservative judge getting appointed to the Supreme Court. With that in mind, one Twitter user, who must have an amazing memory, remembered something interesting he’d read back in 2012:
https://t.co/hxaYqQfPI0 March 2012, the left was preparing for a possible Romney win. They assessed that Kavanaugh would be his Supreme Court pick and this accusation was ready to go. Then Obama won so the story died. Now its reemerged. Read last few lines of this 2012 article
— Stonewall Jackson (@1776Stonewall) September 16, 2018
I’ll save you a click to The New Yorker website. The article, which The New Yorker published in 2012, is a Jeffrey Toobin analysis about Bret Kavanaugh and the threat he would pose should he get on the Supreme Court. According to Toobin, Kavanaugh was a scary conservative who, if he got on the Court, might overturn Obamacare:
In other words, according to Kavanaugh, even if the Supreme Court upholds the law this spring, a President Santorum, say, could refuse to enforce aca because he “deems” the law unconstitutional. That, to put the matter plainly, is not how it works. Courts, not Presidents, “deem” laws unconstitutional, or uphold them. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Marbury v. Madison, in 1803, and that observation, and that case, have served as bedrocks of American constitutional law ever since. Kavanaugh, in his decision, wasn’t interpreting the Constitution; he was pandering to the base.
In the nineteen-nineties, during Kavanaugh’s first brush with prominence, it was said that some conservatives suffered from Clinton derangement syndrome—an obsessive belief that the President and the First Lady had committed every misdeed that was attributed to them. (Hillary Clinton was involved in Vince Foster’s death; Bill Clinton had trafficked narcotics through Mena, Arkansas; and so on.) Kavanaugh’s bizarre opinion confirms that a contemporary analogue to the Clinton malady has taken hold: health-care derangement syndrome.
There’s more blah-blah from Toobin, a man who can never be trusted to be honest about the law. Don’t bother reading it. Just pay attention to that last paragraph:
If a Republican, any Republican, wins in November, his most likely first nominee to the Supreme Court will be Brett Kavanaugh. (Emphasis mine.)
In 2012, Romney might have won the election. In 2012, Toobin stoked Democrat fears that Kavanaugh, a conservative, might get on the Supreme Court and overturn Obamacare. And in 2012, Ford, a psychotherapist who undoubtedly had years of prior therapy herself, suddenly can’t stop talking about her hitherto undisclosed claim that Kavanaugh was a bad boy almost 30 years before.
So here’s the question: What do you think the odds are that, when Romney seemed within striking distance of the White House, and Kavanaugh seemed like a potential Supreme Court nominee, Ford came up with a story about Kavanaugh trying to rape her? Knowing Democrat fanaticism as we do, it’s easy to imagine that, in 2012, while Ford couldn’t go back in time to 1983 to make contemporaneous claims she could still try to lend an air of verisimilitude to her otherwise unconvincing narrative by concocting a tale for a therapist, thereby creating a “just in case” record.
If this supposition is true, Ford positioned herself so that, during a potential future Romney administration, she could torpedo a Kavanaugh nomination. As it turned out, her plan took a few more years to come to fruition than she had originally thought, but it still might work.
Contact your Senator (if s/he is a Republican) and tell your Senator not to go wobbly on this one. There’s a strong likelihood that it’s a time bomb, put into place six years ago, and exploding now, sending defamatory falsehoods flying all over the place.
UPDATE: Although those of my acquaintances who are psychotherapists underwent analysis, they may have done so voluntarily. A psychiatrist friend wrote to advise me that “to get a degree, even a Ph.D., in psychology, you do NOT have to go through analysis. To become a psychoanalyst you have to undergo analysis. Different training, different standards, different type of practice.”
I know this goes to a peripheral point — whether Ford ever mentioned her “issues” before to another psychotherapist — but I don’t want to live with a terrible inaccuracy here.
Also, I read two other interesting points in comments somewhere. The first is that Ford is a strange lady who has issues popping out all over the place and the second is that she made up vague allegations due to marital problems and realized now that she could plug them in to the current political fight. I have no data to support the first theory and “your guess is as good as mine” for the second theory, but I pass them on for what they’re worth.
UPDATE II: Twitter suspended my account. I must have hit a nerve. I feel so important now.
UPDATE III: My Twitter is working now. Perhaps it was a glitch last night. Or perhaps not. Suffice to say I can tweet again.