Politics

“I don’t know Christine Blasey-Ford, but I do know what democrat political operations look like when I see them.” by @TheLastRefuge2

This thread from Twitter posted by @TheLastRefuge2 sums up the process by which Christine Ford came to end up testifying before the Senate, accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct some 36 years ago. From an outside vantage point, the whole operation is obviously a manufactured hit-job aimed at derailed Kavanaugh’s confirmation. The Democrats are afraid of a constitutionalist and a conservative being added to the Supreme Court since Congress seems incapable of doing their jobs and have a habit of passing the buck to SCOTUS rather than dealing with tough law-making decisions themselves.
1. I don’t know Christine Blasey-Ford, but I do know what democrat political operations look like when I see them.
2. I also know what Democrat “handlers” do when they are working their political instructions. In this case the visible handlers are: Debra Katz and Michael Bromwich.
3. The reason Ms. Ford’s airline travel was an issue, was because Katz and Bromwich constructed that *false narrative* as a delay tactic.
4. Likely the socially awkward Ms. Ford was a useful tool by Katz Inc. on behalf of the Democrats and their media allies. This is how they roll.
5. Hence Ms. Ford has no idea who is the financier behind the entire operation; and all of her subsequent expenses. The script was written around her, with an intended purpose. Likely the first narrative was reliant on never actually appearing before congress.
6. The airport hotel lie-detector narrative, part of the constructed evidence through Katz inc. A familiar testing resource, only two questions, a carefully written script to follow etc. Purchased via legal counsel (Katz Inc.)
7. As the loose narrative became more evident it was going to end with a congressional appearance, Katz needed more specific support from a Capitol Hill legal insider. Enter Bromwich’s contracted assistance.
8. Loose origination details lead to conflicts. During narrative engineering the most important part of creating falsehood is to avoid specificity.
9. Specific claims can be hazards because if they are refuted, the gig is up. So everything needs to be vague, ambiguous and easier to shape.
10. The narrative engineers cannot specify the *house* where the event took place, because that would lead to specific ownership trouble. If the owner of the residence refutes the false claim, the lie cannot advance. Hence, the “where” must be generally ambiguous.
11. The “when” can also be a problem. It would suck to give a specific “WHEN” only to find out the accused wasn’t in town, or was elsewhere. Hence any specific “when” must be avoided to retain the false assertion.
12. As noted, the “who” in this narrative *had to* be a part of the story. But as with this story under scrutiny those four “who’s” actually refuted the accusation and aligned with the accused. Thus the problem with specific “who’s”.
13. The use of a validating “counselor” or “therapist” is a common part of a false narrative. The reason is HIPPA protection. Regardless of what the accuser claims, the Dr. is bound to silence unless released.
14. Now we see more of the origination details falling apart.

15. Keep pulling these threads, and there’s likely to be many more aspects of the false narrative that will fall apart. [fear of flying, document origination and process issues]
16. One can easily imagine a person being exploited, who was promised their need to testify would likely be negligible, beginning to freak out as it appeared testimony was going to be required. Imagine the stress.
17. Which would explain the emails to the committee backing out…. trying to find an exit…. not realizing it was going to go THIS FAR. I would doubt strongly the “hacked work email” is even remotely accurate. Occam’s Razor = Panic.
18. Under questioning, the Ms. Ford doesn’t even know the committee volunteered to go to her, because the *handlers* (Katz Inc, then Bromwich) controlled everything. She was originally clueless to the airline travel excuse which needed to be constructed rapidly.
19. The handlers can’t change history, the frequency of Ms. Ford’s airline travel negated the original excuse; and needed to be shaped. Thus she needed to support the excuse in testimony, yet historic reality refutes it.
20. This is how modern Democrats roll. Fabrication and the false framework of accusation is their skillset. The lie only needs to hold up long enough to get them to the objective. [ex. Romey’s taxes and Harry Reid]
21. The end justifies the means; any means. Nothing is out of bounds. This is how the modern political left operate now. Leaks, lies and intentional falsehoods. This is what Lindsey Graham was angry about during the Kavanaugh hearing.
They don’t care.
/END

via Thread by @TheLastRefuge2: “1. I don’t know Christine Blasey-Ford, but I do know what democrat political operations look like when I see them. 2. I also know what Democ […]”

Advertisements

Categories: Politics

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s