Why did Christine Blasey Ford lie saying she has a fear of flying?

[essentialsaltes]

The lengths some people will go to to nit pick.

Hey, when things are important, it's important to get it right. So why do you believe an anonymous alleged 'ex' (not a relationship known for having a clear view of people) over Dr. Ford herself and Dr. Ford's friends, who have discussed her anxiety in enclosed places?

 

[USincognito]

Seems she had good reason for her trepidation - she can't even return to her home because of the death threats.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Hey, when things are important, it's important to get it right. So why do you believe an anonymous alleged 'ex' (not a relationship known for having a clear view of people) over Dr. Ford herself and Dr. Ford's friends, who have discussed her anxiety in enclosed places?

"Scare-quotes" are important to you? Ok, whatever. You are assuming I believe the ex's claims (no scare quotes just for you). Here is what I've actually said:

For those that wish to pursue perjury or prove her lying, that's more to go on than any of Ford's statements about Kavanaugh!

So yes, there certainly is a contradiction. And, as I said, if someone was interested in pursuing this further, there was more to go on than the actual allegation which started this whole thing.

No, I'm suggesting that her "fear of flying" is not real, as the evidence of her travels and a sworn statement from someone who was intimately involved with her for a period of time in her life. Two credible evidences. Even if it were real, the claim that it was Kavanaugh's fault is without credible evidence to support it. Either way, Ford's overall credibility is diminished, IMO.

Do you understand what I'm saying there? Or are you going to continue to mis-characterize it?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Do you understand what I'm saying there? Or are you going to continue to mis-characterize it?

Not really sure. But to sum up. There seems to be no evidence that this fear was used as a delaying tactic. You personally weren't "addressing the delaying tactic accusation as a whole". But apart from the alleged use of this fear as a delaying tactic, there's nothing there. Having a fear of flying is merely an irrelevant personal detail, like being a dog-lover. There is no reason for anyone to make it up.

 

[Albion]

Not really sure. But to sum up. There seems to be no evidence that this fear was used as a delaying tactic. You personally weren't "addressing the delaying tactic accusation as a whole". But apart from the alleged use of this fear as a delaying tactic, there's nothing there. Having a fear of flying is merely an irrelevant personal detail, like being a dog-lover. There is no reason for anyone to make it up.

Maybe so, but when it becomes part of your testimony under oath and it is shown to you that you are talking out of two sides of your mouth, it raises other issues.

 

[essentialsaltes]

when ... it is shown to you that you are talking out of two sides of your mouth

Has this been shown with regards to Dr. Ford and her fear of flying?

 

[Albion]

Has this been shown with regards to Dr. Ford and her fear of flying?

Sure. I was watching the testimony by live telecast at that point.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Sure. I was watching the testimony by live telecast at that point.

I feel like Sisyphus. What exactly is the lie?

 

[BigDaddy4]

Not really sure. But to sum up. There seems to be no evidence that this fear was used as a delaying tactic. You personally weren't "addressing the delaying tactic accusation as a whole". But apart from the alleged use of this fear as a delaying tactic, there's nothing there. Having a fear of flying is merely an irrelevant personal detail, like being a dog-lover. There is no reason for anyone to make it up.

It's not irrelevant if it is stated under oath and could be shown to a potential delaying tactic and/or a political stunt.

The point was, IF (big IF) someone were to pursue perjury charges or otherwise prove Dr Ford was lying about a fear of flying (and possibly relate it as a delaying tactic), or coaching someone for a polygraph test (as has been alleged), they would have much more evidence to go on for an investigation than Dr. Ford's original allegations regarding Kavanaugh. One could question Dr Ford further on her non-denial-but-not-necessarily-an-admission statements under oath about flying (already quoted several posts back). They could look into her travels by flight. They could look into her claims about tight spaces. They could investigate the statements made by both her ex and her friends that CNN interviewed. Etc, etc.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The point was, IF (big IF) someone were to pursue perjury charges or otherwise prove Dr Ford was lying about a fear of flying ... they would have much more evidence to go on for an investigation than Dr. Ford's original allegations regarding Kavanaugh

Well, since it's not about something that happened 30 years ago, of course. But being easy to investigate has nothing to do with whether something is likely to be true or not.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Well, since it's not about something that happened 30 years ago, of course. But being easy to investigate has nothing to do with whether something is likely to be true or not.

Likely needs proof to be proven likely.

 

[DaisyDay]

Maybe so, but when it becomes part of your testimony under oath and it is shown to you that you are talking out of two sides of your mouth, it raises other issues.

That was the very issue with Judge Kavanaugh and his, um, statements contrary to fact with regards to his drinking, partying, acronyms and getting into Yale. And memogate. I hear Chief Justice Roberts has referred current ethical complaints about him to the 10th Circuit Court, out of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court on Judge Merrick's request (he didn't want to touch it).